Abramoff & al-Arian:Lobbyist's "Charity":Front for Terrorism(Juan Cole)

[kpete]

Abramoff & al-Arian:Lobbyist's "Charity":Front for Terrorism(Juan Cole)

The guilty plea of fabulously wealthy and highly corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff raised the question of whether he would roll over on congressmen involved in illegal fundraising and other crimes with him. Some twenty Republicans on Capitol Hill are said to be in danger.

Abramoff's dense network of illicit finances and phony charities might end some political careers in the United States. But the investigation into his activities by the FBI also shed light on the ways in which rightwing American Jews have often been involved in funding what are essentially terrorist activities by armed land thieves in Palestinian territory.

Indeed, it was this terror funding of Israeli far right militiamen that tripped Abramoff up, since the FBI discovered that he had misled Indian tribes into giving money to the Jabotinskyites, and then began wondering if he had defrauded the tribes in other ways. (You betcha!) The Indian leaders were furious when they discovered they had been used to oppress another dispossessed indigenous people, the Palestinians, calling it "Outer Limits bizarre" and saying that they would never have willingly given money to such a cause.
more at:
http://www.juancole.com/2006/01/abramoff-and-al-arian-lobbyists.html

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[acmejack]

2. You mean all of that land that is now Israel was totally uninhabited?

Gee, I learn something new every day!

[wakeme2008]

3. LOL where did you get that crazy idea

Palestinians where there before the country of Israel was carved out.

[Coastie for Truth]

5. Do some serious (not political blogosphere) reading in

Holy Land Archeology- start here--> .

You may also want to check out Acco/Acre, Safed, Jerusalem.

Also, might I recommend the University of Pennsylvania's Museum of Archeology in Philadelphia (you might also want to check out Independence Hall and Independence Hall National Park and check out Independence Hall, and the Ben Franklin block, and Elfret's Alley and Betsy Ross House and the Fire Museum. I recommend L' bec Fin for lunch - Philadelphia is a neat place to visit).

[Violet_Crumble]

7. Newsflash: The state of Israel was created in 1948..

Yr post is arguing something that the poster yr replying to didn't say, Coastie. Yr post seems to be assuming that if someone points out the obvious fact that Palestinians lived where they are now prior to the creation of Israel, then they are denying that there has been a Jewish presence in Palestine....

Anyone who holds the opinions that Palestinians aren't indigenous, weren't there before the creation of Israel, or that they have a country and it's called Jordan is guilty of making comments that are bigoted against the Palestinian people, as well as being totally uninformed of their history ...

Here's some serious (not political blogosphere or Wikipedia) reading that you may want to check out, though I suspect IanDB is the one who really needs to read this book:


The Palestinian People: a history - Baruch Kimmerling & Joel S. Migdal

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674011295/102-4943274-8484169?v=glance&n=283155


Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

9. Violet

I am the one who "davens" at Michael Lerner's Beyt Tikkun -

I am the one who went to Michael Lerner's conference in Berkeley in July.

I am the one who collects for Kernels of peace - and Shulamit Aloni.

And I am the one who prepared a shelter for Tom Joad this weekend - in case his place got damaged by the floods and land slides.

So please!!!

[Violet_Crumble]

10. That's all very sweet, but...

..are you saying that because you've done those awfully nice things, that means the state of Israel was created much earlier than 1948, and that you were addressing something the poster you replied to didn't say?

btw...

I am the one who went out yesterday and searched for a coffee shop that was still open so my colleagues could have their morning tea break...

I am the one who smile and nodded and let the door-knocking Jehovah's Witnesses do their spiel without cutting them off. How nice is that??

And I am the one who can out-nice anyone, and thereby win the I Am Right - So Please!!!! game....

Violet...

[Tom Joad]

53. Just to make clear, Coastie was not referring to me.

"And I am the one who prepared a shelter for Tom Joad this weekend - in case his place got damaged by the floods and land slides."

I do not know who or what coastie was referring to, but it was not me personally.

[Wordie]

6. You are entirely correct, wakeme2008

One of the earliest and most enduring slogans of the Zionist movement with regards to its ambitions in Palestine ("the Land of Israel") was: "A Land without a People for a People without a Land." Historically, we know this was far from the case. At the beginning of the 20th century, Palestine was home to approximately 500,000 indigenous Arabs and 60,000 Jews.

The Zionist movement and subsequently the state of Israel's deliberate marginalization of the physical presence and political legitimacy of the large Arab population in historic Palestine has, in large part, shaped the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Indeed, this problem of historical ignorance and political myopia continues to obstruct efforts to achieve a just peace and plagues American commentary and analysis on the current conflict.

In order to understand the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we must keep a few critical historical facts in mind: The United Nations adopted Resolution 181 on Nov. 29, 1947, partitioning British Mandatory Palestine, from the Jordan River in the east to the Mediterranean Sea in the west, into two states -- one Jewish and one Arab.

Historical sources state that in 1947, Palestine was populated with approximately 1.2 million Arabs and 600,000 Jews. Despite this population ratio of 2:1, and despite the fact that the distribution of land ownership was 92 percent to 94 percent Palestinian Arab and 6 percent to 8 percent Jewish, the U.N. partition plan called for a Jewish state on 56 percent of historic Palestine and a Palestinian Arab state on 44 percent. According to the U.N. partition plan, therefore, a significant amount of Arab-owned land was to be designated as part of the Jewish state. As such, it is hardly surprising that Palestinian Arabs at the time rejected the loss of significant chunks of their homeland.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/cjip/nakbaeditorial.htm

And the early Zionists clearly knew about that significant population:

Herzl was a secular Jew who became alarmed by the appalling growth of anti-Semitism in the late 19th century. Not all Jews were Zionists. Yet, those who chose Zionism did so in a European climate of increasing hostility toward Jews. Pogroms against Jews in the Russian empire and the emergence of attacks on Jews, such as with the Dreyfus Affair in France, led Herzl to conclude that Jews required their own state to be secure. The First Zionist Congress in 1897 was held in Basel, Switzerland. By this time some religious and secular Jews came together behind the idea of a Jewish state. Yet, they would encounter difficulties in their desire to found such a state that would exist into the 21st century. Indeed, this problem could be summed up by the experience of representatives of two rabbis who went on a fact-finding mission to Palestine in the wake of the First Zionist Congress in 1897. They reported, "the bride is beautiful but she is married to another man." In other words, Palestine was already occupied. Many Arabs had roots extending back millenia, while others were more recent arrivals born of migrations within the Ottoman Empire. Yet, given the racism of the day, the Arab problem was largely dismissed by many Europeans. In their minds the Arab "other" would somehow be dealt with, but without much thought about how.(emphasis mine)

http://radar.ngcsu.edu/~jsommers/IPCONFLICT/narrative.html

[Colorado Blue]

11. The question isn't whether or not there were people there,

but whether or not there was room for more. And all the evidence points to the fact that there was ample space. Visitors to the "Holy Land", including our own Mark Twain, report mile after mile of emptiness.

This was then part of the Ottoman Empire, and the whole area had become depopulated and poor.*

Population estimates at around the turn of the century vary, and are difficult to verify, but the best and fairest numbers amount to a few hundred thousand people. Israel plus Gaza and the West Bank now amount to about 7.5 million, at least.

Also, the term "indigenous people" is usually meant to refer to African or neotropical rainforest tribes, or Native Americans, for example. Referring to Palestinians as indigenous in this sense is a little odd, and also in that case one must also include the Druze, the Jews, the Bedouin, the Turks, and all the other people who have lived in this region in the past 10,000 or so years. However, in the current political context, the way this usage is meant to be interpreted, only the Palestinians are considered to be "indigenous" and that isn't accurate and nor is it fair. This is especially so considering the left-wing sensitivity to indigenous people, such as the Native Americans - it puts everyone who ISN'T "Palestinian" in a sort of pejorative context. This is also unfair and it is also historically inaccurate.

The Middle East, in view of its ancient multicultural history and its status as a global crossroads, is an entirely different world than the high plains of 18th century America.

Also, as a matter of interest, "Palestinian" actually referred to all the people living in the Palestine Mandate, including the Jewish hero of Leon Uris' novel Exodus, Ari ben Canaan. Using the name to refer only to Arabs living where Israel now exists, is a very recent phenomenon; the very same people, as Ian points out, constitute 70% of the population of Jordan. After 60 years, Palestinians from only a few kilometers away, from across a manmade, modern border imposed by Britain and France, live as "temporary guests" in Syria and Lebanon, unable to become citizens, buy land or even in some cases, hold jobs. The conditions in those camps is pretty dismal. I think it's wrong that no effort has been made to assimilate them, that they are in fact kept caged, and that the only Arab plan to relocate them involves destroying Israel.

Does this seem right?

And, many Palestinians actually immigrated to the region in response to Jewish immigration, as the economic conditions of the region improved. This is well documented, in the papers of the British. As a matter of fact, Arafat himself was born in Egypt.

Finally, to be considered a "Palestinian" refugee after 1948, one need only to have lived in the Mandate since 1946 - a period of two years. This is very unusual. In most cases, refugee status from a certain country requires residence there for 20 years. Referring to people who have lived in a region for 2 years as "indigenous" is more than a bit disingenous, and although it certainly doesn't apply to all or even most, it does point up some of the ironies of the situation.

So as you see, it is important not to permit rhetoric and the retroactive creation of a situation that didn't exist - whether by Jean Peters or by those who imagine a Zionist aircraft carrier arriving on the shores of a densely populated and well-developed "Palestine" - to retroactively delegitimize the state of Israel, or provide an excuse for more war as opposed to serious and creative REGIONAL efforts to create the matrix for peace.

*(This is the basis also, of the Emir Faisal's desire to help the Jewish people along with the Arabs: the region desperately needed a boost and it was hoped the infusion of cash, people and creativity would work well for everybody. It must be recognized that the Zionist movement was NEVER intended to injure the local people. But unfortunately, as Faisal wrote in his papers, it didn't take long for demagogues to begin exploiting the differences between cultures and people, rather than to help create a new and accepting environment which would have realized this dream. Please see the Faisal-Frankfurter correspondence.)

[Wordie]

12. 1947 Palestine: approximately 1.2 million Arabs and 600,000 Jews

Historical sources state that in 1947, Palestine was populated with approximately 1.2 million Arabs and 600,000 Jews. Despite this population ratio of 2:1, and despite the fact that the distribution of land ownership was 92 percent to 94 percent Palestinian Arab and 6 percent to 8 percent Jewish, the U.N. partition plan called for a Jewish state on 56 percent of historic Palestine and a Palestinian Arab state on 44 percent. According to the U.N. partition plan, therefore, a significant amount of Arab-owned land was to be designated as part of the Jewish state. As such, it is hardly surprising that Palestinian Arabs at the time rejected the loss of significant chunks of their homeland.

Thus, rising out of this context, a civil war was waged between Jews and Palestinian Arabs from November 1947 until May 1948. After the State of Israel was unilaterally declared on May 15, 1948, a regional war ensued between the newly established state and the Arab armies of Syria, Egypt, Jordan and Iraq. Already in 1938, future Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion had written: "(I am) satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state -- we will abolish the partition of the country, and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel." By the final ceasefire in July 1949, Israel had forcibly acquired approximately 78 percent of Mandate Palestine. Egypt and Jordan controlled the remaining parts of historical Palestine, and a Palestinian state never materialized.

During the course of the hostilities, over 418 Palestinian villages were depopulated, creating a refugee problem of some 700,000 Palestinians, who were either forcibly expelled or fled out of fear to what they thought would be a temporary stay in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan or Iraq. In total, over 250 of these Palestinian villages were then repopulated with Jewish immigrants, and all traces of these villages' Palestinian pasts were completely erased.

...Despite the emergence of this critical body of history, the Palestinian experience of loss, dispersion and exile has remained a taboo topic in contemporary American political culture. Indeed, much as the original landscape of Palestine has been destroyed, re-mapped and renamed, so too has a gradual process of historical erasure and political "re-education" rendered any attempts to study and commemorate Palestinian history, culture and identity illegitimate.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/cjip/nakbaeditorial.htm

This source also mentions how the true facts of the situation have come to light due to the efforts of the "new Israeli historians," Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, Simha Flapan, Ilan Pappe, who have "debunked myths about the pristine nature of Israel's founding."

And a few more notes on all this:

Ben-Gurion candidly admitted that in political terms Zionists were the "occupiers" and "aggressors" in Palestine.

http://radar.ngcsu.edu/~jsommers/IPCONFLICT/narrative.html

[Colorado Blue]

15. I'm talking about the late 19th century, Wordie. By 1948,

the Jewish homeland was pretty much a done deal.

What happened in the succeeding decades was pretty complex and bears close study, and so do the events between the end of WWII and the war of 1948.

It can't be summed up in a paragraph or two, or by snipping a quote here and there. To do so is misleading. Indeed, I've seen cases where Herzl and Ben Gurion have been taken completely taken out of context, quotes mangled, words missing; and I think that using their voices in such a manner is problematical. In fact I think they're probably rolling in their graves.

In any case, we can't go backwards. We can only go forwards. It is extremely important that we work for real world solutions to problems that exist NOW. I have yet to hear a solution or an idea. To me, this suggests that perhaps the goal of many such polemics isn't to really help people, but to demonize Israel.

And, it is ALSO important, Wordie, that the symmetry of the situation be recognized. It is wrong to discuss the displaced Palestinians without out also mentioning the displaced Jews, or without respecting the desperate situation of the people who lived in the 19th and 20th centuries, who faced extermination in Europe and again during the war of 1948, and who were victims of violence and expulsion throughout the Middle East.

Sadly, the entire thrust of the post to which I'm responding, is to try and cast the Israelis in a black light, without mentioning the problems they confronted - which were extreme, indeed they were brutal.

It is fine to read the "New Historians" but they make sense only if one ALSO reads the OLD historians. And, it would be wise to read critiques of the "new historians" by their contemporaries and by other scholars.

[Coastie for Truth]

16. You mis-understand some appenders

the "post WW2 pogroms" in Poland, Belarus, and Ukraine are dismissed as a "Zionist-Likudnik Fiction" -- and the suggestion is to leave Palestine (which encompasses Gaza, israel, West Bank, and Jordan) - and go to the "Pale of Jewish Settlement" - or Uganda - or Birobidzhan.

Or just disappear in a manner reminiscent of "Beam me Up Scotty."

And, of course the role of map redrawing victor of WW1 is completely dismissed as more "Zionist Likudnik" fiction.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. No, I think you did, Coastie...

Yr claiming people in this thread think that they'd gladly pay more for gas if the Israelis are resettled somewhere else? Bullshit. The ONLY post I've seen in this thread close to those lines was post #1 which was referring to Palestinians and is now deleted...

Violet...

[Wordie]

17. Any group that initiates a massive influx of people into an area populated

by another group is likely to experience "problems" both extreme and brutal. Those problems in this case, btw, have nothing inherently to do with anti-semitism. That is one reason why there are now international organizations to make sure those sorts of occupations of another people's territory do not occur (UN, International Court of Justice). Do you really think it is misleading to say that there was already a substantial majority population of arabs in Palestine in the 19th century? And that there were relatively few Jews, in comparison with that population? That's where it all started, and to say those 19th century events didn't lead directly to those events in 1948 is misleading.

Any "old historian," or anyone else, who says that there wasn't a huge majority of Palestinians in the area, in both the 19th century and 1948 has twisted the facts. The facts themselves were not at all symmetrical. And because the Palestinians were not responsible for the European treatment of the Jews, to presume that they should suffer so badly as a result of it is insensitive, at minimum.

Why is it that you spend a lot of time discussing that history, but when points are brought up that refute what you say, you go on to "...we can't go backwards. We can only go forwards."

Btw, are you saying you dispute the quotes I cited (either the quote of Ben Gurion, or the comments of Herzl's envoys)? Because it sorta sounds like you are, but then again, it isn't entirely clear.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. Nothing in Wordie's post tried to cast the Israelis in a black light...

The link he supplied contained facts that are not in dispute, so maybe you could be a bit more specific and give examples of what yr talking about...

Also, when it comes to the New Historians, I think it'd be wise for people to read them and not just rely on critiques they agree with before criticising them. I'm also not at all sure why you think the New Historians only make sense if one also reads the old historians. I've read both, and both make sense without having to have read any of the others. Why the new historians and their discarding of the version of Israel's history where Israel behaved perfectly and was pure and noble all the time is that unlike in earlier years, historians like Benny Morris had access to newly declassified military documents which gave a much more reliable version of events.....

Violet...

[Wordie]

22. True, because I also do understand the situation from the Israeli/Jewish

POV. I am a Westerner, and as such, I understand why the state of Israel was created. I just don't know if one can reasonably expect a non-Western person to be so sympathetic.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. I definately don't expect the Palestinians to be so sympathetic...

It doesn't make sense that anyone would expect them to be. After all, after being discriminated against by the Zionists (eg boycotting of Arab labour, and closing membership of trade unions to Jewish only members), they then lose their land when the state of Israel is created, and many of them are expelled or forced to flee and then not allowed to return to their homes. Much the same way as I don't expect so much sympathy towards them from European immigrants to Israel at the time, I don't expect the Palestinians to have so much sympathy for the reason why the state of Israel came into being....

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

25. I'm glad you understand why the state of Israel was created.

I also don't know why people from other parts of the world SHOULDN'T understand. It would be helpful if people TRIED TO EXPLAIN IT TO THEM.

Instead, many governments, including some in the West as well as the Soviet Union, many NGO's and many "liberal" organizations, have in fact actively worked against Israel from day #1, in fact before day #1 this started, with some devastating results which deserve study.

Some of the this, after WWII, was to counterbalance Western influence in the region, and Israel got caught in the middle - I think that was the primary problem with the Soviets. In other cases, it's been a simple matter of playing "The Great Game" in order for major powers and the oil industry to keep control of the Middle East. Again, instead of a multinational, UN driven approach to create peace, to find rational solutions that would accomodate both Israelis and Arabs, discord has been deliberately fostered. Some of the problem lies with the UN itself, which has hardly been balanced and in fact has finally confronted the fact, in the human rights area, that it needs to reform.

A great deal of the reason that Palestinians still live in camps rests directly at the feet of the Arab League. They have REFUSED to accept Israel's existence, boycott her economically, won't assimilate the Palestinians. It is too convenient to have a local enemy - Israel - rather than confront the need for governmental reform, modernization, jobs, ethnographic and religious acceptance, minority rights. I will say this is beginning to change, very slowly. There are reports that Israeli goods, such as irrigation equipment, are indeed traded throughout the Arab world, but only clandestinely. Meanwhile, everybody suffers.

And, if the discord were merely limited to the I/P situation you could say, well, it's just that particular problem, caused by the creation of Israel, which is upsetting people because they don't understand.

But it isn't just this one problem. Violence has been endemic in the M.E. for decades. There have been so many wars I have forgotten them all. But the 1970's and 1980's alone saw millions of people killed, in Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and beyond. After the Soviet Union fell, we've had 2 wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan and terrorism all over the map.

Israel is one tiny part of this very huge and troubled area. She didn't CAUSE the problems, she reflects them.

And, a HUGE problem today, for Israel as well as for American and European Jews, is the sad fact that we're taking the hit for the war in Iraq.

But worst of all, in my opinion, is the fact that the supposedly progressive left has become completely unbalanced on this topic. The British Academic Union, certain powerful Christian organizations, NGOs, seem completely unable to respect the fact that Israel is neither the cause of all these problems, and nor is she isolated, that the Middle East and Africa are undergoing radical changes, and that millions and millions of people have been displaced, killed in wars, famines, genocides, droughts, and epidemics, just since WWII.

The problems in Israel, and for the Palestinians, are serious. But they cannot be solved unless and until people confront the regional problems as a whole, and this includes the lack of ability for people to accept each other - to accept that people are different but that isn't necessarily BAD - and to accept change.

These problems, which include the fact that ancient societies are being forced into the modern world, that tribal conflicts are still capable of killing a million people in 3 months, that AIDS is ravaging a continent, that religious fundamentalism and violent extremism threaten the well-being of us all, that radical governments will soon be nuclear powers, that growing populations in arid lands with few resources have and will result in widespread famine, should be the true focus of us all.

We need to see Israel in perspective.

[Wordie]

27. Perspective: the creation of Israel was a tremendous injustice to the Pals

(even if it was a just thing for the Jewish refugees of Europe).

Everything else must be seen in that light. That's the perspective that you don't see, CB. It's why so many of the things that you find so unfair to Israel have happened. And that's why so many on the left continue to support the Pals quest for a just solution, and believe a just solution does not include any more loss of land and economic prospects (which is what the loss of Jerusalem, for instance, which is the center of the Palestinian economy, would result in for the Palestinians, as would the loss of fertile land in the Jordan Valley). Yet the left is continually reviled by those who support Israel without question as "loony," at best, or even "anti-semitic." You distort the situation by calling us "the supposedly progressive left." Are you saying "true progressives" do not criticize Israel? Sheesh.

Try considering it from the Palestinian position and many of these thing that you find so hard to understand will suddenly make sense.

[Violet_Crumble]

28. Very well said, Wordie...

I couldn't have put it better myself...

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

29. I find your monopolization of the term "Progressive" a bit arrogant.

when were you elected Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Progressive Faith and Chairman of the Progressive Credentials Committee?

You posted

Yet the left is continually reviled by those who support Israel without question as "loony," at best, or even "anti-semitic." You distort the situation by calling us "the supposedly progressive left." Are you saying "true progressives" do not criticize Israel?

by which you seem to imply that supporters of Israel are all NeoCon, Likud, Bushies who subscribe to racism and can never be Preogressives.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. You replied to the wrong poster...

Wordie was commenting that the poster he was replying to seems to have claimed a monopoly on the use of the word progressive....

Uh, Wordie implied nothing close to what you claimed, which is no surprise, I guess.

Violet...

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[Coastie for Truth]

36. Thank you oh so very much.

:hi: :hi:

[Violet_Crumble]

42. What for?

And why did my post get deleted?? Talk about a bizarre sort of day!

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

39. Yeah. I think it was a Coastie 'moment'...

Who knows what that was about...

[Violet_Crumble]

46. Okay, I'll ask again...

What linkie? There wasn't any link in my post...

[Colorado Blue]

47. Wait a second. THE WAR was a terrible injustice to every-

body involved. The creation of Israel wasn't an injustice! I don't know why that in and of itself is seen as unjust. Nobody gave Israel a chance! They were right away, convinced that it was evil and tried to wipe it off the map. Wasn't THAT unjust?

What was unjust and IS unjust, is the fact that people were dragged into a violent, brutal war. The UN partition called for the creation of an Arab state as well as Israel. What happened to it? I'll tell you what happened: it was absorbed by Jordan, which in fact IS the eastern 78% of the Palestine Mandate. No "Palestine" was ever created and when the chance was once again looking very strong for peace and for the Palestinian state, Arafat turned it down and a war, the intifada - which reputable journalists say was planned - broke out instead.

I do believe that solutions can be found but they must involve many parties and that especially includes the immediate neighbors of Israel, already home to 4.5 million people, descendants of the original refugees, who are a stone's throw from Israel, yet can't call those places home, and who haven't been allowed to make new lives for themselves.

Creating millions of new victims by trying to get rid of Israel, is unjust. It won't undo past tragedies.

I believe that constantly informing the world that the creation of Israel was unjust or a mistake, is wrong. It is fueling a conflict that diplomacy and the language of forgiveness and reconciliation, could heal. And, it's demonizing an already tiny minority - 0.02% of the world's population - and threatening once again to overwhelm us in a tsunami of antisemitism, to borrow the term from the British rabbi.

If you think that isn't a fact, think again. If you think THAT isn't unjust - think again.

Make no mistake - I empathise with the Palestinian people more than you might know. I am a Jew. My people have been expelled from their homes, victimized, scorned and persecuted for thousands of years. The situation of the Palestinian refugees has upset me since I was a child.

Most recently, 8,000 Jews lost their homes in the cause of peace. They were forced from their homes in Gaza. Before that, people lost their homes in the Sinai, when that was returned to Egypt. Before that, people lost their homes on the West Bank and throughout the Middle East, after the war of 1948.

Many of the Gaza evictees aren't doing so well. They are suffering from depression, from a loss of their livelihoods, from farms and greenhouses and businesses they'd created. Do you think we don't understand the Palestinians? We do.

What I don't understand are "progressives" who think creating new victims is a just solution to former injustices, or who believe that no injustices were committed by Palestinians, or who don't see the ethnic cleansing of the entire Middle East when they speak of the Palestinian catastrophe.

In this regard I most especially speak of people who blindly insist that Israel's borders, in 2006, should reflect those that existed, several wars ago, in 1949. This also includes the "right of return". 4.5 million people can't FIT into a state that is smaller than Lake Erie and has no natural resources, and is already suffering from its problems with poverty as it tries to maximize its very poor land - more than half of which is the moonscape of the Negev. And, that would of course nullify the existence of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.

Insisting on THIS solution is reactionary, it is anything but progressive, and once again it will lead to more victims and more violence.

I do believe, though, that a combination of Jordanian and West Bank resources, with some sort of link to Gaza, could well work as a viable Palestinian state, though it would probably make more sense to federate with Jordan itself. Jordan is 70% Palestinian as it is. A solution can be worked out in Jerusalem, but only in an atmostphere of security and peace.

In regard to Gaza, many Gazans have relatives, family, in Egypt. Why can't they be given the option to become Egyptian? I think it makes perfect sense, yet it is considered sacreligious to suggest such a thing. The Egyptian government limits immigration of Palestinians in order to "preserve the Palestinian identity". Yet, no borders, no modern states as we see them today, existed in the not so distant days of the Ottoman Empire.

Is insisting on this national identity more important that seeing Palestinians lead peaceful, safe and productive lives? After all I am a member of "Israel" in the sense of Israel the people, but am a proud citizen of America. What about the policy of maintaining the Palestinian identity while making the Palestinians miserable, is progressive or even makes a smidgeon of sense? Can you answer me?

In any case it is absolutely critical to compensate the people who are still living in camps and get them on their feet. It is critical that the Jews who lost their homes and livelihoods after 1948 also be compensated and THEIR losses recognized and respected as well. That is more important than trying to return to the world that existed before 1948, or to endlessly punish Israel for existing.

I have NEVER called people who defend the rights of Palestinians "loony". I do believe many who attack Israel are antisemitic and am unapologetic about that. Endless attacks on a tiny state, the only homeland in the world of a tiny and obviously threatened minority, are defacto biased against that state and those people. I don't see how a thoughtful person can deny that.

In the end, progressive politics must evolve, they cannot be imposed, and they can only emanate from a concensus, from a center. They can't be enforced from the wings or from radical points of view or with bombs.

And I absolutely will reiterate what I've stated above, in my previous post, and add a final note: the world needs people who can fight the really enormous battles that threaten entire continents. The world needs people who can look the AIDS epidemic the eye, who can confront the horrors in Uganda and Sudan, who aren't afraid to think about famine, environmental catastrophe and economic disaster, about nuclear war, and fight to create sane and balanced policies to combat those horrors before they spread.

Will you join me?

[Wordie]

48. You aren't seeing my point, CB.

The creation of Israel was justice for the Jews, who had suffered such injustice at the hands of the Europeans.

The creation of Israel was an injustice for the Palestinians who were not responsible for that European injustice to the Jews.

You see? Both are true. And of course you will quote exceptions, on and on. But those will miss the larger point. This is why this situation is so difficult to solve, because the Israelis can't see the injustice to the Palestinians, that motivates Palestinian actions. And the Palestinians can't see the injustice to the Israelis, that motivates the Israeli actions. And further, one of the primary reasons that neither can see the injustices suffered by the other is that they both are focused on the injustices to their own people (not unusual, or surprising really).

Because this conflict involves territory which belonged to the Palestinians (no matter what overlord might be operating at any given time - they lived there for centuries before any major influx of Jewish people, whether or not there was always a small population of Jews living there isn't relevant to the argument), AND because they already gave up a major portion of that territory when the state of Israel was created, AND because although there was indeed a terrible injustice done to the Jews, the Palestinians were in no way responsible for that injustice, which was primarily a European horror, I believe the onus is greater on the Israelis to compromise now.

I've said this several times now, and you don't seem really to understand what I'm saying. I really do wish that you would take some time to carefully consider what I'm trying to communicate here. Again, I realize how difficult what I'm asking you to consider is; it's a different way of looking at things than you have been. Anyway, I wish that you would just think about it for a while. Turn it around, look at it from a different side.

[Colorado Blue]

50. OK. I think what we are not agreeing on, is that the very

idea of this tiny Jewish state, was de facto an injustice to the Palestinians.

WHY? It wasn't disenfranchising Palestinians. It was the war which caused the exodus and the diaspora of the Palestinians, not the creation of the state or the UN partition per se.

I think that's what I have never understood, why in all the enormous space of the Arab world, a space smaller than Lake Erie couldn't be shared.

Also, look at the enormous opportunities this presented, a chance to interface with different cultures, to share in economic opportunity and take advantage of the world which, in fact, Israel did create: universities, hospitals, scientific and research facitilities, museums, factories, advanced agriculture in what had been desert and swamp.

Much of this was already in place in 1948, and in the decades previously, the economic welfare and population of the Palestine Mandate, west of the Jordan, had increased dramatically due in large part to the Jewish immigration and enterprise. They ATTRACTED Arab immigration due to improved economic conditions.

So that isn't really an injustice, it's an opportunity. Think what could grow from this, if only it were given a chance.

Churchill, in response to the White Papers which limited land sales and immigration to Jews in the 1930's, remarked that it seemed unfair for the Jews to suffer from the immigration of Arabs which they had in fact caused.

Obviously, there were culture clashes, which al Husseini in particular exploited. He himself was horrified by women in shorts. And, he was a sort of proto-Islamist and a panArabist - not interested in Palestinian statehood.

But also, moderate Palestinian families, people who may well have been interested in a different outlook, were victimized along with Jews.

I don't think one can underestimate the impact of these decades of internal violence and conflict in the Palestine Mandate, in forming the attitudes toward the eventual partition and establishment of Israel. The fact that this already complex situation coincided with and was affected by, World War II, made matters acutely worse.

And, I don't think we can look at the still extant clan, familial, tribal and religious conflicts within the general area and not see echoes of the past.

Ah well. I guess we're at an impasse. I don't see Israel's mere existence as an injustice to the Palestinians.

I see the violence, the loss of opportunity, the shuttered minds, as injustices to everybody. And I'm curious: what would this region be like, WITHOUT Israel?

Anyway, what we need now are people who can somehow move forward. We can't undo what has been done. We can't get anywhere by preaching violence and death, as is all too common - I've seen transcripts of recent speeches in the P.A. and also in Lebanon - that are frightening, horrific. We somehow need to change the paradigm, the way people see the situation, so we can help people in their actual, day-to-day existence.

Finally, your statement, "I believe the onus is greater on the Israelis to compromise now," is in fact what has happened. The Israelis HAVE compromised. They've uprooted thousands of people, in the Sinai, in Gaza, on the West Bank. They're actually pouring millions of dollars into clearing areas of Gaza so the Palestinians can use them. They're working with Jordan and the P.A. on joint water, desalinization and power projects. They're trying what they can to avoid harming innocent people.

But there is a limit as to how far they CAN go, if the Palestinians won't meet them part way.

The one essential key to the whole thing, is the Israelis' need to live without fear of being blown off the map. Unless and until the violent militias, with their endless howls of destruction, are disarmed and somehow absorbed into a peaceful society, I don't see how further withdrawals are possible or wise. The withdrawal from Gaza just brought the rockets closer, the armament in Lebanon is formidable.

For my part, though, let's say I was an Israeli leader. I would try and rein in the extremist settlers on the West Bank. I would make it very clear to everybody that the Palestinian people are brothers, not to be harmed. I would try and figure out ways peaceful commerce could grow and probably, an international solution to East Jerusalem. I would try and encourage the idea that, just as Arabs live in Israel, so Jews should be able to live in the Palestinian areas. I don't think this would fly. But I would try, and I would also promote ability of people to study and interact, across the line, while still trying to maintain security.

What, as a Palestinian, would YOU do?

[Wordie]

51. The question:

I read your post CB, and find myself still wondering if in many ways you see the point I was trying to make. There were some things I really appreciated, like the comments about reining in extremist settlers. So thanks for that. I think the problem is that we may be relying on different information to shape our views, but I really don't want to get into all that right now, because what stopped me in my tracks was this:

What, as a Palestinian, would YOU do?

And I really stopped and considered that question. I tried to put myself in the shoes of a Palestinian, and you know what happened? I was filled with the most overwhelming sense of dispair.

I won't go into any more details than that, but will continue to consider the question later (right now I just don't want to deal with it - I'm worn out from all the worry about what Sharon's illness might do to the hopes for peace) and have bookmarked this thread for a time when perhaps I can answer.

[Colorado Blue]

52. That's great, Wordie. I appreciate your concern for the future

because of Sharon's illness. We were counting on him to move things forward and now I'm worried the Right will regain control.

However, Kadima led by Olmert would probably gain, right now, more than 40 seats in Knesset. So don't despair.

Never, ever despair.

I'll look forward to hearing your comments when you've thought about it for awhile.

Take care.

[Colorado Blue]

54. I wanted to say one more thing.

That overwhelming sense of despair? Welcome to my world.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. My question is do you agree with IanDB's post...

n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

30. It's probably best not to answer...

The post was bigoted and was deleted, so I wouldn't want to put you on the spot...

:)

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

44. For the record, I'm putting you on "ignore".

[Violet_Crumble]

45. "Ignore"? Doesn't affect me...

n/t

[spun_in_montana]

4. IanDB1, I respectfully have to

disagree, that is not a path to peace but a "hard party line", to which you are more than entitled to.

Back to the OP, when I first heard of the "sniper school" I had an "it figures" moment.
This guy was good, too good. Corrupt and evil but good at it.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. Viewpoints like the one expressed in post #1..

I agree with you that it's a "hard party line". Attempts to ignore facts and to deny the history of people is something the extremists do on both sides of the equation, and in both cases, those who espouse such views don't realise what fools they make of themselves as they studiously ignore facts and history in order to cling to their denial (and this sort of thing is denial). If this was the first time the poster had expressed this view at DU, I think it would have been worth pointing them to some material so they can learn, but in a case where the same thing is being repeated, it's a waste of time, as nothing at all will shake their viewpoint, and facts aren't welcome...

Violet...

[Wordie]

14. We now return to our regular programming...

(in other words, the actual topic of the OP)

How is it that Abramoff was allowed to funnel funds to a militant overseas organization, yet he didn't wind up in Gitmo?

OK, that really overstates the case, but the question still remains, if we have NSA picking up overseas conversations regarding funding of militants, among other things, why didn't they pick up this?

Or, maybe they did???

[bemildred]

19. There are no principles at work, it's all self-interest and expediency.

The muslims are in Gitmo because someone's interest - as they construe it - is to have them there "under investigation", and the money is funnelled to these thieves for the same reason. This is why the rule of law is considered a good thing, because if prevents this sort of feckless buffoonery, but unfortunately the US abandoned the rule of law long ago, if it ever adhered to it at all.

[Coastie for Truth]

21. Because that "Militant Overseas Organization" is not a direct threat to

BIG OIL - they are not attacking oil refineries, or oil fields, or oil tankers or establishing a Euro denominated oil bourse.

It's all about BIG OIL and BIG OIL'S BIG MONEY.

Come on, didn't you read or ? And, yes, I did read "America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order" by Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke per your suggestion -- non-responsive to this issue and a distinct minority position.

[Jim Sagle]

24. Whadda buncha shit.

[Colorado Blue]

26. Good point.

[Coastie for Truth]

32. Agreement. NT

[Violet_Crumble]

34. There was no point...

Calling something a buncha shit is NOT making a point. Making a point involves saying something constructive, which that sure wasn't...

Violet...

[Wordie]

37. Good point that there was no point. ::amused::

[bloom]

40. Absolutely

:)

[Coastie for Truth]

41. That would kill the whole thread - nothing constructive

:hi:

[Violet_Crumble]

43. Nah, it didn't kill the thread...

One comment saying nothing constructive and one or two agreements aren't capable of killing a thread....


Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

49. Hi!

:hi:

[Englander]

55. Well, that's odd.

This thread contains 50+ posts, & only one post even *mentions* the subject
of the article that started it, the corrupt, "super-Zionist", Abramoff, & his
illegal activities.