Israel Seeks Seat on U.N. Security Council

[arcos]

Israel Seeks Seat on U.N. Security Council

UNITED NATIONS Sep 20, 2005 — Israel's foreign minister on Tuesday underlined the Jewish state's gains from its withdrawal from Gaza, disclosing that he met with his counterparts from more than 10 Arab and other Muslim nations this week.

Silvan Shalom also told the U.N. General Assembly that Israel would seek a seat on the powerful Security Council for the first time.

In his address, Shalom said his recent meetings represented "a number unthinkable" for a nation that has long been shunned by many U.N. members over its conflict with the Palestinians.

"The iron wall" that stood between Israel and most Islamic countries is coming down, Shalom said. "Relations are growing at a rate never seen before."

<snip>

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1144120

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. I truly hope this is the case and that damn war will soon be over

[Behind the Aegis]

2. Good!

Maybe the discrimination against the "Jewish State" will cease to be! Seeing how Israel is the ONLY country not allowed to be a part of the Security Council because they are not a member of a "region," will shine a light on the UN's own shortcomings.

[Oerdin]

7. I agree that muslim countries have singled out Israel

And have verbally attacked Israel for doing things which most of those muslim dictators do on a daily basis, however, it is not true that Israel has never been on the security council. At least twice, once in the 1960's and once around 1994, Israel has had one of the rotating seats on the security council.

[eyl]

9. According to the lists

I've found*, Israel never held a Security Council seat. It certainly didn't do so in the 90s; I'm not that forgetful.

*List on wikipedia; this link goes into more detail regarding the develpment of SC membership.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Fact-straightening exercise...

Israel has been a member of the WEOG regional group for quite a while now...

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About%20the%20Ministry/MFA%20Spokesman/2000/Israel%20Accepted%20to%20WEOG

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

24. WEOG = Western European And Others Group

By the way -- how many volunteers in Sri Lankia -- Israelis wearing crosses - did it take for and Israel's Magen David Adom to get ICRC recognition?

[Zhade]

39. I'd take anything from a paper co-directed by PNACer Richard Perle...

...with a HUGE block of salt.

Actually, I wouldn't believe it. I mean, hello, a PNACer as a director? That makes the Jerusalem Post about as credible as the Weekly Standard.

Just sayin'.

[Coastie for Truth]

41. No problem- it's also on the Red Cross and the ICRC web sites.

But you don't trust them either.

Don't worry - when the San Andreas fault slips and slides in Santa Monica - I will be there for you. Because I am a mensch.

[Coastie for Truth]

46. How about this one

or or this , reproduced below--

An additional emblem would provide a comprehensive and lasting solution to the emblem question. The ICRC and the International Federation urge all governments to support the ongoing process of consultation.

The diplomatic conference would convene the governments of the 192 States that are party to the Geneva Conventions to consider the adoption of a third additional protocol to the Conventions, creating an additional protective emblem. The new sign is "a red frame in the shape of a square on edge on a white ground" and would enjoy equal status in all respects with the red cross and red crescent. It would be known as the red crystal.

The additional emblem would be free of any perception of religious, political or other connotation. It would enable National Societies that have not been able to use the existing emblems to become full members of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, enabling the Movement to fulfil its fundamental principle of universality.

The ICRC and the International Federation will continue to use their existing emblems. But in exceptional circumstances, they, and national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, will be able to use the additional emblem to facilitate their work.

The ICRC and the Federation are profoundly grateful to the Swiss government for its efforts to bring the emblem question to a conclusion.
(Press release - premission for reproduction granted)

And here's the emblem--.


Don't worry - when the San Andreas fault slips and slides in Santa Monica - I will be there for you. Because I am a mensch.

[Zhade]

53. Again - Jerusalem Post is not credible.

However, despite your erroneous allegation that I "don't trust" the ICRC (the other thread contained many words like IF in my posts), it is at least a credible source.

I mean, as far as I know, the ICRC doesn't work hand-in-hand with a PNACer the way the JP does.

[Violet_Crumble]

59. Plus this thread is about the UN, not the ICRC...

:)

[Zhade]

104. Yep, and I weighed in with my opinion, with no reference to the ICRC.

I just have to speak up when anyone uses the PNACer-influenced Jerusalem Post as a source.

Hope you're well, Violet! :)

[Violet_Crumble]

136. Heya, Zhade!

Those not familiar with the antics from the I/P forum mightn't be aware of the fondness of some for going off on tangents in order to derail threads. I thought I'd give you a bit of a heads up when I saw it starting up here :)

I'm going great and I'm glad to see yr still kicking around the place...

Cheers...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

35. 5 years

And it is still limits what they can and can't do because they are not a member of a regional group (Asia).

[Violet_Crumble]

60. They are a member of a regional group...

Uh, WEOG is a regional group, though its membership isn't based on geography, but already existing membership of the Filthy Rich First-World, Liberal Democracy Club. Israel's definately not out of place there. Being part of the WEOG group does not limit what a country who's a member can and can't do. Countries like Australia and New Zealand are members of WEOG, and I'm not sure about NZ, but Australia's had several stints on the Security Council...

From reading what the Israeli mission to the UN has to say, membership of WEOG is temporary but indefinate, on the proviso that Israel continues to seek membership of the Asian group. I don't know whether it's Israel or WEOG who wants Israel to continue to seek membership, but at a guess I'd say it was WEOG, and not for any silly anti-Semitic reasons that some conjure up so easily, but because of WEOG having a large membership already and from that membership WEOG picks one to serve on the Security Council (it may be more, but I can't bring myself to wade through heaps of pdf's to find out). Personally, I think it'd be better and fairer to just make Israel a permanent member of WEOG, but Israel doesn't miss out on things from being in WEOG....

Here's some info from the Israeli mission to the UN. I've bolded the bit that it's important to keep reading to:

"While Israel's admission into WEOG signified an important development, it remains excluded from the regional group system outside New York. Though Israel can be elected to a UN body that has seats allocated through WEOG in New York, it is prevented from participating in Western group meetings outside of New York, and from nominating candidates to positions in UN bodies where elections for those bodies are not organized by the New York regional group system. The vast majority of UN bodies, however, even ones that are based outside of New York, hold their elections in New York. Thus, Israel can now serve on essentially any body under the auspices of the General Assembly or the Economics and Social Council (ECOSOC), as a member of the Security Council, as well as on bodies like the Commission on Human Rights that operate primarily outside of New York."


The bodies to which Israel has been elected so far are:

4th Special Session on Disarmament (2003): A Special Session devoted to forwarding the valuable objectives of nuclear and other types of disarmament.

Commission on Narcotic Drugs (2004-2007): The central policy-making body within the UN system for dealing with drug-related matters.

United Nations Environment Programme (2004-2007): Provides leadership and encourages partnerships in caring for the environment by inspiring, informing and enabling nations and people to improve their quality of life without compromising that of future generations.

UN Human Settlements Programme (2004-2007): Charged with coordinating human settlement activities within the UN system.

6th Committee, Vice Chairperson (58th General Assembly): General Assembly Committee dealing with legal affairs.

UN Commission on International Trade Law (2004-2009): Promotes the progressive harmonization and unification of the law of international trade.

UN Disarmament Commission (2004): A deliberative body that considers and makes recommendations on various problems in the field of disarmament.

Commission on Sustainable Development (2005-2008): A high-level forum within the United Nations for discussion of sustainable development issues.

1st Committee, Vice Chairperson (59th General Assembly): General Assembly Committee dealing with Disarmament and International Security


Israel has also served as the president of WEOG, in December 2001 and April 2004. It has embraced its membership in the group, participated fully in its activities and deliberations, and looks forward to continuing to do so.

http://www.israel-un.org/israel_un/weog.htm

[Behind the Aegis]

101. Uh...

"WEOG is a regional group, though its membership isn't based on geography... This is exactly why it cannot fully participate in things, which is why I posted "And it is still limits what they can and can't do because they are not a member of a regional group (Asia)."

Your own posts shows..."While Israel's admission into WEOG signified an important development, it remains excluded from the regional group system outside New York. Though Israel can be elected to a UN body that has seats allocated through WEOG in New York, it is prevented from participating in Western group meetings outside of New York, and from nominating candidates to positions in UN bodies where elections for those bodies are not organized by the New York regional group system. The vast majority of UN bodies, however, even ones that are based outside of New York, hold their elections in New York. Thus, Israel can now serve on essentially any body under the auspices of the General Assembly or the Economics and Social Council (ECOSOC), as a member of the Security Council, as well as on bodies like the Commission on Human Rights that operate primarily outside of New York."

Basically, "all are equal, but some are more equal than others." Even if the "vast majority" are elected in NY, it means that there are positions and conferences where Israel has no voice. No other country has that problem!

[Violet_Crumble]

138. No, that's not correct...

Being a member of WEOG in itself does not mean that a country can't fully participate in things. As I said earlier, Australia and New Zealand are members of WEOG, even though Australia at least by geography alone geographically should belong to the Asia group. As far as I'm aware, Australia participates fully. If you find anything to the contrary on that point, I'd be interested in seeing it...

The problem with not reading something in its entirety and cherry-picking selected bits to try to form an argument is that the entire thing shows up the flaw in the argument. Israel's mission says in that very last line you reposted that Israel can serve essentially on any body that operate primarily out of New York. So can you tell me what bodies that Israel can't serve on? And are other non Western European members of WEOG also in the same boat?

btw, I thought you should know that there are other countries that aren't even in regional groups, let alone being indefinate long-term temporary members of a regional group like Israel is. Those countries (apart from the US for obvious reasons) have the problem of not being able to be represented on the Security Council, so I'd say that the claim that no other country has that problem most definately isn't correct...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

141. Wrong, yet again...

One has to be a member of a GEOGRAPHIC group to participate fully at the UN. Or did your own post confuse you? You are right about "cherry-picking" because you obviously didn't see the part about Israel NOT being allowed to participate fully. Australia fully participates because it is a member of the Asia/Pacific group, not because it is a member of the WEOG, as you'd allude.

What other nation is not a member of the region in which it resides? You say there are other nations that are like Israel and not recognized in their own conteintent...which ones are they? Is it possible that the discrimination extends on? Show us which nations are not members of their "region." If so, shouldn't they also be allowed to be FULL members of the UN?

[Violet_Crumble]

146. No, I'm not wrong on this....

Australia is NOT a member of the Asian regional group. The only regional group it's a member of is WEOG. Where are you coming up with this dodgy information? A quick google will sort out facts from fiction on this one...

A list of the membership of all five regional groups. Note that Australia is in WEOG and not in the Asian group...

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:IsrjDZUjZesJ:www.pops.int/documents/meetings/cop_1/meetingdocs/en/inf_16/COP_1_INF_16.doc+countries+not+in+UN+regional+groups&hl=en

And a request from Nauru for a new Pacific regional group to be created...

'The Asian group presently constitutes member countries from the Middle-East, Central Asia, China, Japan, the two Koreas, the ASEAN member countries and the Pacific Island countries. The 11 Pacific Island countries are drowning in the Asian Group, whilst Australia and New Zealand of the Pacific Island countries are marooned in WEOG.'

http://www.un.org/ga/webcast/statements/nauruE.htm

So the answer to yr question: 'what other nation is not a member of the region in which it resides?' is Australia...

Now that that's out of the way, can you tell me which specific bodies Israel can't serve on?

Violet...

[katty]

93. Israel has a major laundry list of UN violations

-not posting them here-available research/net

[Behind the Aegis]

98. So?

Many other countries do as well, yet the are full members of the UN. So, does the UN scale back their memberships based on violations or play fair and admit Israel as a full member with all the rights other nations have?

[barb162]

102. Excellent!

[Violet_Crumble]

139. Did you bother reading the rest of the sub-thread?

Y'know, those bits where I gave bta some information about why that initial post of his was incorrect? Or was it another of those reflexive gotta agree for the sake of agreeing without really knowing what's going on moments?


Violet...

[Name removed]

167. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

168. I was just asking...

Only because I found it very strange that you praised "Seeing how Israel is the ONLY country not allowed to be a part of the Security Council because they are not a member of a "region," as excellent when it had already been shown not to be correct....

Violet...

[barb162]

170. Maybe I am replying wholeheartedly to the word "good" alone

in post 2 or the sentence following the word "good." If you want to focus on another particular sentence, that's nice, it's fine, etc. Don't assume I am focussing on the same sentence(s) or that I attach the same level of importance to them as you do. I may be more concerned at certain times with the combination of the OP's story and subsequent poster comments and expressive sentiment.

[Violet_Crumble]

171. Okay.. I wrongly assumed people comment on more than the subject lines...

edited for clarification...

[Name removed]

172. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

173. I've already said I was wrong in my assumption...

Okay, so I've already said that my assumption that people comment on more than a subject line is wrong. There's some who don't. I'm not sure why yr now starting to repeat yrself when I've already said I was wrong...

:shrug:

Sleep tight and don't let the bedbugs bite...

Violet...

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

147. Factual information is considered 'nonsense'?

First I used the info on the Israeli mission's site to show you that yr comment 'Seeing how Israel is the ONLY country not allowed to be a part of the Security Council because they are not a member of a "region," ' was wrong. They are a member of a regional group, and they are allowed to sit on the Security Council. Then I gave you some more links to info on the UN site that shows this comment of yrs 'Australia fully participates because it is a member of the Asia/Pacific group, not because it is a member of the WEOG, as you'd allude.' is also incorrect. How exactly is that information 'nonsense'?

For the record, I'm totally opposed to discrimination where it actually exists. Pointing out facts to you does not make me someone who supports discrimination, bta...

Violet...

[julianer]

3. I hope this is right

about growing cooperation with neighbouring states but, at the same time, that they are not negotiating away Palestinian rights in the process.

On the UN security council seat, I cannot see how Israel, which has ignored many UN resolutions and still breaks international law whenever its own interests demand it, can possibly claim a seat on the security council.

It is a sign of the increasing criminality of international order that they can even think of proposing it.

[Behind the Aegis]

5. I hope it is right too.

I would suggest a look at SC resolutions at the UN homepage. You will see a very distinct pattern of discrimination of condemnation against Israel, but other places remain immune. So, to say that Israel has ignored UN resolutions is correct, it is also true to see that the same actions Israel has taken has not been levied against other nations doing the same thing, including the US.

BTW...Israel is far from the only nation to "break" international law. Not that it right when Israel does it, it is just "funny" when others can do it and not get a special meeting to condemn them like Israel.

[mallard]

8. It depends on what you consider discrimination

Israel was founded on displacing the existing Non-Jewish population in what the majority of observers in the world would consider ethnic cleansing.

Is veto power for the country with the most resolutions brought against it - and the most defeated by minority/US veto - really going to help balance the equation?

[VADem11]

14. Most likely it's a temporary seat

Veto power only belongs to the superpowers while the other seats on the security council rotate.

[Coastie for Truth]

23. DHIMMI

Sir, you posted "Israel was founded on displacing the existing Non-Jewish population in what the majority of observers in the world would consider ethnic cleansing"

And, sir, what would call the dhimmi expulsion of the millenia old Jewish "Mizrachi" population and the centuries old "Sephardi" population from Muslim lands?

The Arab culture and civilization was at its flowering peak when dhimmi was disregarded -- see Maria Rosa Menocal, "The Ornament of the World."

[bunyip]

55. Both cases are clearly ethnic cleansing.

The Islamic world was the poorer for it, morally and economically.

The Arabs ethnically cleansed their innocent Jewish communities in response to Israeli atrocities in 1948.

Perhaps the land Israel seized illegally in 1948 should be considered compensation.

[Violet_Crumble]

61. Do you know what dhimmi means?

It's just I've been seeing the term dhimmi tossed around in contexts where I'm getting a very clear idea that the tosser tossing them has no idea what it is...

From Wikipedia, only because I'm lazy and couldn't be bothered typing out of a book what I can simply copy and paste:

The Arabic word "dhimmi" is an adjective derived from the noun "dhimma", which means "being in the care of". The term initially applied to "People of the Book" living in lands under Muslim rule, namely Jews and Christians. Over time Muslims extended this category to Zoroastrians, Mandeans, and Sikhs. Many, but not all, extend this to Hindus.

For several centuries following the codification of the Qur'an, the Islamic Caliphate expanded its political control rapidly through warfare. Conquered peoples—including Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Sabians, and Hindus—became dhimmis: protected citizens under Islamic law, allowed the rights listed below on condition of loyalty or acquiescence to the government and paying the taxes mentioned below. The status of dhimmis has varied at different times and between nations.

Rights:

Protection of life, wealth and honor by the Muslim state (even against other co-religionist states)
Right to reside in Muslim lands
Right of worship according to their own religion
Right to choose their own religious leaders: patriarchs for the Christians, exilarchs and geonim for the Jews. The choice was subject to the approval of the Muslim authorities, who sometimes blocked candidates or took the side of the party that offered the larger bribe.<5> In Saudi Arabia, where no religion apart from Islam is officially recognized, this right is moot.
Right to work and trade
Right not to be enslaved; this was not always respected, as the application of the devshirmeh under the Ottomans demonstrates, and became void should the dhimmi rebel.
Exemptions:

Exemption from paying zakah "alms to the poor"
Exemption from being drafted in military service
Exemptions from religious duties specific to Muslims
Exemptions from personal Muslim laws (e.g. marriage, divorce)
Obligations:

Paying jizyah (a poll tax applied to non-muslims, unless they served in the military, an exception to this was the janissaries in the Ottoman empire)
Paying kharaj (a land tax applied initially to dhimmi but extended in the early 8th century to cover certain classes of land regardless of the cultivator's religion)<6>
Restrictions:

Not allowed to build new non-Muslim houses of worship, or expand existing locations.
Not allowed to display non-Muslim symbols on the outside of their existing houses of worship.
Not allowed to pray non-Muslim prayers, perform non-Muslim rituals, wear symbols of their faith visibly on their clothing, or preach non-Muslim faiths in public.
Not allowed to publish or sell non-Muslim religious literature.
Not allowed to ask Muslims to join them in worship (see proselytization).
Other points: Later legislation in the Sharia codified the rule that Jews and Christians were forbidden to blaspheme with respect to the Qur'an, the religion of Islam, or Muhammad. Jews and Christians were also forbidden to ask Muslims to join their faith, but Muslims were allowed to ask Jews and Christians to convert to Islam (see proselytization). Violation of these rules could invoke the death sentence.

Dhimmis were sometimes subject to other restrictions. Each of the following were forbidden to dhimmis at some point somewhere in the world:

Holding public office. This was very rarely enforced: in reality, many non-Muslims held high positions in Muslim states, including Samuel Ha-Nagid in Spain, as well as others in Egypt, Iraq, and the Ottoman Empire.
Bearing weapons.
Riding camels or horses. Also rarely enforced.
Building houses of worship higher than mosques.
Mourning loudly.
Dressing in the same way that Muslims dressed. Dress codes, such as requiring all members of a given religion to wear a particular colour turban or other distinguishing clothing, were sometimes—but not always—enforced, so that dhimmis would be visibly distinct from Muslims. The practice is not found in the Qur'an or hadith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi

btw, not good form at all, nor is it at all consistent, to claim that all Middle Eastern Jews were ethnically cleansed (while some were expelled as a tit-for-tat thing after the 1948 war, others moved to Israel willingly at the invitation of Zionists who were at the time looking for immigrants to the new country), yet believe that what was done to the Palestinians in 1948 wasn't ethnic cleansing...

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

69. I think I do - at least I got "economic compensation" in a class action

- so a hearing examiner and two levels of judges agreed with us.

I am of Jewish ancestry and trained as a chemical engineer (id est, petroleum refinery design, construction, and operation).

I was in an EEOC class action against several petroleum companies where we received a favorable decision and award..

Some references:

*

* Summary of United States Antiboycott Laws and Regulations

*Walter Henry Nelson, "The Economic War Against the Jews"

Dhimmi as applied - means that unless you are a senior executive of Citibank - no entry visas for Jews.

Dhimmi as applied (through the secondary boycott) - no jobs for Jewish technical, professional, and scientific applicants in "Big Oil."

Dhimmi as applied - means that your South Asian Muslim PhD adviser gets to present your dissertation at King Fahd University -- when you can't get a visa for a three day technical conference.

That is what dhimmi means in industry.

[Violet_Crumble]

70. I just posted what dhimmi means...

So, no. You don't have a grasp of what the term actually means...

Violet...

[barb162]

95. Coastie posted quite well what it means in practice verus

how it is propounded in the books

[Coastie for Truth]

106. No - you posted an academic, PhD, college definition

Not what it menas "on the street."

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Coastie for Truth]

153. Knock it off

My append was based on a series of United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decisions by Administrative Law Judges, affirmed by two separate United States District Courts, and per curiam by both the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

Go to the subscription only "Lexis" service (I am sure ANU has a Lexis subscription) and a CCH (Commerce Clearing House) subscription only service. Search on both "Texaco" or "Standard Oil" (cases against both) ANDED "boycott."

[Violet_Crumble]

159. Knock what off?

Pointing out that a link to Wikipedia that gives a correct definition and explanation of dhimmi is NOT a phd, academic definition of the term? Or knock off telling you that from yr use of the word, you don't appear to have a grasp of what it means? Sorry, not going to happen...

Yr links had zero to do with the term dhimmi. As I pointed out in my post that was mysteriously vanished, attempts to define dhimmi as what someone would *like* it to mean is no more different than the anti-choicers who insist that the definitions of 'person' and 'murder' are what they'd like them to believe, and what they'd like them to believe is done in order to paint women as murderers...

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

160. How did "choice" get into this

"Bob and weave" and "The Old Rope-A-Dope."

You posted what you want "dhimmi" to mean --- not how dhimmi has turned into a war against Jews world wide - Orthodox Jews - Jews affiliated with the Unitarian Community, Jews who have never been to israel, Jews who have no family in Israel, --- if they are Jewish - no visas to certain Muslim lands, no employment by companies with businesses in certain Muslim lands.

[Violet_Crumble]

161. Because they use exactly the same arguments...

They redefine the English language to suit their agenda...

No, I didn't post what *I* wanted it to mean. I posted what the term actually meant, which is why I gave you that link to Wikipedia in the hope that you'd read it and in future use the term in its correct context...

I'm also aware from taking a look around the web that there's a few anti-Muslim bigoted sites that would appear to be trying to twist the meaning so that it equates to anti-Semitism. Why these attitudes are bigoted is because dhimmi was (and still is) a status for non-Muslims (not confined to Jews) living in Muslim countries who fell under the protection of a Muslim ruler, and attempts to take the term and twist it so it equates to anti-Semitism is, imo, nothing more than the attempts by bigots to equate anti-Semitism with Islam...

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

163. Wow.

Respectfully, I don't see how the conditions imposed on Jews (and Christians) under dhimmi - which by the way did NOT apply to other religions as they were not "protected" - aren't a form of antisemitism when they apply to Jews.

Depending upon the time and place, dhimmitude varied in degree. But the principle was, and is, the imposition of conditions that ALLOW one to practice one's religion and still remain among the living. It is a form of institutionalized bias, which could reach the level of apartheid. In extreme cases, humiliating conditions were imposed, people lived in separate quarters, wore different clothes, were forced to take "unclean" jobs, couldn't ride a horse.

Even today, Jews were only recently allowed to set foot in Saudi Arabia as visitors, let alone live there and practice their religion. According to the appended Wikipedia article, information posted on a Saudi website was amended, stating that Jews could indeed visit. This must be a VERY recent development because it wasn't the case when I last read the article, a few weeks ago.

It must be said, true equality doesn't exist in most of the world even in today's most progressive democracies. But that doesn't preclude the fact that religious bias was and remains a very real factor throughout the Islamic world, applying not only to Jews and Christians but also to other minorities, especially in cases when they must live under Sharia law. It has taken a pointedly antisemitic turn throughout much of modern Islam, with traditionally European stereotypes being mixed in. The former Malaysian leader - head of a region which HAS no Jews - made some outrageous antisemitic comments a couple of years ago, including a claim that Jews had caused the devaluation of the Malaysian currency. And in the case of the oil industry - I think the thing speaks for itself.

Specifically Arab/Muslim antisemitism is no dream, it's not a matter of interpretation, but exists, it's written right into the Koran, and has taken some virulent new twists in recent decades, and has expressed itself in the form of economic punishment and exclusion - not just of Israel, but of Jews.

Here's another Wiki link on this topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_antisemitism

And another, on Islam and antisemitism, including the article on dhimmi:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_anti-Semitism

I think it's interesting that the article on dhimmi is in fact a subtext of the article on Islam and anti-semitism - in Wikipedia, not on some "biased" website.

This article also points out the fact that Islam claims that Abraham - ancient prophet of the Jewish people - wasn't a Jew but was in fact a Muslim. That is antisemitism, denying the history of Judaism even to the degree of claiming that a primary Jewish prophet wasn't Jewish.

[Violet_Crumble]

169. Golly gosh...

Respectfully, I don't see how the conditions imposed on Jews (and Christians) under dhimmi - which by the way did NOT apply to other religions as they were not "protected" - aren't a form of antisemitism when they apply to Jews.

It's very easy to see why the status of dhimmi wasn't a form of anti-Semitism, CB. Let's use the discrimination against women back when they weren't allowed to vote in our countries as an example. That form of discrimination was aimed at all women, and some of those women were Jewish. Does that mean that not allowing Jewish women in our countries the right to vote was a form of anti-Semitism? It doesn't, and the same applies to dhimmitude. If you could show that it was aimed at only or primarily at Jews (in yr post you put Christians in brackets as an afterthought, but they were every bit as much dhimmi as Jews were) out of a hatred for Jews, then I'd be agreeing with you, but history doesn't show that to be the case. You also say that the status of dhimmi didn't apply to some other religions as though they were better off. They weren't, as they weren't afforded any protection at all. Jews and Christians were afforded protection because they were 'people of the book'. Some Jews and Christians rose to positions of power within the Ottomoman Empire. When it came to Jews, those living as dhimmis in Muslim lands had far more rights and personal freedom than those living in Europe, where Jews found they weren't benefitting from the Enlightenment because they were Jewish. Now THAT was anti-Semitic...

So, when an American living in the US says that they're a dhimmi, it seems clear to me that they don't really understand what dhimmitude was. It applied to non-Muslims of some religions living in Muslim lands. And if we go again through the list I posted of exemptions applying to dhimmis, can you point out which exemptions you disagree with?


Exemptions:

• Exemption from paying zakah "alms to the poor"
  
• Exemption from being drafted in military service
  
• Exemptions from religious duties specific to Muslims
  
• Exemptions from personal Muslim laws (e.g. marriage, divorce)
  

The last paragraph of yr post where you say: 'This article also points out the fact that Islam claims that Abraham - ancient prophet of the Jewish people - wasn't a Jew but was in fact a Muslim. That is antisemitism, denying the history of Judaism even to the degree of claiming that a primary Jewish prophet wasn't Jewish.' I've got a question. Does that mean someone who doesn't believe any of those biblical characters actually existed is engaging in anti-Semitism? And another question. If it's considered to be anti-Semitism for another religion to claim someone as their prophet, isn't that in itself a form of bigotry against that other religion in denying them one of their prophets? If I were religious and believed in all that bunkum, I'd be wondering why it's not possible for two religions to share one prophet...

Violet....

[Coastie for Truth]

174. Maybe in the context of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

litigation "dhimmi" is short hand for the "They made me do it in order to buy their oil" defense. If successful, it avoids criminal liability and punitive damages.

Let's be honest - there is some factual basis for the industry to assert the "They made big oil do it" defense -- and the employment discrimination as applied to jobs in the US is illegal under US law, .

And, a successful assertion of the "They made me do it in order to buy their oil" defense makes the oil companies look like nice guys just trying to make a living and supply our thirst for oil --- and makes the Saudis look evil.

[Violet_Crumble]

176. And what did that reply have to do with my post?

Nothing that I can see...

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

177. You could "see" if you would read the links

Shearman-Sterling links:

* .
*

Here is what Shearman & Sterling LLP says is the "Background"

Two laws regulate the conduct of organizations with regard to the Arab boycott of Israel. Both may apply to any given situation.

One is the Export Administration Act ("EAA"), which, together with a set of regulations which interpret it, is administered by a special division of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The other law is a part of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, and is sometimes referred to as the "Ribicoff Amendment" after its chief Senate sponsor. The Tax Reform Act ("TRA") and the interpretive guidelines are administered by the Department of the Treasury.

Both laws are part of the response by Congress to the effects of the Arab boycott of Israel. That boycott, in place roughly since 1922, took on greater significance following the oil embargo of the early 1970's and the rise of the modern Gulf states. The TRA, enacted in 1976, and the EAA, enacted in 1977, constitute a strong statement of U.S. policy against the effects of such trade boycotts.

While the antiboycott legislation was occasioned by the Arab boycott of Israel, it applies with equal force to any foreign boycott, which the United States government neither participates in nor approves. Neither act purports to prohibit any foreign nation from boycotting another, e.g., refusing to import goods from a boycotted country. The legislation is not directed against "primary" boycotts but against what are termed "secondary" and "tertiary" boycotts, which occur when a state refuses to trade with one who trades with the boycotted country or with one who trades with another who trades with a boycotted country.

Here is Shearman & Sterling's summary of the penalties (pays to shift blame from corporate officers and directors to some overseas trading partners and blame it on "dhimmi"

Interest in antiboycott laws is more than academic, since serious penalties can be imposed on organizations which violate either law.

Violations of the EAA can result in criminal and civil penalties. Someone who willfully violates the EAA may be fined up to five times the value of any exports involved or $1,000,000 per violation for corporations and $250,000 per violation for individuals, whichever is greater. Individuals may be imprisoned for up to ten years. The Department of Commerce may impose civil penalties and suspend or revoke export privileges. In practice, alleged violations of the EAA most often result in negotiated settlements, in which the party charged with having violated the EAA agrees to pay a fine and, frequently, to institute corrective measures designed to ensure compliance in the future.

Violations of the TRA result in loss of tax benefits. Unless the offending conduct can be separated from overall business operations, an organization stands to lose all foreign tax credits, foreign tax deferral benefits, Foreign Sales Corporation ("FSC") benefits and Domestic International Sales Corporation ("DISC") benefits. The magnitude of the loss can only be calculated in light of a specific tax year for each affected organization.

The "jurisdictional handle"--

The EAA applies to the activities of individuals, partnerships, corporations or any other form of association which is a resident or national of the United States as well as any "domestic concern's" foreign subsidiary, partnership, affiliate, branch office, or permanent foreign establishment which is "controlled-in-fact" by the domestic concern. This category of affected persons is referred to as "U.S. persons." An individual United States national who is resident outside the United States, and who is either employed by, or assigned to work for, a non-U.S. person, is not subject to the EAA.

In some ways, the TRA has a broader reach than the EAA. Although the test for who is regulated is more complicated to state. Essentially, every person or corporation which files a U.S. tax return must comply with the TRA. The TRA extends to corporations incorporated in the United States, U.S. corporations which own more than 10% of the voting power of foreign corporations with activities relevant to TRA prohibitions and foreign corporations which claim foreign tax credits on a U.S. tax return.

Shearson & Sterling Thern Enumerate Proscribed conduct

One of the more difficult aspects of having two laws regulate the same kind of conduct is that, while the prohibitions of the EAA and the TRA are similar, the two do not overlap entirely and, indeed, they differ in certain respects. Here is a brief description of the conduct prohibited by each act.

A. The EAA

There are seven categories of prohibited activities.

1. Refusals to Do Business. Generally, a refusal to do business under the EAA consists of action that excludes a person or country from a transaction for boycott reasons. This includes a situation in which a U.S. person chooses or selects one person over another on a boycott basis or takes action to carry out another person's boycott-based selection when he knows that the other person's selection is boycott-based. A U.S. person's use of either a boycott-based list of persons with whom he will not deal (a so-called "blacklist") or a boycott-based list of persons with whom he will deal (a so-called "whitelist") constitutes a refusal to do business.

2. Discrimination. Discrimination against a U.S. person on the basis of race, religion, sex or national origin is strictly prohibited. In part, this means that one cannot select employees for work on specific client projects based on their acceptability to the client, if the basis of the selection is race, religion, sex or national origin.

3. Furnishing Information About Race, Religion, Sex or National Origin. One cannot provide information about the race, religion, sex or national origin of an employee in response, for example, to a request from a client for information about employees working on a particular project. However, one may forward visa information on behalf of an employee and not offend this prohibition.

4. Furnishing Information About Business Relationships with Boycotted Countries or BLACKLISTED PERSONS. One may not supply information about his or any other person's past, present or proposed business relationships relating to a boycotted country, a corporation organized in a boycotted country, a national or resident of a boycotted country or any person who is known or believed to be restricted from having business relationships with a boycotting country, i.e., a "blacklisted" person. This section of the EAA prohibits even providing a copy of one's annual report in reply to a boycott-based inquiry. This prohibition does not apply to the furnishing of normal business information in a commercial context, but the definition of "normal business information" is limited to such kinds of information as financial fitness. In addition, if the request for information is boycott based, it is not made in a commercial context.

5. Furnishing Information Concerning Association with Charitable and Fraternal Organizations. This section prohibits furnishing information about any organization that supports a boycotted country. This section does not, however, prohibit the furnishing of normal business information in a commercial context.

6. Letters of Credit. This section applies to banks. It prohibits banks from paying or in any way honoring a letter of credit which includes boycott terms.

7. Evasion. It is prohibited to take action for the purpose of avoiding the other prohibitions of the EAA. For example, use of dummy corporations or other devices to mask prohibited activity will be regarded as evasion. Similarly, it is evasion to divert specific boycotting country orders from a United States parent to a foreign subsidiary for purposes of complying with prohibited boycott requirements. Unless otherwise permitted, use of "risk of loss" provisions that expressly impose a financial risk on another because of the import laws of a boycotting country may constitute evasion.

BTW, here is what Shearman & Sterling advises their clients

Don't agree to any contract which has specific boycott terms, even if the contract is written in a foreign language that you don't read.

Don't, under any circumstances, give anyone information about employees' religion, race, sex or national origin.

Don't, under any circumstances, select employees for assignments, even assignments in boycotting countries, on the basis of religion, race, sex or national origin.

But they still break the law. And they still say "dhimmi" made me do it.

BTW, since I was a member of one of the several successful EEOC class actions --- I do have some familiarity with this issue.

I trust this makes it easier for you to see.

[Violet_Crumble]

178. There's not one mention of the word dhimmi there...

It's hard to see something that's not there...

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

179. Read the append FIRST rather then MERELY reflexively responding

Here is Shearman & Sterling's summary of the penalties (pays to shift blame from corporate officers and directors to some overseas trading partners and blame it on "dhimmi"

and

But they still break the law. And they still say "dhimmi" made me do it.

and in earlier append 174 in the same thread

Maybe in the context of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ... litigation "dhimmi" is short hand for the "They made me do it in order to buy their oil" defense. If successful, it avoids criminal liability and punitive damages.

[Violet_Crumble]

186. None of the links you provided contain the word dhimmi...

Repeating yr own comments where you make the claim that these are evidence of yr claim that 'dhimmi is short hand for they made me do it in order to buy their oil' is, not surprisingly, very unconvincing...

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

191. Yr respnse noted

After 30+ years in energy and ancillary/related fields - I am unconvinced by yr appends.

I am more convinced by the faces I see (and don't see) at Emeryville and San Ramon and Bayway, and at AIChE conferences (and the chit chat in the hospitality suites), and by the EEOC cases, and everything from Engdahl to Menocal.

You just haven't convinced me. And I'm an "insider" in the "industry" but not the "club."

[Coastie for Truth]

195. I won't call it "dhimmi" again

I will call it "compelling a United States domiciled corporation to violate the laws of the US (Export Administration Act, Tax Reform Act of 1976) in its US operations as a condition of doing business." That's the "Imperial Chemical Industries Case" -- the Saudis are criminals -- ExxonMobil's and TexacoChevron's own lawyers said so.

So, instead of calling it "dhimmi" I will call it a crime - analogous to dhimmi, Jim Crow, and Apartheid, and controlled by the rule in "ICI versus US."

[Colorado Blue]

180. Wait a second! Let's take your last point first - since it's

the most critical - that of co-opting and denying the heritage of a people's religious prophet - in this case, denying the Jewishness of Abraham.

This may not be critical to YOU, living in the 21st century and apparently not a religious person. But is is absolutely critical to ISLAM, and that is the subject of this topic, and of the relationship of dhimmitude (the simultaneous protection of/discrimation against, Christians and Jews under Islam, and sometimes extended to mean the existence of all non-Muslims living under Muslim rule.)

This IS a religious issue. The territories of the vast Muslim empire were conquered in HOLY WARS. This issue is relevant today, as jihadism and Islamist extremism have become institutionalized political tools of the 21st century. Discrimination against "infidels" is relevant today. "Death to the Infidel", or phrases expressing similar sentiments, is still relevant to Islamist, jihadist groups and is even heard in speeches by leaders of populous and powerful states (Iran, for example).

It is hardly Jews and Christians alone who were and are being affected. It is also Hindus - the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan is based on the conflict between Islam and the Hindus, and there continues to be extremist violence in India, by Muslims. It is Berbers, Animists, Zoroastrians, Ba'hai, Kurds. This discrimination against non-Muslims has reached the level of massacres involving hundreds of thousands of people - in Assyria, Armenia and Darfur, to name just three modern examples. Holy wars and fatwas have been declared in our own time.

Therefore, to deny the importance of such specifically antisemitic elements in the Koran as the refusal to acknowledge Abraham as a Jew, or to deny that religious discrimination continues to be an element of Islam's relationships with the non-Islamic world, is to be in denial, period.

[Name removed]

185. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

187. I'm basically going to repeat most of what Bunyip said....

As well as add a request. In future, when replying to a post of mine, is it possible to limit yrself to one post rather than multiple posts? It scatters the conversation and results in ever increasing subthreads about basically the same thing...

Personally I thought my last point was the least critical, considering I'm trying to discuss the misuse of the term *dhimmi*, and had no real interest in getting into a debate on which religion sucks the most...

As Bunyip pointed out, other religions did things like co-opt prophets and conduct holy wars. Islam is in no way unique in this, so I'm kind of wondering what's with the single-minded focus on Islam being so bad?

Yr claim that the partition of the sub-continent into India and Pakistan (how come everyone forgets poor Bangladesh?) is yet another example of nasty violent Muslims discriminating against everyone else is missing some very important elements. The confict between Muslim and Hindu was started and fostered by the British using their very effective divide and rule technique. Also, to claim that there was only violence on the part of Muslims is to either be ignorant of, or ignoring the history of India. There was violence committed by both Hindus and Muslims....

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

192. Ummmmmm....

Who was forgetting Bangladesh? At the time of the partition it was East Pakistan, unless I'm becoming senile? Which is possible, I admit.

And, I agree that the British "divide and conquer" philosophy had something to do with India/Pakistan - just as it had a great deal to do with Israel and the stresses between Israel and the Arabs and among the Arabs themselves, and in Iran. And yes, violence was mutual.

However, the religiously oriented "jihadist" violence is ongoing and it isn't limited to India, or against just Hindus and Jews, but is found throughout Central Asia and Africa as well, and in the Phillipines, and in the Far East, and has been aimed at targets in Europe and America too. Why? Is this a reaction against Westernism, modernism, change itself? I admit I don't really understand it. But it's affecting all our lives.

***

As for employing multiple posts, it avoids the problem of the 12 inch long post which puts people to sleep, and also makes it easier to address separate topics. But, I'll just use one if it makes you happy.

***

The problem with the Abraham issue is that it's being used TODAY to try and delegitimize Judaism itself. Had the comment remained in the past, as a purely religious or philosophical statement made hundreds of years ago - it wouldn't be a problem, just a way of looking at the world in the 7th century - no better or worse than anybody else's religion - as you point out.

BUT - it's coming up in modern discourse, not only in the Middle East but in Europe. Used in this context it's another form of historical revisionism and it's dangerous and prejudicial, and it's being aimed directly at a people who were almost wiped off the European map and are endangered in the Middle East. That makes it political. In concert with attempts to devalue the meaning of the Holocaust, if not deny it or its severity outright, combined with the endless threats against Israel, including renewed attempts to boycott Israeli universities, actual terror and war and economic punishment - not just of Israel but of JEWS - as Coastie points out - it is serious and goes beyond the scope of ordinary religious philosophy.

And, it targets Jews everywhere - not just in Israel. This is really no joke, but used in this way reflects an increasingly virulent prejudice that is coming - not from Christendom this time - although bigotry is growing in Europe as well - but from Islam.

Finally - I've been avoiding discussing Islam, trying to keep the I/P discussion on a political footing. And I must say I'm no expert on theology, though I've studied comparative religion and the history of the region for many years - so please understand that my comments are limited by the fact that I'm not a theologian, but am trying to increase my knowledge and my understanding.

However, Islam and more importantly, radical Islamism, ARE issues in the world today - serious issues, with the governments of powerful nations becoming increasingly islamist and sharia law being imposed even in regions which had been secular - like Iraq.

This has implications that are serious, especially to people who are concerned with minority, gay and women's rights, and it is especially of concern to people who aren't Muslim but find themselves living under sharia law. In this context it is impossible to discuss dhimmitude or jihad without discussing Islam.

It is certainly an element of the conflict in I/P - one of the terror groups even calls itself "Islamic Jihad" - as well as in vast regions of Africa, between Islamic sects and between Islam and other religions, and between secular states and religious states. Also, whereas Arab nationalism had often taken the form of socialism or other secular philosophies in the past, there has always been the element of Islamic pan-nationalism, and that is the strain that seems to be growing more dominant.

It is important to realize that the religion of peace that is said to be the true flower of Islam, and political islamism, are two different things. I think the same was true when Christianity became the state religion of Rome, and subsequent great powers. At that point it became political and the spiritual message of gentle Jesus became something else altogether - especially in the all-too widespread cases of forced conversions, inquisitions and later, wars between Christian sects.

I'll go a step further here and comment that spiritual Judaism and the nuts and bolts requirements of holding the Jewish state together aren't the same things either, but often find themselves in conflict. Indeed, one of the greatest challenges faced by spiritual, idealistic mankind is the sad reality that we are animals confronting the problem of keeping body and soul in the same location, and that compromises our best intentions. Perhaps that's the conundrum presented in Genesis, shared by all three Abrahmic religions: that of rational knowledge, the loss of innocence, and that terrible fall from grace.

So I want to make my own motives clear here: this is no attempt to make Islam look bad but to try and understand what is happening today - which is increasingly being framed and driven by religious terms, that were written hundreds of years ago and would seem to be irrelevant in the space age - but since people believe them - they're real, powerful and very important.

[Name removed]

197. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

194. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Colorado Blue]

181. Secondly...

It is true that discrimination against Jews in Islam didn't generally reach the level of discrimination as we saw in Europe. So?

It is still discrimination and the fact that laws are directed specifically at people and are still being directed at people BECAUSE THEY ARE JEWISH amounts to antisemitism.

I don't know the proper term for anti-Christian behavior but it is also quite virulent, for example in today's Iraq.

The fact that OTHER religious groups fared even worse, in fact were converted or else, doesn't reinforce the image of a of tolerant religion. The fact that certain eras and certain regimes, for example the Mughal dynasty in Persia, the Moorish era in Spain and certain times during the Ottoman reign, were more tolerant than others, doesn't mitigate against the fact that intolerance - considering other religions inferior or even ungodly - has been and still is, an aspect of Islam.

More on the ACTUAL conditions and meaning of dhimmi:

http://answering-islam.org.uk/NonMuslims/rights.htm

The Jizya (tribute)
Jizya literally means penalty. It is a protection tax levied on non-Muslims living under Islamic regimes, confirming their legal status. Mawdudi states that "the acceptance of the Jizya establishes the sanctity of their lives and property, and thereafter neither the Islamic state, nor the Muslim public have any right to violate their property, honor or liberty." Paying the Jizya is a symbol of humiliation and submission because Zimmis are not regarded as citizens of the Islamic state although they are, in most cases, natives to the country.

Such an attitude alienates the Zimmis from being an essential part of the community. How can a Zimmi feel at home in his own land, among his own people, and with his own government, when he knows that the Jizya, which he pays, is a symbol of humiliation and submission? In his book The Islamic Law Pertaining to non-Muslims, Sheikh `Abdulla Mustafa Al-Muraghi indicates that the. Jizya can only be exempted from the Zimmi who becomes a Muslim or dies. The Shafi`i reiterates that the Jizya is not automatically put aside when the Zimmi embraces Islam. Exemption from the Jizya has become an incentive to encourage Zimmis to relinquish their faith and embrace Islam.

Sheik Najih Ibrahim Ibn Abdulla summarizes the purpose of the Jizya. He says, quoting Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, that the Jizya is enacted:

"...to spare the blood (of the Zimmis), to be a symbol of humiliation of the infidels and as an insult and punishment to them, and as the Shafi`ites indicate, the Jizya is offered in exchange for residing in an Islamic country." Thus Ibn Qayyim adds, "Since the entire religion belongs to God, it aims at humiliating ungodliness and its followers, and insulting them. Imposing the Jizya on the followers of ungodliness and oppressing them is required by God's religion. The Qur'anic text hints at this meaning when it says: `until they give the tribute by force with humiliation.' (Qur'an 9:29). What contradicts this is leaving the infidels to enjoy their might and practice their religion as they wish so that they would have power and authority."

http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/Dhimmi.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact_of_Omar

http://www.dhimmitude.org/index.php

http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=227

***

Here are two especially interesting sites, one about the work of Theo van Gogh, who was murdered for his efforts. The other includes a petition to the United Nations, to end the practice of dhimmitude:

http://www.soldierofthemind.com/archives/2004/11/04/theo_van_gogh_and_darfur.html

http://www.petitiononline.com/dhimmi/petition.html

[Englander]

184. About those links & sources -

Almost all of them are either Evangelical Xtians,or American
Conservatives,or otherwise biased against Islam/Muslims. So, obviously
they are not going to provide a balanced,or accurate,or objective
definition of the history or meaning of Islam.

From Wiki;

"Definitions (of jizya)

Commentators disagree on the definition and derivation of the word jizya:

* Yusuf Ali states "The derived meaning, which became the technical meaning, was a poll-tax levied from those who did not accept Islam, but were willing to live under the protection of Islam, and were thus tacitly willing to submit to its ideals being enforced in the Muslim State."
* Monqiz As-Saqqar attributes the word jizya to the root word jaza meaning "compensate", and defines it as "a sum of money given in return for protection".<1>
* Shaikh Sayed Sabiq, in the Fiqh Alsunna (a commonly used source of fiqh), also states that the underlying root of the word jizya is jaza, and defines it as "A sum of money to be put on anyone who enters the themah (protection and the treaty of the muslims) from the people of the book".<2>
* Ibn Al-Mutaraz derives the word from from 'idjzã, meaning "substitute" or "sufficiency" because "it suffices as a substitute for the dhimmi's embracement of Islam."<3>
* Al-Marghinani, in his classical 12th century legal commentary The Hedaya (or al Hidayah), states that jizya means "retribution", and defines it as "a species of punishment, inflicted upon infidels on account of their infidelity, whence it is termed Jizyat"<4>
* Yusuf al-Qaradawi says the word jizya is derived from the jazaa', meaning "reward", "return", or "compensation", and defines it as "a payment by the non-Muslim according to an agreement signed with the Muslim state".<5>
* E.W. Lane, in An Arabic-English Lexicon defines jizya as a "tax that is taken from the free non-Muslim subjects of a Muslim government whereby they ratify the compact that assures them protection, as though it were compensation for not being slain".<6>

In practice the word is applied to a special type of tax levied on those who did not accept Islam.


Application

Jizya was applied to every free adult male member of the People of the Book, and/or non-Muslim living in lands under Muslim rule. There was no amount permanently fixed for it, though the payment usually depended on wealth: the Kitab al-Kharaj of Abu Yusuf sets the amounts at 48 dirhams for the richest (e.g. moneychangers), 24 for those of moderate wealth, and 12 for craftsmen and manual laborers.2 Females, children, the poor, and hermits were exempt from it. The disabled and elderly were exempt unless they were independently wealthy, as were mendicant monks—those living in productive monasteries had to pay. Historically Muslim rulers also attempted to collect jizya from Hindus, Sikhs and Zoroastrians under their rule. The collection of the tax was often the duty of the elders of those communities.

In return, those who paid the jizya were not required to serve in the military and were considered under the protection of the Muslim state, with certain rights and responsibilities. Non-Muslims were also exempt from zakat, or mandatory charity imposed on Muslims. In addition, if a non-Muslim chose to serve in the army, he would be exempt from the jizya. If he refused to pay the jizya, he might be imprisoned, as Abu Yusuf recommended. 3"

Wikipedia - Jizya

[Violet_Crumble]

188. You didn't answer my question...

I'd really appreciate it if you could pay me the courtesy of answering the question I asked you about what in the exemptions you take offense at. When I return here to find three replies from the one person, not one of which answers my question, I do start to feel like I'm being talked over the top of a little bit...

So I'll limit myself to replying to the small part of yr post that did in some way address the post it was replying to:

It is true that discrimination against Jews in Islam didn't generally reach the level of discrimination as we saw in Europe. So?

Because what was happening in Europe was anti-Semitism. The status of dhimmi in Muslim lands on the other hand wasn't anti-Semitism....

It is still discrimination and the fact that laws are directed specifically at people and are still being directed at people BECAUSE THEY ARE JEWISH amounts to antisemitism.

The status of dhimmi was NOT specifically aimed at people because they were Jewish. It was directed at people because they weren't Muslim. Massive difference there, CB. Dhimmi was a status aimed at any non-Muslim from a religion that was afforded protection due to the Qu'ran...


The fact that OTHER religious groups fared even worse, in fact were converted or else, doesn't reinforce the image of a of tolerant religion.

I see. So are you claiming that Islam is the only religion that behaved this way? That it is different than the others in that they're tolerant religions and Islam alone isn't? What's bothering me a bit about this exchange is that both replies to my post so far are focusing on the same thing - what a nasty religion Islam is....

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

193. Wait a second. I think some wrong conclusions are being

drawn from what I said. But I don't have time to answer thoughtfully right now. I will get back to you later this evening or tomorrow.

[Colorado Blue]

182. Finally...

Your statement:

"Let's use the discrimination against women back when they weren't allowed to vote in our countries as an example. That form of discrimination was aimed at all women, and some of those women were Jewish. Does that mean that not allowing Jewish women in our countries the right to vote was a form of anti-Semitism? It doesn't, and the same applies to dhimmitude."

I specifically said that dhimmitude, WHEN IT APPLIES TO JEWS, is a form of antisemitism, and further that specifically antisemitic remarks/philosophies are encoded in the Koran itself.

And, I believe I stated that dhimmi doesn't apply to other religions BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T PROTECTED. That means there was zero tolerance for them whatsover. Yes, that is in fact what I said and what I meant. So I suppose in this context dhimmitude was a blessing. People WERE allowed, if they submitted to the jizha and the other conditions imposed by dhimmitude, to stay alive and still remain Christian and Jewish.

Finally, of great importance to our present situation, is the existence of Israel - a Jewish state located smack in the heart of umma - the Islamic Motherland, its capitol the site of Mohammed's ascent to heaven.

In view of this history and these facts about Islam, the true meaning of dhimmitude and the historic relationship between the (superior) Muslim and the inferior, apostate Jew - do you think for a moment that its very Jewishness isn't an issue in the Arab/Israeli conflict?

[Violet_Crumble]

189. Okay, I don't think I made myself clear...

So let's try again...

I used the example of women not being allowed to vote as an example of where people were discriminated against, not because they were Jewish, but because of being part of a larger group suffering discrimation for being something else. In the case of Jewish women being denied the vote, it was because they were women, and in the case of dhimmitude, it was because they weren't Muslim. In neither case was it anti-Semitism. Is that clearer for you?

Kind of curious here, CB, but have you actually read the Q'uran, or just whatever Wikipedia has to say about it?


Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

196. I've read much of the Koran, the suras, and some of the

hadiths, but I don't read Arabic, although at one time I spoke a bit; so my understanding is limited. And, most of my reading was 30 years ago, although I did do some studying more recently, as part of an investigation I did into women's issues, particularly FMG. At that time I also read works by several Muslim women, including Nawaal al Sadawi, a work on the Bedouin and another on the effects caused by the revolution in Iran, on a woman who had been liberated but found herself forced back into the veil.

I understand that much of the Koran is lost in translation, like poetry, and also that there are many translations, and also "footnotes" and interpretations that have been added or modified throughout history.

So, I make no claim to theological expertise, but my knowledge is a bit broader than what I've read in Wikipedia. I do wish I COULD claim expertise but I can't and I won't, and I'm willing to learn.

[Violet_Crumble]

198. On foreign lingos with squiggly or chunky script...

Totally off-topic, but I'm feeling chatty tonight. I did make an attempt to learn to read Arabic, but I failed abysmally at it due to all the incomprehensible squigglestuff. I found learning to speak it much easier, though. After reading a book by Tom Segev and being fascinated by the way Hebrew was revived, I've started trying my hand at it, and though the letters are ultra-chunky looking, I've mastered aleph and bet and can write them like a pro! Give me another few years and I'll have mastered the whole alphabet and be moving on to constructing actual sentences!

Yeah, both the Quran and the Bible would, I suspect, be very different from their original incarnations due to all the translations and interpretations. Just one of the many reasons that those from any religion who take the literal version of whatever holy book they're worshipping as the Total And Only Way That Everyone Must Live Their Lives are lame-arses, imo...

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

199. LOL! I have been trying to master Hebrew since I was five.

So I wish you the best. I would love to be able to read and write fluently or even more than three words an hour - ditto Arabic.

I have also tried to learn Greek.

I studied classical Greek for a couple of dismal semesters in University - I did have a wonderful breakthrough moment, when I stared at the word "philos" (in Greek) and immediatedly recognized "friend". It was like staring through an open window at a brilliant new world.

Couldn't agree more about the folks who take the holy books literally - word for word - who knows but what they were very old legends and poems even when they were written, and had already been modified with the years? But absolutism in any case seems like a blind alley.

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Igel]

36. Ethnic cleansing was a fact of life in mid-1940s Europe.

Numerous states engaged in it.

Those that did not had previously engaged in it in previous centuries, and had no need to repeat the process.

And, considering that the mufti of Jerusalem was no enemy to Hitler, I'm guessing had the Palestian/Jordanian hierarchy come out on top, the Jews in Palestine would have also been ethnically cleansed. Much like Hamas would like.

If everybody was doing it, it's hard for many to complain.

[bunyip]

58. Numerous states?

You mean Nazi Germany and its imitators?

You would excuse Israel by claiming some moral equivalence with 'numerous states'?

Ugh!

Jews in Palestine would have also been ethnically cleansed

There is a community of Samaritan Jews in Nablus, and they live among other Palestinians (Muslim and Christian) who are really pissed at Israel.

Noone has tried to ethnicly cleanse the Samaritans, and they've been there millenia.

[Igel]

90. No. Post war.

I mean Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Italy, Hungary, and the USSR (in two areas, Kaliningrad and E. Poland), even Austria to a limited extent.

Slovenes, Slovaks, Germans, Poles were the victims.

Not to mention on-going ethnic cleansing by Turkey and Greece at the time. And all of those cases had nothing to do with Jews.

I'm not claiming moral equivalence: I'm asserting it. It was done, not haphazardly, not always with those ethnically cleansed reciprocally provided with homesteads, as was to be the case with the mutual ethnic cleansing that occurred between Yugoslavia and Italy. It seems odd to say Israel (which is to say, the UN) was wrong in what it did, but nobody else was. Either we condemn Poland, the USSR, and Italy along with Israel, as well as Turkey, Yemen, and Egypt, or we say that we have some non-moral standard by which to evaluate the appropriateness of ethnic cleansing.

The ethnic cleansing did not always go according to plan: Israel wound up with more land than intended; the Italians weren't given the land that they were to be given. Poland was just shifted, with the populations moved (and Germany getting short-shrift).

[bunyip]

131. Excellent post

Igil, I do condemn

Poland, the USSR, and Italy along with Israel, as well as Turkey, Yemen, and Egypt

In the last couple of years Sudan and Mauritania have also brutally dispossessed minorities while hiding behind legal fictions. Mauritania stopped after its pro-US dictator was toppled a few months ago. I'm still concerned about Sudan.


The difference is Israel is still doing it as we speak. And the US is providing money and excuses.

[Coastie for Truth]

152. White, rapture rethugs to the poor and African-Americans in New Orleans

--- having lived in NO - it is pure Rapture rethug ethnic cleansing.

[Violet_Crumble]

62. That's wrong...

The fact is that in 1948, no other states were engaged in ethnic cleansing. What you talk of in Europe was during WWII, and by 1948 decolonisation was the big thing as Britain found it had no choice to allow the former parts of its Empire in Asia to gain independence. What happened in Palestine in 1948 went against the tide of what was happening in the post-war world...

Considering WWII was in the bag for the Allies by the end of 1942/start of 1943, I tend to find 'what if' scenarios pointless speculation...

Also, claiming someone else may have done it to other people if things had gone another way is no justification for ignoring ethnic cleansing that did happen....

Violet...

[The Magistrate]

72. It Pains Me To Disagree Somewhat, Ma'am

In the several years after World War Two, putting people to flight over ethnic and religious identities was very much en mode. The Partition of Pakistan out of India was a colossal exercise in that activity, involving many millions, and leaving hundreds of thousands of them dead on both sides of the created border. In Europe, persons of German extraction were systematically expelled from Czechoslovakia and Poland; some were Nazi era settlers but most were descendants of ancestors there for centuries. Stalin's transfers of population continued. Revolutionary activities in Indo-China and other places in Asia put tremendous numbers of people to flight, and in colonial areas certainly there was often a religious tinge to these flights; for example, in Indo-China, Catholics tended to flee the Communists most earnestly.

[Fight_n_back]

107. We must reunify Pakistan and India

whether those people like it or not!

[Coastie for Truth]

154. Killing of Concentration Camp Survivors in Rural Poland

when they returned to the home villages after WW2.

[eyl]

85. That might come as a surprise

to the millions of Germans expelled from Eastern Europe, not to mention expulsions in India and PAkistan and others.

[Zhade]

57. Very good points.

NT!

[Violet_Crumble]

16. What UN site are you looking at?

The one I go to, http:www.un.org, shows a long list of SC Resolutions by year. Here's 2003, 2004, and 2005. The way some people talk, you'd think the Security Council does nothing but sit there churning out resolution after resolution condemning Israel for just being Israel, while ignoring everything else that goes on in the world. Good thing that a look at the lists of resolutions puts that nonsense to bed. If you'd taken a look at the resolutions, you'd notice that a countries actions, not the country itself are talked about in the resolutions, usually with terms like 'expressing concern', 'requests', 'condemns all acts of violence'....

btw, special meetings on some topics aren't unusual at all for the UN, and Israel and the Palestinian territories are not the only part of the world who have had special committees set up when it comes to them. The UN has an ongoing interest in resolving the I/P conflict as it was handed the British Mandate and the Partition Plan has not been implemented. Until there's a resolution of the conflict, it will be the responsibility of the UN to take an interest...


Violet...

[eyl]

17. True, the UNSC doesn't

exclusively deal with Israel. But going over the resolutions for the last five years, I only find resolutions condemning Israeli actions. I don't find any resolutions condemning Palestinian actions, except in the "we condemn all violence" formulation.

And while special meetings may not be unusual, of the 10 Emergency Special Sessions in the UN's history, 6 had to deal with Israel (the massacres in Rwanda and the Balkans, for comparison, did not rate such a session).

[Violet_Crumble]

19. The first resolution I looked at contained it...

Security Council resolution 1435 (2002)

Condemning all terrorist attacks against any civilians, including the terrorist bombings in Israel on 18 and 19 September 2002 and in a Palestinian school in Hebron on 17 September 2002,

and

Calls on the Palestinian Authority to meet its expressed commitment to
ensure that those responsible for terrorist acts are brought to justice by it..

And, yes. But I explained why the Emergency Special Sessions happen, and btw, Israel is NOT the only party discussed in those sessions...


Violet...

[eyl]

26. Precisely my point

While there are resolutions condemning Israel only, there are no resolutions condemning Palestinian* actions without adding Israeli ones - and that example you cited is, AFAIR, the only one which condemns both sides and cites specific attacks.

*For that matter, with one or two exceptions, I can't recall any UNSC resolution criticising only an Arab country in an incident where both were involved.

As for the Emergency Special Sessions - looked at the reasons they were convened. Five (of ten) were convened in criticism of ISraeli actions and another (about Lebanon) also involved Israel

[Violet_Crumble]

64. I'm find this whole argument a bit silly, eyl...

It's starting to remind me too much of a sibling who tallies up the times another sibling gets parental attention when they don't. I'm taking a safe guess that if the Palestinians were engaged in a long-term occupation of Israeli territory, there'd be a fair few Resolutions specifically aimed at that alone. Why should anything else get tacked onto the end of those sorts of Resolutions, as in a: 'Expressing grave concern that someone may accuse us of being nasty if we don't soundly condemn the Palestinians'? I haven't gone back far enough to look (pdfs load too slow for my liking and I'm being lazy), but I'm kind of guessing that there would have been more Resolutions on the conflict back in 1967 and 1973, because those wars did have the ability to threaten world peace, especially with the rival super-power's patronage of the warring sides, and the fact those super-powers were bristling at the teeth with all sorts of nasty nukes.

As I've already said, the wording of Resolutions doesn't condemn a country, but is sometimes used to describe the actions the Resolution is dealing with. One of these days when I've got the time and patience, I'm going to have a look at every SC and GA Resolution that deals with the Middle East and see if there's any criticising Israel's actions that don't have to do with the occupation and war. I suspect that if there was no occupation, Israel would rarely rate a mention at the UN, much like other smallish countries. Hell, if we ever get criticised in a UN resolution, I expect there'll be street parades and celebrations, because after all, to some smallish and insignifant countries any publicity is good publicity and much better than being ignored! :)

Violet...

[eyl]

82. In assessing whether a system

treats (criticism, in this specific case) a specific member fairly or not, indicators are

1) Are the criticisms of that member fair or not?
2) Are other members of that system criticised similarly?

My point is regarding to the second question. Now, since some have made the argument that the high amount of UNSC and UNGA resolutions against Israel - while for other countries, far worse acts go by without comment - is due to the fact that the Israel-Arab conflict is a high-profile conflict which attracts a disproportional amount of attention, I've limited my comparisons to the players in this particular conflict.

Now, mind you, I don't insist that every resolution criticising Israel also criticise the Palestinians - or vice versa, for that matter. But it's telling that there are zero UN resolutions which solely condemn Palestinian actions. For that matter, since 1948, I can think of maybe two or three resolutions criticisng actions against Israel, or which criticised Israel and an Arab country in equally harsh terms. Conversely, you'll find quite a few resolutions criticising only Israeli actions (again, for matters concerning the conflict) or (if the other country gets any criticism) criticising Israel in harsher terms. So logically, I see only two explanations:

A) The UN is, on average, biased against Israel
or
B) Israel is invariably in the wrong in anything regarding the conflict.

Which of these two explanations seems more reasonable to you?

[LivingInTheBubble]

29. Other nations get sanctions.

But the US gives EXTRA money and arms etc.. to israel. Why arent there the same sanctions e.g as placed against saddams Iraq.

[julianer]

40. I don't understand

Are you excusing breaking the law if you feel 'discriminated' against? Can you give me details of this discrimination against Israel, since it is news to me?

Also others' law breaking does not excuse your own.

[Andromeda]

6. I think Israel has been inordinately

discriminated against by the UN, an organization unequipped to deal fairly with Israel's problems.

Israel should be represented at the UN by their own representatives as every other country is.

[Judi Lynn]

10. Here's a link to Israel's own U.N. website:

http://www.israel-un.org/

and a link to the 15 member (with 10 rotating members on 2 year memberships) Security Council:

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_members.html

[Frederik]

11. I think it can be compared to

the "discrimination" of South Africa during its apartheid days. Not wholly unjustified.

Israel is of course represented at the UN by their own representative, they have just not been elected to the Security Council, which consists of 5 permanent members and 10 members elected for a certain period (a year? six months? not sure).

[Andromeda]

111. My bad....

I meant to add Security Council.

[AlamoDemoc]

4. I vote Brazil

[Robeson]

12. I'm assuming they are talking about a temporary seat....

..."The Council has 15 members-- five permanent members and 10 elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms" http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_members.html

There are certainly many other countries who should be considered first in line for permanent seats.

[Laughing Mirror]

13. The US could give up its permanent seat to Israel

if the US gets kicked out of UN. Israel's vote on everything would probably be a virtual carbon copy of the US's anyway, so it shouldn't be very destabilizing for the UN as a whole.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Poll_Blind]

20. (Pointing and squealing at Waya like in Invasion of the Body Snatchers)

Anti-Semiiiiii- Oh! I happen to agree with everything you just said. Funny part is, you'll get called Anti-Semite (or slyly implicated) in the Israeli/Palestine forum for comments like that. Not outside of it, though, because almost everyone who doesn't frequent those forums also agrees.

PB

[Waya]

22. LOL.......

....sorry about the rant...but I get so tired of hearing Israel whine and cry about how everyone is against them. They need to get back behind their borders of 1948 - and give it a rest. 'God' might have given them this region - but 'God' also threw them out of it. Funny how they never mention that li'l tidbit.
Grrrrrr....

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

65. I give a fuck what Waya thinks...

n/t

[Andromeda]

113. Guess I'm with Jim on this...

:)

[Fight_n_back]

33. So you are against the land the Yakimas hold?

I find that an odd position for a Native American. I would certainly support the Yakima if Washington, Idaho, Oregon, British Columbia, California, Nevada and Utah decided to push the Yakima into the sea.

But maybe thats because Im a Progressive.

[Charles19]

44. They already did, if Israel gets one maybe US can get's its seat back

[wordout]

21. So this is boltons idea of reform?

ptui.

[kamtsa]

25. Never had a seat in the Security Council nor a membership in Red Cross

No surprise that Israelis are very skeptical regarding the objectivity of international forums.

[tainowarrior]

27. in your dreams, Israel

First off, the Security Council should be democratic, without veto votes. Second, it should be on a rotating basis, like it is now, so that EVERY country gets a chance to have a say on the big security matters of the world.

Israel SHOULD have a spot on the Security Council, but only when it's their turn. They have no special claim to it, and if it werent' for my belief in fairness and democracy, I'd bar them from ever sitting there, considering how many U.N. resolutions they violate and the horrendous apartheid regime they've imposed on the Palestinians.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[julianer]

42. damned right

and welcome to DU :hi:

[Jim Sagle]

47. It's a goddamn lie that Israel has imposed apartheid on the Palestinians.

Apartheid regimes impose separation across the board to prevent interaction with members of the separated group. Israel imposes separation as needed to prevent being killed by members of the separated group.

Consult your local dictionary.

[Mairead]

56. It's a goddamn lie that it's a goddamn lie. (nt)

[Jim Sagle]

67. It's a goddamn lie that it ISN'T a goddamn lie.

As I explained already.

[tainowarrior]

63. this is not true

Israel has a pursued a policy of segregating Arabs and their living areas from the areas of Jewish settlements. In Israel, certain laws/state benefits are only available to Jews, not Arabs, even Israeli ARabs are barred from them. Consistently, Palestinian living areas are either incredibly horrible in living conditions, even to the point that settlements siphon off water and other resources from them.

I consider it to be apartheid when there are elements of military occupation, racial seperation, racial identification and benefits to one particular group over there, and the subjugation of the other group.

Israel fits the bill, and I daresay, I think the Israelis treat the Palestinians much worse than the South Africans whites treated the Black South Africans. I never heard of helicopter missile attacks into whole neighborhoods, like they do in Israel.

The "we're defending ourselves" tune got old for me a long time. Don't want suicide bombing? Leave ALL of Gaza and the West Bank.

[Chi-Town Exile]

77. You Honestly Believe That Suicide Bombings Would Stop?

Do you really believe that suicide bombings will stop once Gaza and the West Bank is vacated by Israel? It's that simple? Really?

Did you miss the reports of the synagogues being burned in the settlements that were just vacated?

From your comments it appears that your approach to this issue is quite simplistic. It also explains why you cling to only ONE side of this issue.

[tainowarrior]

80. um...

they burned those synagogues because it's now Palestinian land and they don't want them there. You really expect a Muslim land, especially one occupied by Jews for 40 years, to welcome synagogues with open arms. Do you honestly believe that?

If the Palestinians resume suicide bombings, without any legitimate reason, I'll oppose them. But, so far, I think they have legitimate reasons to resist, and like the question posed of the Algerian revolutionaries, the answer fits here too:

"Tell the French to give us airplanes and tanks, and we'll stop suicide bombings as a resistance tactic".

There is still the question of the West Bank. When is Israel going to give that up. There is still the question of sharing Jerusalem as an international city. There's still a whole host of unresolved question, and the status quo breeds resistance. It won't stop until they are resolved.

[eyl]

83. So you think

suicide bombing can be "legitimized"?

I wasn't aware that the fact that you lacked the power to defeat the other side in combat made its civilians fair game.

[tainowarrior]

86. it did for Algeria

South Africa's ANC, under Mandela, struck at white South African civilians too.

Are the victims of massive, overwhelming military might just supposed to take it, and not resort to any tactics that may bring the horrors of war back to the oppressors? It's unrealistic to expect people to act like lambs when they're being slaughtered. No, they will fight, and fight brutally. Read Fanon's "Wretched of the Earth".

I don't like suicide bombings, and if I had my say and power on it, I'd bar it. I don't legitimize it, but I do recognize it as a reality of war and war-like conditions. I fully EXPECT weaker opponents to use whatever forms of warfare are available to them, including suicide bombing. As a political scientist, I'd say that a sound political analysis would be to assume suicide bombings will continue under occupation/unequal conditions, and that as occupation/unequal conditions ease, so do suicide bombings.

[eyl]

91. It's just as predictable that

the response to terrorism will be brutal, and the more brutal the terrorism, the more brutal the response. So using your argument, I can justify pretty much any misconduct in the fight against terrorism, since it's an inevitable response.

[eyl]

84. I never heard

of black South African regularly blowing up white shopping malls, either. Nor did I hear their leaders threatening to kill all the whites.

BTW - exactly which state benefits are barred by law to Israeli Arabs*?

[tainowarrior]

87. Read some books.

read the history of South Africa's struggle. For a while, terrorist attacks against whites were part of the program of struggle. Before the STate of Israel, many of the Israel state founders committed acts of terrorism in Egypt against American forces there to make it look like Arabs did it. This is documented on the Internet. Look it up. Read Mandela's biography by Sampson.

Regarding Israeli Arab issues, I don't have a direct source, except maybe pointing to David K, Shipler's "Arab and Jew" book, or Chomsky's Fateful Triangle. Much claims backed up by footnoted sources in these books.

There's no doubt that Palestinians under Israeli occupation are regularly barred from benefits, and that Israeli Arabs are treated as second-class citizens. Even the Supreme Court of Israel declared that legalistically, the State of Israel is the State of the JEWS, not the state of its citizens, thereby cementing the legal standing that Jews get first-class citizenship, and all other citizens are behind them.

Read on Israel's domestic society. There's much inequality in it.

[eyl]

92. I'm aware

that the ANC used terrorism; I am not aware of any case where their leaders advocated killing all the whites, nor am I aware of those terrorists being widely venerated as holy heroes.

As for what Israelis may have done in the past, I was not aware you were holding Israel as a role model?

As for Israeli Arabs, I didn't ask for a source; I asked for examples. I'm not familiar with Shipler, but I do know Chomsky's book contains at least some (referenced)..inaccuracies, let us say. So I want to know what you think those inequalities are. And just FYI; I'm part of Israel's domestic society.

[4dsc]

94. Israel continues to build is apartheid wall

Its shameful that any person would wish upon the Palestinian people, the conditions under which they are HELD by Israel.. Just shameful that anyone woud support this wall of apartheid!!

[barb162]

103. it's a security barrier

[bunyip]

132. If its a security barrier...

Then why wasn't it built on on the border?

[Englander]

148. What would Wiki say?

" Apartheid wall is a term sometimes used to describe the Israeli West Bank barrier by its opponents. They refer to it this way because they argue that:

* Its extension into the West Bank isolates Palestinian communities and consolidates the Israeli settlements, which, like the Bantustans of apartheid South Africa, are part of a "long-term policy of occupation, discrimination and expulsion," and effectively constitute a form of colonialism.1
* By confiscating Palestinian farmlands and leaving them on the Israeli side, it crowds the Palestinians into as little an area as possible while leaving as much of the land as possible to Israel. <1>
* In distinguishing between Israelis and Palestinians in terms of who can enter and exit the gates along the barrier, it is racist in nature.
* Its main purpose, just like the South African apartheid policy, is to separate two peoples, and they point out that its current route on confiscated Palestinian land is, according to them, hardly one that is based only on security. This is corroborated by Israeli left wing groups such as Gush Shalom and more recently by the Israeli State Prosecution itself (referring only to the part built beyond the 1949 Armistice lines).<2>
* It serves to subjugate the Palestinians by separating them from Israel and the rest of the world, and controlling all entry and exit.
* The barrier is clearly not temporary; at a cost of 12 million NIS or 2.8 million USD per km <3>
* 16% of the Palestinians in the West Bank are on the "Israeli" side of the barrier, and allegedly will eventually be expelled or forced to migrate."

Wikipedia - Apartheid Wall

[eyl]

155. From that same link

Defenders of the barrier reject both the "Apartheid" and "wall" designations, arguing that:

Only seven percent of the barrier is walled, 93% is fenced.
The goal of bantustans was to eliminate the rights of the majority South African black population, while the goal of the barrier is to protect Israeli civilians from terrorist infiltration and attack.
The Supreme Court of Israel ruled that the barrier is indeed defensive and accepted the Israeli claim that the route is based on security considerations (Articles 28-30).
Apartheid was a system established to disenfranchise citizens, based on skin color, from their own country; however, West Bank Palestinians were never citizens of Israel, and Jews and Palestinians are not racially distinct.
The barrier is clearly not intended to separate Jews from Arabs, as over 1 million Arabs on the "Israeli" side of the barrier are full citizens of Israel, and constitute 15% of Israel's population.
Apartheid involved the forced removal of about 1.5 million South Africans to bantustans, but the barrier causes no transfer of population. None of the 10,000 Palestinians (0.5%) who will be left on the Israeli side of the barrier (based on the latest February, 2005 route)<4> will be forced to migrate.
South African blacks did not seek the destruction of South Africa, but merely the reformation of the government; however, the majority of Palestinians in the territories dispute Israel's right to exist.
Bantustans were created in order to force legal borders; however, the barrier is a temporary defensive measure, not a border, which can be dismantled if appropriate.
Apartheid was an outgrowth of imperialist, colonial policy; Israel's Jewish population consisted mostly of refugees with a deep historical relationship to the land.
If this separation barrier is an expression of apartheid, then any number of similar defensive barriers around the world must also meet that definition.<5>

[Englander]

156. Out of those ten points,only three (1,3,9)

are what I would consider serious/convincing arguements, & the rest,
are,frankly, taking the piss. Considering that at least one of them
originates from HonestReporting,that is not unexpected.

'Apartheid Wall' is an apt description.

[eyl]

157. OK, I was a bit pressed for time earlier,

so let me try:

Its extension into the West Bank isolates Palestinian communities and consolidates the Israeli settlements, which, like the Bantustans of apartheid South Africa, are part of a "long-term policy of occupation, discrimination and expulsion," and effectively constitute a form of colonialism.1

Assuming their conclusion - they posit the settlements are "like the Bantustans of apartheid South Africa", and therefore the barrier is an expression of apartheid. Circular logic at best. Regarding policy - or, IOW, the aim of the barrier - see below.

* By confiscating Palestinian farmlands and leaving them on the Israeli side, it crowds the Palestinians into as little an area as possible while leaving as much of the land as possible to Israel. <1>

If that was the indeed the aim, areas to the east of the wall would be much smaller. IOW, it leaves Israel nowhere near "as much land as possible".

* In distinguishing between Israelis and Palestinians in terms of who can enter and exit the gates along the barrier, it is racist in nature.

Given that "Israelis" also include Israeli Arabs, Jews, and such, the differentiation is on the lines of nationality, no race. Ergo, it's not racism.

* Its main purpose, just like the South African apartheid policy, is to separate two peoples, and they point out that its current route on confiscated Palestinian land is, according to them, hardly one that is based only on security. This is corroborated by Israeli left wing groups such as Gush Shalom and more recently by the Israeli State Prosecution itself (referring only to the part built beyond the 1949 Armistice lines).<2>

It's main purpose is to seperate two peoples for the purpose of defending one of them, unlike the South African Bantustans. The link in your source is dead, but the Israeli High Court determined in at least two separate rulings (Beit Sourik Village Council v. The Government of Israel, Paragraph 28, and reiterated in the recent HCJ 7957/04 ruling) that the barrier's primary purpose was defensive. The same decisions, BTW, also ruled that given that determination, it was permissable to build the barrier beyond the Green Line, so long as a proper balance as struck between local Palestinians' rights and security needs.

* It serves to subjugate the Palestinians by separating them from Israel and the rest of the world, and controlling all entry and exit.

This claim relies on conjencture regarding the barrier's purpose. The barrier is only between Israel and the West Bank. As such, the purpose is to defend Israeli citizens from Palesitnian attacks originating in the West Bank. Since the wall does not control exit/entry on, for example, the Jordan, this point is incorrect, It's true that there are other mechanisms controlling entry/exit over the Jordan, but these have nothing to do with the barrier, and are therefore irrelevant to the argument. The barrier controls westward movement only (in some sections, it also restricts northward and southward movement, but those sections are bult on the Green Line).

* The barrier is clearly not temporary; at a cost of 12 million NIS or 2.8 million USD per km <3>

I've seen cases were the government spent vast sums on projects which were later abandoned; I'm sure your own government has done the same. Again, this is conjecture (on future events, no less).

* 16% of the Palestinians in the West Bank are on the "Israeli" side of the barrier, and allegedly will eventually be expelled or forced to migrate."

Even assuming those figures are correct, this is, once again, pure speculation.

Back to your second post

Considering that at least one of them
originates from HonestReporting,that is not unexpected.

Considering at least one of the "pro" points is from antiwar.com, right back atchoo.

'Apartheid Wall' is an apt description.

No, it's not.

[Jim Sagle]

164. Honest Reporting RRRRAWWWWKSSS!!!!!!

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jim Sagle]

166. You've got it!

:toast:

[Andromeda]

114. All these new definitions popping up all over the place.

Is it for maximum effect or is everybody just programmed?

[Jim Sagle]

118. Saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

[Barkley]

28. With Bolton as UN Ambassodor the idea is nolong 'unthinkable'

antagonistic type of proposals for the US and its allies.

Israel got billions for the returning the Sinai to Egypt; I suppose an Security Council seat would be what Israel gets for pulling out of the Gaza and West Bank?

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IA_Seth]

32. Nothing like a healthy dose....

of generalizations in the morning, eh?

Care to withdraw your statement regarding Palestinians, or shall we all start to group an entire ethnicity based on the actions of a few?

[Charles19]

45. Unfortunately the US thinks the UN is about as important as FEMA

and would like to see both of them just quietly go away.

[Endangered Specie]

34. No way in hell they deserve a seat, temporary or otherwise.

Reasons:
Q: Which country has violated the most UN resolutions?
A: Israel (Iraq = 2nd place)

Q: Name countries that have nuclear weapons but have not sigened the Non proliferation treaty?
A: Pakistan, India, Isreal, ?DPRK


Q: Name a country that, when the Palestinian population exceeds 50%, will be an apartheid?
A: Isreal.


Nice credentials eh?

[weiser]

37. About time as well

Why the discrimination against Israel..?

If it doesn't happen, Israel still has full unconditional US support. It doesn't matter either way.

[Jim Sagle]

48. Nice try.

Q: Why is Israel the country that "has violated the most UN resolutions?"
A: Because of UN domination by Arab regimes with an exterminationist agenda.

[newyorican]

50. OOOooooo...spooky Arabs!!

Suggesting they dominate the UN is akin to suggesting Jews dominate the media/banking system/US govt etc, etc....

Those sneaky Arabs...they also might under your bed, or in your closet...be veeeeery afraid...

:rofl:

[Jim Sagle]

52. I didn't say Arabs, I said Arab REGIMES.

Again, consult a dictionary.

And there wasn't anything sneaky about it. They voted as a bloc. Do the math, or consult a dictionary.

[bunyip]

54. 191 countries in the UN

Only 17 of them are Arab. http://www.un.org.

Why do the other Global South countries vote against ethnic cleansing in Palestine?

Is it because they're afraid colonialists will do it to them one day?

Or are they all anti-semites?

[Violet_Crumble]

66. Thanks for doing the math for Jimbo...

:)

[barb162]

100. gee, O-I-L?

[Zhade]

38. I think an overall broadening of the Security Council is in order.

Many more countries should be allowed on the SC, and the veto should be dropped.

I'm very keen on Chavez's "RevolUtioN" idea.

The world should not be shaped by such a small circle of countries, and the U.S.' consistent abuse of both international law and its veto power, particularly with regards to Israel, should deprive it of a place on the SC at all - but I know that'll never happen, at least not in my lifetime.

Devolve the power, and I'm thinking we'd have a slowly-improving world.

[fujiyama]

43. Fair enough

The UN SC includes such naations as Pakistan and China, both reesponsible for numerous human rights abuses and proliferation.

It's a fuckin joke as it is.

[Chi-Town Exile]

51. A Question

Why hasn't anyone answered my question?

Did you or did you not see the Palestinian people rejoicing when the Twin Towers were destroyed?

As Randi Rhodes always tells us, "Believe your own eyes." That is what I saw, I saw Palestinians celebrating when Americans died.

I don't condone everything that Israel does and those of you that support the Palestinians should not condone everything they do.

To paraphrase Tevyeh from Fiddler on the Roof, "An eye for eye, a tooth for a tooth? Good, then the whole world will be blind and toothless."

It has to stop somewhere, sometime. One thing is certain, there are plenty of people on both sides of the Israel/Palestinian conflict that do not want peace. Instead of sniping at one another, why can't we even come to an agreement on what needs to be done to get BOTH sides talking?

You know why? Because the enemies of Israel always want Israel to make the concessions and they remain conspicuously silent when Israeli/Jewish blood is shed. When those that are so concerned about the Palestinians start caring about the bloodshed of all the people in that area maybe then we will have something to talk about.

[Violet_Crumble]

68. I didn't see a question...

Maybe that's why people didn't answer it. Or perhaps it was because on reading yr repeat of the question, they also realised it's a loaded question that's irrelevant to the OP that started this thread...

btw, I wasn't aware that everyone who supports the Palestinians right to self-determination condones everything done by Palestinians. Nor was I aware that supporting the Palestinians equates to not caring about all civilians in the conflict. Guess I just haven't been at DU long enough to spot this stuff, hey?


Violet...

[YapiYapo]

71. Palestinian did not rejoice about 9-11

I'm sure more people in the US did rejoice about bagdad bombing in the gulf war than palestinians for 9-11.

Check this link

[Chi-Town Exile]

74. The People That Would Rejoice About Bombing Baghdad are Freeper MORANS!!!

Only the followers of Bush's death cult were rejoicing when Baghdad was bombed.

I know what I saw. Don't play Freeper games and tell me I saw something else with my own eyes. The people of the West Bank were rejoicing on 9/11.

While this doesn't mean ALL Palestinians were rejoicing about the deaths of Americans, it should give you some pause and some perspective when observing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

What I am saying is there is not just one side that is right or wrong. Both sides have been right and both sides have been wrong.

If you truly want peace you will look at BOTH sides of the issue and not fall victim to propaganda from EITHER side.

[YapiYapo]

79. There are extremist in every country.

What a newsflash...

According to your own argument, most of the US citizen should be seen around the world as moron freeper.Because that's what rest of the world see on TV every day, the action of this administration AND their supporter.

About what really happen on 9-11 :

"For many of us, one of the most disturbing images of these past painful weeks has been that of the celebration of a few Palestinian youths after the tragedy.
This image has been played over and over again on CNN, thus reinforcing the myth that somehow the whole of the Arab and Muslim world rejoices at our pain.

Closer examination has revealed that that celebration was in fact a very limited phenomenon, limited to a few Palestinian villages. Almost every single head of state in the Muslim world has expressed grief and outrage over this tragedy, fully expressing sympathy with the Americans who have lost loved ones in this tragedy."

http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm#Expressions%20of%20grief%20and%20sympathy%20in%20the%20Arab%20and%20Muslim%20world:

The day after 9-11 several newspaper run a story of 5 mossad agents congratuling themself near the ruin of the WTC, i guess that must be true too hey ?

I'm not taking side on the issue just pointing out the fact that those images of palastenian rejoicing, we all saw on TV, has been played as propaganda by the media.

[barb162]

96. Yes they did , until Arafat saw how it was playing in the world press

and shut them up.

[Andromeda]

112. I DID see Palestinians rejoice with....

my OWN two eyes on 9/11.

PLEASE, don't tell me I was imagining it.

[tainowarrior]

89. some did

Some Palestinians did, but you know what, if I was a Palestinian, I'd be cheering too.

Is it a guilty pleasure to cheer for someone else's pain? Sure it is. But also real enough to admit that if the people who have been giving weapons to those that oppress finally get to receive pain, there's an element of vindication and sweet revenge there.

[barb162]

97. "...to cheer for someone else's pain?" It's sick as hell

[Andromeda]

115. What you said is worse than sick...

careful your own words aren't turned back on you.

[barb162]

99. excellent points

and welcome to DU

[Andromeda]

116. Good post.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[Andromeda]

135. Because they can't, Chi-Town Exile...

By answering your question honestly they would have to face the truth and that is much more difficult for them to do. That would mean admitting that their perspective is distorted and that everything they believe in is a lie.

The Palestinians did rejoice on 9/11; they danced in the streets, fired guns in the air and proudly waved around anti-American signs.

Some people see nothing wrong with that and that's the biggest wrong.

[Violet_Crumble]

151. No, it's because I thought it was a leading question...

..that had zero to do with the topic of this thread. I've already said that to Chi-Town Exile. Now what I'll say to you is I have a problem with making generalisations against an entire group of people based on the actions of a few. How would you like it if I pointed out the rabid glee that Americans displayed when Baghdad was bombed and innocent civilians were killed, and I were to ignore the fact that only some Americans behaved that way, and went on to act as though all Americans were guilty of it? Because that's what yr doing right now towards the Palestinians...

Violet...

[Andromeda]

175. Let me put it this way...

Chi didn't feel his question was being answered. You, me and others get off-topic frequently so it's not unsual when somebody brings up a related topic or non-related topic. It's not that big a deal and I think you know that.

What you object to is anyone saying anything against the Palestinians, even when they're wrong. That doesn't mean we hate all Palestinians. I'm sure there are many well-meaning Palestinian people who would never take part in anti-American activities. The ones that did appear, to me, to be dangerous and threatening. They hate me just because I'm American and they don't even know me.

It's the culture of hate that I find offensive, not just from Palestinians but other ME countries as well.

Point out to your hearts content that some Americans got off on the bombing in Bagdad. I WASN'T ONE OF THEM and I'm not responsible for their actions.

What I did point out was the fact that I watched Palestinians dance in the street AFTER the destruction of the twin towers on 9/11. That made me sick to my stomach and it's difficult to get that imagery out of my mind.

[Violet_Crumble]

190. And let me answer it this way...

I don't think it's a big deal. Him/her being a newbie obviously thought it was. I did find it a bit weird that his/her strange question replied directly to the OP and had zero to do with it....

Considering I've been fairly critical of some Palestinian actions when I'm posting here, I find it a bit bizarre that I'm being accused of objecting to anyone saying anything against the Palestinians. Why would you accuse me of something like that? What I have always and will always object to is attempts to stereotype all Palestinians using the actions of a small number of them....

When people point out that some Palestinians danced in the street after 9/11 and call it a culture of hate, then I'm going to keep on pointing out that some Americans were gleeful over the murder of innocent Iraqis in the invasion of Iraq, and I'm going to call it a culture of hate. What I don't understand is why some gleeful Palestinians make you sick, but you don't seem to feel equally sick when it's gleeful Americans. Is it because the gleeful Americans are being gleeful about something that doesn't affect you?

Violet...

[Douglas Carpenter]

73. one very good article and another very good resource link

link to article:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113&printer_friendly=1

link to resource link:

http://www.nimn.org/Resources/index.php

[Chi-Town Exile]

75. Thanks for the Link to NIMN

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

76. The same country that has violated how many UN

resolutions now?

[leesa]

78. Let's see...how many UN violations have they racked up?

This would be a terrible mistake to put Israel on the Security Council. And what for? Don't they have their pet, the US, fighting all their battles for them?

[EndElectoral]

81. That would be the end of the UN. Here's why....

Israel is currently in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 242 from 1967. They are occupying the West Bank in violation of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention.

I advise anyone to view the incredible documentary "Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land" with Noam Chomsky if ANYONE thinks this is a good idea.

[barb162]

105. I don't think so...not by a long shot

Take a look at the current members of the Security Council and tell me who isn't guilty of violating human rights somewhere along the line in the last 50 to 100 or so years.

[eyl]

110. Syria's human rights record

is considerably worse than Israel's. Syria holds a seat on the Security Council, and last I checked, the UN was still there.

[Lithos]

145. Take a different approach here

If you wish there to be any chance for Israel to increase their respect of the UN's resolutions, you are going to have to find a way for Israel to have a greater reason to value this relationship. Keeping them a pariah nation is not going to help.

As for the Security Council and other councils, they would be part of a rotating membership. It's actually not as powerful as you would think, they do not have a veto and would actually carry little influence.

[Violet_Crumble]

150. Bingo!

If you wish there to be any chance for Israel to increase their respect of the UN's resolutions, you are going to have to find a way for Israel to have a greater reason to value this relationship.

That's the only approach I think should be considered. That's why I don't support any calls for Israel to be stopped from functioning as a full member of the UN, and I don't think it was fair that Israel floated in limbo from the 1960's till 2000 unable to participate fully because of not being in a regional group. A sense of inclusiveness and belonging to the system will, imo, achieve a lot more than pushing Israel out of the system...

Rotating membership of the SC seems to be more a prestige thing than anything for the countries when they get their turns...

Violet...

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saigon68]

108. He's all hat--- NO CATTLE

And a COWARD to boot

[hogwyld]

109. Welcom

Welcom to DU! :)

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

122. and hey, you forgot 9/11 all together

but, other than that, great rant.

welcome!

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[barb162]

120. Those same parameters could be applied to many countries

on the Security Council. Do you object to them too? Take a look at some of the current and past members of the Council. Your comments are rubbish.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[barb162]

125. I don't agree with one single thing you're writing here,

Read up on the UNSC yourself and the current members; Israel has every right to be there. There are no outbursts here from those who support this move... you're imagining things.

[Maple]

126. Israel has no case

and neither do you.

It's purely emotional.

[barb162]

127. You're over-emoting and have no case. Israel does.

Goodbye

[Maple]

128. LOL bye bye

[Jim Sagle]

129. Not a single word of truth in all that.

[Maple]

130. I'm afraid there is

I'm sorry you can't be objective about it, but Israel does not belong on the security council.

India and Brazil...yes.

Israel no.

However, we may soon do away with the security council altogether, and then you won't have anything to complain about.

[muriel_volestrangler]

144. This is about Israel geting one of the rotating seats

which, in the past, have gone to such huge countries as Malta, or Trinidad and Tobago. Plenty of dodgy regimes have had seats, such as Paraguay under Stroessner. By any objective standard, Israel should get a turn, just like everyone else.

[Jim Sagle]

158. Oh yes they do belong on the Security Council.

[Wordie]

121. but Israel is INCREASING illegal settlements in the West Bank, while

withdrawing from Gaza. What kind of message does that send? I pray for peace in the region, but it will not come from increasing the illegal settlements. So it is premature, imho, for a U.N. seat for Israel.

[Gyre]

123. Oh yeah baby. Let's reward them with the brass ring!!!

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

Course it don't matter none that they've never seen a UN security counsel sanction that they didn't blow off. And there's been a peck!

Gyre

[Behind the Aegis]

133. Interesting...

China has a permanent seat and veto power and is a constant violator of human rights. 190 nations can serve as president of the council, but there are 191 members. Nations, which have supported terrorism, have sat as president of the council. But, one nation, should not even be allowed ON the council!

"All are equal, but some are more equal than others!"

[Maple]

134. The Security Council

has the same members it always did.

And Israel is a member of the UN.

Palestine and the Vatican are observers only

[Behind the Aegis]

137. So is Israel

She cannot sit on the Security Council because she is not a member of a regional group (geographical...Asia, in this case). She has limited participation in many things...again...."all are equal, but some are more equal than others."

[Violet_Crumble]

149. Israel IS a member of a regional group...

...and can sit on the Security Council. You've already been given information from an Israeli govt website confirming this, so I'm not sure why yr continuing to insist otherwise...

Are the Israeli govt and the Israeli Mission to the UN lying? I doubt that very much...

From the Israeli mission to the UN:

"Thus, Israel can now serve on essentially any body under the auspices of the General Assembly or the Economics and Social Council (ECOSOC), as a member of the Security Council, as well as on bodies like the Commission on Human Rights that operate primarily outside of New York. "

http://www.israel-un.org/israel_un/weog.htm


Violet...

[papau]

200. From the UN Mission source: WEOG is Temp - and does Not apply outside

New York for those UN bodies that hold their elections outside New York or those bodies not organized on the New York regional group system.

So UN bodies outside New York can/and some do exclude Israel, but via the temp membership with the EU group, Israel gets to be in most UN happenings.

Why is that so hard to admit that the UN screws Israel so as to get the oil flowing from the Arab states ? The only question appears to be the degree of screwing - and the only correct "degree" is zero for a body like the UN. Indeed it is this screwing of Israel that makes the UN a pointless waste of money to many that would otherwise support more power/authority for the UN.
===============================================================



"Prior to May 2000, Israel was the only UN Member State excluded from a UN regional grouping. This state of affairs stemmed primarily from a rejection by Arab states of Israel's membership in the Asian group. As a result, Israel was denied membership in a number of important UN bodies, including the Security Council in violation of the principle of sovereign equality enshrined in the UN Charter. Israel also could not be elected to the vast majority of bodies in the UN system, where voting is based on membership in a regional group. Thus, Israel was unable to serve as the President of the General Assembly, or as a member of any bureau in the GA and its main committees.


As of May 2000, Israel was accepted as a temporary member of the Western European and Other States Group (WEOG) in New York. Its temporary membership in the group was officially extended in May 2004. This development helps to partially rectify an anomaly, which has affected no other nation in the world and marks an important step towards the full integration of Israel into the United Nations system. Israel has agreed to continue to seek membership in its natural grouping in the Asian Group that continues to deny it admission.


While Israel's admission into WEOG signified an important development, it remains excluded from the regional group system outside New York. Though Israel can be elected to a UN body that has seats allocated through WEOG in New York, it is prevented from participating in Western group meetings outside of New York, and from nominating candidates to positions in UN bodies where elections for those bodies are not organized by the New York regional group system. The vast majority of UN bodies, however, even ones that are based outside of New York, hold their elections in New York. Thus, Israel can now serve on essentially any body under the auspices of the General Assembly or the Economics and Social Council (ECOSOC), as a member of the Security Council, as well as on bodies like the Commission on Human Rights that operate primarily outside of New York."

[barb162]

162. China

killed about 30 or 40 million Chinese people during the mid 20th century and Japan killed millions of Philipinos, Chinese, etc., during World War II, but these countries are on the SC because of their economic might, population size, etc. International politics is fascinating.

I know some Chinese Americans who constantly bring their mainland China relatives to the US. They tell stories about very pervasive human rights abuses, factory slave labor, people pulled off the street and then imprisoned for prison slave labor, etc.

[Colorado Blue]

183. More information about Israel's limited status at the UN:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/uneligible.html