why blame Israel for fighting back

[rini]

In the late 1950s and 1960s I spent a fair amount of time covering crises and wars in the Middle East - Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Algeria - always from the Arab (Muslim) side. To this day, I've never been to Israel. In those days, our media were mostly sympathetic with Israel and against the Arabs. But today, CBC reporters who cover the Middle East often seems hostile to Israel when commenting on suicide bombings and Israel's inevitable military response.
CBC's, in fact, much of the media's coverage - and certainly the UN's attitude - is more hostile to Israel than to Palestinian terrorists (which is what suicide bombers are). Today's suicide bombers are a product of indoctrination of the young in Palestinian schools. In the old days, it would have been called brainwashing. A generation of youths has probably been so corrupted to hate it is now incurable.
What's puzzling in media coverage of the Middle East - and more puzzling in governments that should know better - is how Israel is blamed for retaliating against terrorism. Israel is always scolded or condemned for fighting back - Palestinian terrorism is rarely held accountable. Be it terrorist acts by Hizballah, Islamic Jihad, or Hamas, excuses are always made. Historically, Canada has been reluctant to criticize Hizballah or Hamas without also urging restraints on Israel.
Many fair-minded people who criticize Israel don't seem to understand it doesn't initiate violence, it reacts to violence. We know the instigator. When Arafat rejected 95% of the West Bank for a sovereign Palestinian state, it became irrefutable that the goal was not peace, but the elimination of Israel. One gets the feeling this is also the goal of some at the CBC.

http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/worthington_nov16.html

[The Zanti Regent]

1. Two words

Rachel Corrie.

[rini]

2. which has to do with what?

This thread is about the anti-Israel bias in the media, the UN and the world in general; not people who think they have the powers "superwoman."

[drewb]

6. There is no media bias against Israel...

If anything there is a media bias towards Israel.

:dunce:

[arcane1]

10. anti-Israel bias in the media???

what media is that? It ain't in the USA!!!

[edzontar]

11. This is just silly--the US Media is TOTALLY biased...

TOWARD Israel...we can. at least, agree on that?

[Gimel]

24. Maybe the Media isn't to blame

The anti-Israel bias is more in the world media, the BBC, the Islamic sites which have proliferated. Naturally, those seeking to hear both sides of an issue surf the sites and get a load of not only biased but false reports. The left has a penchant for disbelieving the established government policy, and fall right into the propaganda. This creates a sizable number of "dissidents" who feel betrayed in the past by the foreign policy of the US. Accepting the propaganda feels "correct" to them, although they have no ability to judge the true nature of the Islamic claims against the West and against Israel. They even start to forget the impact of the Sept 11, 2001 attacks on the US.

For example take this report on CNN.com. It is a report on demolitions of homes by the US army in Iraq. While this resembles Israel's actions in the West Bank-Gaza, that comparison is denied. Is that pro-Israel?

The official US line is that Iraq and US policy is not that of Israeli policy. No. Home demolitions by the US Army is not the same as home demolitions by the IDF. Who are they trying to fool?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/18/sprj.irq.tactics/index.html

A lot of material in this report, and perhaps deserves a separate thread for discussion, if there is any.

[tinnypriv]

40. Yeah, lots of people have forgotten 9/11 already

What was it that happened again? :eyes:

[Gimel]

58. The impact

What I am referring to is the impact of the event. Of course those immediately affected are still recovering. For most, the shock of the event has worn off after more than 2 years.

[Character Assassin]

30. Four words: I don't think so.

You mean that self-righteous clown who got herself run over?

Oh, silly me, you actually do mean her.

[GabysPoppy]

31. How about a moratorium

And let Rachel Corrie lay at rest.

Between the ISM bestowing sainthood on her and others calling her stupid, everyone forgets that two parents buried a child.

So maybe it's time.

[edzontar]

64. Well put, Gaby--a sensitive response...

To the brutal, mindless, and evil-spirited post of a well-named "individual."

[edzontar]

63. Such a nice, warm, humane post....

You should be proud of yourself.

[bluesoul]

3. That's interesting

According to the author there is only Israel and the "terrorists" on the other side. How about those millions of Palestinian civilians that have to put up with the daily misery, occupation, agriculture demolishmend, daily raids, shootings, losing their homes bulldozed etc.. I guess that does not exist in his mind. And the part about Arafat rejecting a "sovereign" (as though bantustans and limited access equals sovereign" is just more of the right-wing propaganda, which this source is anyway. Toronto Sun? LOL

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. Arafat

His big crime in that part of the peace process was not making a counter proposal. Then he followed it up with support for Intifada I and II. He caused the wall to happen.

[bluesoul]

5. If you

say so...

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. I

do...

[lefty_mcduff]

7. Peter Worthington

Has always been an apologist for Israel. The idea of Worthington screaming about bias is ludicrous. He's always been a right wing thug.

[rini]

12. did you read the article?

[bigrootcanal]

19. Where were the Palestinian civilians in 1948 when their Arab brothers

were trying to kill each and every Jew in Israel? Israel has done what was needed to defend against those that want them all dead.

[Gimel]

25. Interim stage

However, the staged process of building a PEACEFUL Palestinian nation is to allow for a gradual acceptance of security responsibility. Therefore, the initail steps were to give total sovergnty over Areas A, while Isrel would be allowed to patrol surrounding areas. This would be a security measure, although the vision of a peaceful two-state solution, would allow for more security to be in the hands of the PA government.

Because of the second Intifada, the progress was stopped, and regression set in. Isrel had to re-take military control in order to stop the terror attacks. That has to be understood. Hamas gained influence and strength since Oslo. Arafat allowed that to happen, and may have encouraged it.

[jplawne]

35. Even more interesting

According to the author there is only Israel and the "terrorists" on the other side. How about those millions of Palestinian civilians that have to put up with the daily misery, occupation, agriculture demolishmend, daily raids, shootings, losing their homes bulldozed etc.. I guess that does not exist in his mind. And the part about Arafat rejecting a "sovereign" (as though bantustans and limited access equals sovereign" is just more of the right-wing propaganda, which this source is anyway.
Bluesole: First, the millions of people that suffer from the occupation IS reported extensively. This is what we all supposedly want to see improved. The various actions you describe, such as house demolition do not impact millions as you imply, and general involve people who have supported and harboured terrorists in their home so it is far from random. Nevertheless it, along with the others controversial issues, which can understandibly disagree.

What is not well reported is that these are responses to Palestinian terrorism. IT is NOT the cause of terrorism despite the spin and talk or cycle of violence. Before 2000, Palestinians had some of the best heath care, education, employment and services of non-oil producing countries as well as increasing sovereignty. You can disagree that this is ‘right wing propaganda’, but it is well documented, and does not change the issue of Palestinian statehood. It only draws a contrast to the current situation to indicate that the current Palestinian condition is the result of the war they have chose to wage and the massive embezzlement by Arafat whose billions could do a lot to improve the lives of Palestinians. The current daily missery has not been the legacy over the loast 50 years. Moreover, the Palestinians born in Lebanon and Syria are denied citizenship and working rights and are intimidated by the armed groups that control them. Seems though that their condition does not cause them to go out and kill Lebanese families.

As for the Bantustans in the Israeli peace offer, most of the people involved in the negotiations refute this revisionism that came out months after Arafat left Camp David II in July. These politicians include Ambassador Dennis Ross, the chief negotiator for the U.S.; Shlomo Ben-Ami Israel’s chief negotiator; and President Clinton and Prime Minister Barak themselves. I assume you do not want smear all of these people with the Right-wing label, because it would be disingenuous for you to describe any opinion with whom you do not agree as right wing without addressing the issue. The initial Israeli peace offer did include numerous discontinuous states. This is what is called an OPENS POSITION. After many rounds of negotiations, Dennis Ross describes how Arafat offered nothing and suggested nothing other than ‘No.’ In Dec 2000, they group met again at the White House, where Clinton, realizing that negotiations were not going well, put forth the first US plan (before they were merely facilitating). This included: 97% of the West Bank, NO cantons, full control of Gaza, land-links between the two, increase Gaza by 1/3 in exchange for 3% of the West Bank, and control over Arab neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem. Barak said ‘Yes’ as Israel and the US report. Not even Arafat has said otherwise. Arafat, AGAINST THE ADVICE OF HIS NEGOTIATORS, said ‘NO’ without offering a counter proposal. Below is Ross’ describtion of these final days.

"The offer, it is true, was never written down. The reason for this, according to Ross, was the recognition by both the U.S. and Israel of Arafat’s fundamental negotiating tactic of using all concessions as a starting point for future negotiations. Afraid that the leader might once again revert to violence, and expect future settlement offers to be based on the generous concessions offered to him now, President Clinton gave him no written version. Instead, he read it to the Palestinian delegation at dictation speed, “to be sure that it couldn’t be a floor for negotiations... It couldn’t be a ceiling. It was the roof.” The Palestinian negotiators wanted to accept the deal, and Arafat initially said that he would accept it as well. But, on January 2, “he added reservations that basically meant he rejected every single one of the things he was supposed to give.” <8> He could not countenance Israeli control over Jewish holy spots, nor would he agree to the security arrangements; he wouldn’t even allow the Israelis to fly through Palestinian airspace. He rejected the refugee formula as well." Interview with Ross which has not been contradicted by the Clinton.

I challenge you to open your mind to the prevailing facts and evidence from the actual participants in this negotiation. That Arafat made a tragic mistake does not change the perceived need for a Palestinian state. It only continues a long history of Arafat causing tremendous havoc for his own people, as well as Jordanians, Lebanese and Israelis.

[edzontar]

9. Chicken and egg, chicken and egg....

My ball, your ball, etc. etc.

Pointless, as usual.

[Paschall]

13. This is the bump in the road for me

"But their reportage often seems hostile to Israel when commenting on suicide bombings and Israel's inevitable military response."

If Worthington were merely commenting on the cyclical nature of the violence rather than apologizing for it, the word "inevitable" would not bother me. But there is nothing "inevitable" about a military response. And "response," isn't that such a lovely, innocuous word?

I opposed our full-blown military intervention in Afghanistan and, as it stands today, 24 months later, the Afghanis are still not safe in their own capital city, one of the "safest" in the country. Led by the world's only super-power, a UN "coalition" is still not able to quell the violence in the globe's fifth poorest country, a virtual wasteland of dust and ruins. The Palestinians, who are comparatively much richer, better educated, and who are supported more actively by their Muslim co-religionaries, naturally present a far greater challenge to a "military first responder."

Military "response" is NOT the solution to terror.

[jplawne]

36. I prefer defense

Could you share with us what works against terrorists? Has any conflict against terrorists been resolved through negotiations? Should have Algeria, Egypt, Malaysia (1950's) and Peru have negotiated with the terrorists they defeated. Should Nepal negotiate with the Maoist who are slaughtering poor people and policeman? Afghanistan my not be in peace like a suburb in NJ, but it is better than it has been in 25 years. Evidence is that refugees are returning home by the hundreds of thousands. Change takes time, but it is happening and I certainly do not wish the stability of the Taliban back on the Afghanis.

In action to terrorism, as evidenced since the Marine Barracks Bombing until the WTC attacks did nothing to stop terrorism, only encouraged more terrorism and spread (such as the death of hundreds of Africans in the East African embassy bombings.) We do not live in a utopia. Fighting back may not solve the problems, but conflict has existed throughout history so I do not see any other model and if you do not fight back instead of a continuing conflict you might yourself in a gas chamber or ditch with your family

[Paschall]

60. Why do you assume...

...that when I say a military response is not the solution, that the only other solution is negotiation?

Perhaps you should look into the history of terrorism in Europe, and European response. You might start with December 1994 and the hijacking of Air France flight 8969.

The military incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq were not defensive, but offensive.

You say, Evidence is that {Afghani} refugees are returning home by the hundreds of thousands.

Really? By the hundred of thousands? You mean Afghanis returning voluntarily and not being forced out of neighboring countries where they have taken refuge for years and in even greater number before the US-led invasion? Got a link on that?

[Jack Rabbit]

14. Frankly, I don't blame Israel for fighting back

However, I do blame the Israeli right wing, currently in power, for further obfuscating issues of war and peace. Some elements of that right wing, such as Moledet and Arutz Sheva, are no more in favor of a just peace than are Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

It is true that much of the blame for the present crisis can be put on the door step of Arafat's compound in Ramallah. He is crooked and has too long milked the PA cow for his own benefit at the expense of his own people; for that reason, he may not wish to see a settlement on terms that might threaten his own hold on power. He walked out of Camp David instead of making a counteroffer. He has failed, by accident or design, to reign in terrorists. He has undermined moderate forces among the Palestinians who could deal more effectively with Israel to end the occupation. To be sure, Arafat is not blameless.

However, General Sharon has never seen a peace propsal that he has liked. He was a sworn enemy of the Oslo agreement, which he criticized most loudly when it showed the most promise. He has long been a champion of the vision of Greater Israel, a vision of a Jewish state stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea; this vision is in direct conflict with any form of Palestinian nationalism, even those which make room for a Jewish state. He has stood for the continued building of Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian Terrirtories, an act that is in violation of international law and, even if it were not, makes ending the occupation more difficult. He has appointed hardliners to his cabinet such as Benny Elon, who advocates the transfer (ethnic cleansing) of Arabs from Greater Israel.

Arafat and Sharon are not working in concert to destroy any peace hopes, but they may as well be. They couldn't have done a more effective job of scuttling the road map if they had planned it together. Each man has behind him the worst elements of the political worlds of each nation. One man had no intention of reigning in terrorists; the other had no intention of dismantling settlements. Arafat needs the militants; Sharon needs the settlers and ultras. Both men are afraid to make peace for fear of losing their power base.

For this reason, unfortuntely, there will probably be little hope of a final peace agreement until both have passed from the scene.

[jplawne]

38. False equivocations

Jack Rabbit: I do not like defending Sharon, but so many inaccuracies and false equivocations are drawn between Sharon and Arafat in general that a response is warranted

Oslo: you criticize Sharon for rejecting Oslo, which he did because he did not trust the PLO. But has not history proven him right now that Oslo is dead. With all the violations of Oslo on both sides (which is very common in negotiations such as in Ireland) the inability of the PA to stop supporting terrorism from 1994-2000 outweighs everything else by far. They used violence as a negotiating tactic and it failed and destroyed the Labor government and Peace Now movement. Sharon is not some monolithic Right Wing creature. For example he was responsible for withdrawing from the Sinai peninsular and the settlers that lived there. Moreover, though Sharon has opposed withdrawal from the West Bank for strategic reasons (remember the half dozen countries that were out war with Israel for 50 years?), he has made it clear that he supports a Palestinian state (probably because Israel’s strategic situation has never been better). By the way, Settlement in the territories;
a) have never been found to be in violation of International Law, so the most you could say it that it is alleged.
b) It is in fact not a violation of International Law. If you want to discuss this, do some research and please do not just repeat ‘yes it is' because it clearly is not illegal for people to live anywhere in their soverign territory which the disputed territories are accoding to UN resolution 242.
c) The idea that Jews cannot live in Gaza and West Bank but Arabs can live in Israel is racist. Jews lived in the placed like Hebron and Jerusalem (now known as East Jerusalem) continuously for thousands of years and were thrown out in 1948.

Should the Settlements continue is another question all together, but not supported by the International Law argument. For the most part, most new homes that you read about are in already existing towns that are on 3% of the territories, mostly near the border. The new settlements (hill top trailers and all that) can easily be removed, have been in the past, and leaves the issue for the negotiating table. They should not be removed in exchange for the ceasing to kills Jews and Palestinian terrorists and militias have been killing Jews since before the settlements and before Israel.

In the end, Sharon’s election did not destroy the peace plan, but because it was already destroyed. If the Palestinians want a different partner, they only need to put forward a viable peace partner and stop terrorism and the Israelis will vote Sharon out. He was voted in to defend Israel against the most recent terrorism that started in 1993. This is the history of Israeli politics; Labor is voted in during times of hope and Likud in times of defence

[Violet_Crumble]

39. Settlements....

By the way, Settlement in the territories;
a) have never been found to be in violation of International Law, so the most you could say it that it is alleged.

No, not alleged at all. Israel's a High Contracting Party to the Fourth Geneva Convention, which IS international law. Every High Contracting Party (bar Israel for the obvious reason that the offending party is never going to admit to violating the law) to the Convention has agreed that the Convention is applicable to the situation in the Occupied Territories. And the section of the Fourth Geneva Convention that relates to settlements is this: 'The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.' As the government of Israel actively encourages Israelis to move to the Occupied Territories, gives them financial incentives to do so, and provides them with their own security force in the form of the IDF, the Israeli government is complicit in transferring parts of its civilian poplulation into the territory it occupies. The Convention says nothing about parts of a civilian population having to be moved unwillingly and by force, and I doubt the situations that caused this Convention to be created were ones where the civilian population was moved by force...

b) It is in fact not a violation of International Law. If you want to discuss this, do some research and please do not just repeat ‘yes it is' because it clearly is not illegal for people to live anywhere in their soverign territory which the disputed territories are accoding to UN resolution 242.

Really? Where does Resolution 242 say that the Occupied Territories is Israeli sovereign territory? (note: disputed is a misleading term meant to try to assert sovereignty over territory that's occupied. The Occupied Territories are no more 'disputed' than East Timor was). See, if the West Bank and Gaza Strip were indeed under Israeli sovereignty, and in fact part of Israel, one would think that sometime over the past few decades Israel would have granted Israeli citizenship to all those Palestinians living there. And if Israel hasn't done so, why are people trying to claim that Israel's a democracy, when clearly refusing to grant citizenship to people living there based on their ethnicity makes it anything but? Under an occupation, the occupier does have a form of temporarysovereignty, but that is meant to be short-term, and with that temporary sovereignty comes obligations towards the civilian population from the occupier that Israel hasn't met

If you think the Occupied Territories are 'disputed' or that they're in fact part of Israel and Israel has full sovereignty over them, could you explain how you come to this conclusion? Israel, from everything I've read, holds absolutely no valid claim over these areas...

c) The idea that Jews cannot live in Gaza and West Bank but Arabs can live in Israel is racist. Jews lived in the placed like Hebron and Jerusalem (now known as East Jerusalem) continuously for thousands of years and were thrown out in 1948.

Uh, I think the whole idea is Israelis can't just live outside of Israel as Israeli citizens living under Israeli law and ignoring the laws and customs of wherever they're living. That's not racist at all, that's just plain common sense, and something that citizens of other countries can't do either. Why do you think it's acceptable for Israelis to behave in a way that is unacceptable for citizens of other states?

As for people being displaced in 1948. Please don't pretend that it was only Jews who were displaced when that's clearly not true at all. Way too many people were displaced, whether they were Arab or Jewish, and I think what's way more important that people were displaced (one of those unfortunate effects of war which is why I despise war) than what those people were...

Violet...

[jplawne]

48. Settlements, law and apple pie

Hey Violet:
No, not alleged at all:
my use of the word alleged means innocent until proven guilty. No one has convicted Israel of violation of International Law. You may think that some or all laws are so clear, that a finding of guilt is not required, but in fact a basic concept of law is that one needs to be found guilty by an accredited body, otherwise it is alleged. As far as other (but not all) High Contracting Parties that believe that Israel is in violation, this has no validity. Foreign Ministers of nations are not in any way legitimate juries or judges of International Law under any convention I know of, nor would they be, because they are not independent judges or juries, but representatives of their states foreign policy. So again what you express and what you claim others express is an opinion or allegation, nothing more.

Part of section 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention does read as below:
'The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.'
So what is the meaning of the world transfer, on which the entire claim rests.
-First, it is exactly the opposite of what you write that you doubt that this refers to ‘forceible’ transfer. The clause was written after WWII mainly in response to Germany deporting its own populations (non-Aryan Germans) and others as it annexed territory and giving their property to Germans both moving of their own will and also forced which they did to their peasants.
-That the Israeli government is in ways complicit in Israelis moving to West Bank is an interesting point. The conclusion that selling Israelis state owned land and providing protection is the same as the government transferring is an abstract leap that ambiguous at best. Israelis move OR RETURN of their own free will, with government assistance. This does not strike me as the proactive act of transferring. For example, I might give my son a car and gas money, but if he drives to the movies, I am not transferring him! You might have a great closing argument in front of a judge or jury, but again its ambiguity only proves my point that one cannot just read the document and adjudicate in a chat room.

Which brings me to the relevance of article 49. The 4th Convention is an agreement between High Contracting Parts, which is defined as sovereign states. We first need to review history to understand the sovereignty of this land.

Before the creation of Israel that entire area which included the area that is now called Jordan was managed as a Mandate under the League of Nations. Under that Mandate Jews were allowed to live anyone west of the Jordan River (a bigoted concession to Arabs) and Arabs could live anywhere. This was the delineation because Jews had in fact lived in all these areas for thousands of years. So we have British sovereignty and Jews living in the area now known as Israel and the disputed territories

The UN partition plan called for two states and protection for minorities in each. Israel accepted and declared Independence thus being handed and establishing their sovereignty. Arabs rejected the partition plan and the idea of Palestinian national identity and thus rejected sovereignty under a Palestinian state. On Dec 1st, 1948, at the 2nd Palestine Arab conference, the Arabs that lived in the West Bank asked to be joined to Jordan. Jordan annexed the West Bank illegally, which was not recognized by the UN. They also killed or kicked out the Jews that had lived there for thousands of years and burned 58 synagogues.

In 1967, in a defensive war, Israel occupies the West Bank after invasion by Jordan.

So what do we know so far: 1) Israel comes into possession of illegally annexed Jordanian land. There are no other legitimate historical or legal claims to the land or past sovereign coming forward. Jordan would later renounce its claim to the territory. 2) Historically under the Ottoman Empire, the British Mandate and the UN partition plan, Jews can and have lived in the areas West of the Jordan River.

Palestinians, having never had sovereignty over the land, and in fact rejecting it, are NOT High Contracting Parties. In fact, in Point 11 of UN resolution 194, people are called ‘the refugees’, not Palestinians, since the UN recognized that the Arabs in the region were still only Arabs since they never accepted sovereignty. Thus, the issue of settlements does NOT involve two High Contracting Parties and is NOT an international dispute, which is to what the Geneva Convention applies. This is why North Korea, Cambodia and Iraq were never in violation of International law as they killed and starved millions; there was no International dispute.

Perhaps the Convention applies even if there is no international dispute (ie; a dispute between two sovereign parties) or perhaps it should if it is ambiguous. In fact the Convention is NOT ambiguous regarding internal disputes. The convention explicitly carves out minimal protection and conduct for people in domestic issues occurring within the territory of one Contracting Party. These minimal standards do not include Article 49 or the rest of the convention. In other words it explicitly does not give a domestic party the right to prohibit people moving into their territory for a very fundamental reason: it would license ethnic groups to prohibit citizens of the contracting party to live in their self-declared area: clearly a racist and dangerous idea that would be counter to human rights and something to which no sovereign state would agree. Thus, Kurds in Turkey and Iraq have no right to prohibit Arabs and Turks from moving into their historical lands, because they are part of the same nation.

Where does Resolution 242 say that the Occupied Territories is Israeli sovereign territory?
242 1.i and 1.ii asked Israel to remove themselves from territories (not ‘all’ which was explicitly debated and was not included) and all parties to terminate all hostilities and to live in peace. This was supposed to be the basis for resolution, and no timetable was given. Israel was not unilaterally asked to withdraw from any territory. Hence, Israel’s sovereignty was recognized over the land acquired in the war until agreements could be reached with various parties, under the commonly accepted idea that land acquired in a defensive war is the sovereignty of the defender until a peaceful resolution is brought about. Arab nations rejected this agreement with “the three no’s.” Land was not given back until Egypt and Jordan agreed to a peace treaty. The only international land claims remain with Syria. Nowhere in 242 is their a requirement to grant a homeland to Palestinians or give back all land. Hence anything not asked for by others sovereign parties, remain Israel’s. (note this is a security council resolution which is binding under the UN charter. Other, later General Assembly resolutions are only considered suggestions and are not binding)

(See, if the West Bank and Gaza Strip were indeed under Israeli sovereignty, and in fact part of Israel, one would think that sometime over the past few decades Israel would have granted Israeli citizenship to all those Palestinians living there. And if Israel hasn't done so, why are people trying to claim that Israel's a democracy, when clearly refusing to grant citizenship to people living there based on their ethnicity makes it anything but?
Now this is the heart of the problem. Through an historical anomaly, Israel is in possession of two territories whose population can threaten its own identity. So what has been the situation since 1948 through the 1990’s? The Arab nations around Israel had refused to make peace with Israel and Palestinian Arabs were waging a terrorist war targeting Jews in Israel and around the world. Also, 70k Palestinians were allowed to return in after 1948 and citizenship was offered to Arabs in Jerusalem which some accepted. So though you theoretical, utopian question is nice, it ignores the basic hostility that continued and repeated invasions and attacks. The point was to resolve the terriroty issues in peace not during war and thus Palestinians were caught in their own patholigical preference for violent resistance and Arab war making. At its narrowest point, Israel is only 11 miles wide. Its priority was to protect its citizens. What it did do was provide Palestinians with the best education and economic conditions of any non-oil country Arab population. Is this enough? No, but compared to the racism of Syria and Egypt against Palestinians born in their nations, is pales into comparison. Now that some nations made peace and the USSR was no more, Israel attempted to resolvethe issue from 1994-2000. Among many things, it turns out the states there were still officially at war with Israel (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and Syria) continue to fund and support terrorism and do not want a peaceful resolution to the issue. So again Palestinians are caught between regionial politics.

Uh, I think the whole idea is Israelis can't just live outside of Israel as Israeli citizens living under Israeli law and ignoring the laws and customs of wherever they're living. That's not racist at all, that's just plain common sense, and something that citizens of other countries can't do either. Why do you think it's acceptable for Israelis to behave in a way that is unacceptable for citizens of other states?
Ah, but why can’t Jews live under Arabs in a Palestinian state? Because they want to be Israeli or because they would be deprived of the civil, political and religious rights as they were throughout the Middle East for 500 years, and in Jordan after 1948. The point is that if the Arabs accepted the creation of two democratic states in 1948, Jews could live in a Palestinian Arab state. The idea that Jews can’t live in the West Bank it not because Jews want to be Israelis but because Arabs do not want them. The real crime is that the rest of the world has brought into the idea that Jews should not be there, they are legitmate targets for slaughter and no one expects that Arabs to exemplify even the same level of tolerance that people seem to criticize so much in Israel.

As for people being displaced in 1948. Please don't pretend that it was only Jews who were displaced when that's clearly not true at all. Way too many people were displaced, whether they were Arab or Jewish, and I think what's way more important that people were displaced (one of those unfortunate effects of war which is why I despise war) than what those people were...

Agree, it is a horrible part of war no matter whose fault. This is why most ethnic groups reach out to absorb refugees of their same own ethnic group (usually from neighbouring territories). There are 222k Palestinians in Lebanon, 119k in Syria, and 304k in Jordan, most were born there and the rest have been there for 40-55 years. By historical and contemporary definitions these people are NOT refugees, but yet they are refused citizenship. This is important, because a new Palestinian state cannot possibly absorb these people and therefore the PA can not conclude a peace deal with Israel unless citizenship for these Palestinians, which under any normal definition are actually Jordanians etc, is provided by Arabs states.

[The Magistrate]

52. A Couple Of Small Points, Mr. Lawne

There is a difference between whether a person is guilty of violating a law, and whether a law applies to a particular circumstances. You are to a degree conflating arguments here. Israel has not been convicted of violating the Geneva conventions in a court, and so by traditions of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, strictly applied, is only alleged to have violated the conventions. Whether these conventions apply to the current situation of the lands overrun in '67 is a different matter than whether Israel has violated them. This may not require a judge to decide, though certainly, if a case alleging Israel in violation of the Geneva convention in those territories were ever brought before a competent international court, judges would have to decide that to hear the case. The High Contracting Bodies are competent to declare the conventions applicable, because it is a compact among them, and there was no regular judicial body in operation to which that decision is refered by their compact.

Military occupation is not sovereignty, and permitting military occupation to continue is not tantamount to recognizing sovereignty. The "commonly accepted idea that land acquired in a defensive war is the sovereignty of the defender until a peaceful resolution is brought about" is unknown in law: such territory is simply under military occupation by the victor, who is responsible for its administration so long as it remains. The ability unchallenged to enforce martial law is far from legitimate sovereignty. It is quite insufficient to render this thing a mere internal matter of Israel's. Israel itself has foregone any declatation of annexation of this territory, with the exeption of a portion of Jerusalem, and having done so, could hardly expect to be taken seriously if it came before a tribunal to argue as you do, that this is just an internal matter.

[Jack Rabbit]

59. Response to Mr. Lawne's number 38

The territories are occupied; the only dispute rests in the minds of Israel's rightwing and their friends abroad. The settlements are illegal under Article 49, paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949); more importantly, they're simply a roadblock to any meanignful peace agreement.

We will take first the issue of the legality of the serttlements. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention reads:

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.
The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

The last paragraph is the relvant one in this case. If I am wrong, then I am in good company. In 1978, a US state department opinion held that the settlemests were illegal under Article 49. The Mitchell Report says:

(C)ustomary international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, prohibits Israel (as an occupying power) from establishing settlements in occupied territory pending an end to the conflict.

In addition, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Committee for the Red Cross all support the position that the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories violate this clause. The commentary from the ICRC on Article 49 is most instructive here. It reads:

Article 49 is derived from the Tokyo Draft which prohibited the deportation of the inhabitants of an occupied country (2). As a result of the experience of the Second World War, the International Committee of the Red Cross submitted this important question to the government experts who met in 1947. On the basis of the text prepared by the experts the Committee drafted detailed provisions which were adopted in all their essentials by the Diplomatic Conference of 1949 . . . .
(Paragraph 6) was adopted after some hesitation, by the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference (13). It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.
The paragraph provides protected persons with a valuable safeguard. It should be noted, however, that in this paragraph the meaning of the words "transfer" and "deport" is rather different from that in which they are used in the other paragraphs of Article 49, since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power.
It would therefore appear to have been more logical -- and this was pointed out at the Diplomatic Conference (14) -- to have made the clause in question into a separate provision distinct from Article 49, so that the concepts of "deportations" and "transfers" in that Article could have kept throughout the meaning given them in paragraph 1, i.e. the compulsory movement of protected persons from occupied territory.

It would seem from this that the situation that the authors of the Convention wished to prohibit is one where an occupying allows parts of its own population to colonize the occupied territory or supplant the population of the occupied territory. While the word transfer in the other five paragraphs of Article 49 definately has a meaning of forced transfer, the meaning of transfer in paragraph 6 may be either voluntary or involuntary transfer.

The fact that Israel has not forced any individual settler to move to the territories is irrelevant to the legality of the settlements. The fact that the Government of Israel has done nothing to discourage the growth of these settlements, and in fact has promoted them and continues to promote them, is in fact what makes them illegal. Were these in fact settlers moving independently on their own without the GOI subsidizing their housing and if the settlers were providing their own infrastructure and security, rather than the Israeli taxpayer, the case for the legality of the settlements might be a better one. As it is, the settlements are illegal.

How did this situation come about?

Israel fought a war against her Arab neighbors in 1967. Although some on this board will dispute the matter, I hold that Israel's posture was defensive in this war. By the end of the war, Israel had seized much territory from her adversaries. Among these was the West Bank and Gaza Strip, areas that were designated to become a Palestinian state in the late 1940s when Israel was born.

The convention since the end of the second World War has been to reespect national sovereignty. Resolution 242, passed by the United Nations Security Council in the wake of the 1967 war, speaks of "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". In short, Israel could use the territory taken from her adversaries to bargain for peace agreements, but winning a war, even in a defensive posture, gave her no right to make any permanent claim to one square centimeter of land beyond her recognized borders.

However, not everybody wanted to abide by a land-for-peace formula when it came to the Israel and the Palestinian Territories. Jordan had annexed the West Bank in 1950 and didn't reliquinsh its claim on the Palestinian Territory until 1988. The Palestinians themselves refused to recognize Israel and sought to destroy the Jewish state and replace it with what would have been at best a secular Palestine. Arab nations also rejected Resolution 242 after it was passed in 1967.

Nevertheless, the relevant part of our story begins in 1977 with the Likud victory in Israeli elections, bringing Manachem Begin to power as Prime Minister. Until this time, Israel held the land captured in the 1967 for the purpsoe designated. A few sparse settlements were constructed, including one at Ekon Moreh in the West Bank, but nothing that could not be easily dismantled should a peace settlement with the Arabs about. Begin, however, considered the West Bank and Gaza to be an integral part of Israel. He referred to the West Bank by it ancient names, Judea and Samaria, and soon after his election as Prime Minister traveled to Ekon Moreh to call it part of "liberated Israel."

Begin's plan, announced before the Knesset in December 1977, was for Israel to extend its soveignty over the West Bank and Gaza while granted Arabs living in the region a degree of autonomy. Begin allowed Israelis to purchase land in the Occupied Territories and settle there and began the program of encouraging such activity.

One of the biggest supporters of this program was General Ariel Sharon, Begin's Minister of Defense. Sharon shared Begin's vision of a Greater Israel stretching from the River to the Sea. He has in the past expressed his intransignece on matters concerning peace with the Palestinians on nationalist rather than practical grounds.

[Saudade]

15. "Fighting Back"

Only an idiot cannot see that Israel is engaged in the acquisition of land and resources and the "fighting back" stuff is a mere pretext.

It's astonishing to me that this is not obvious to Americans, as it is to most of the rest of the world.

[Gimel]

26. And the Intifada was harmless

No, no excuse at all. The deaths of 580 civilians is inconsequential. No connection at all. Just happened to be that the terrorists were based in the West Bank. No connection to the Oslo process that Israel implemented without Arafat doing his part. Terror increased. It never stopped.

[Jim Sagle]

44. Take a look at a Middle East map sometime.

The Great Landgrabber is barely visible.

[dai]

16. The last line....

The article ends with accusing "some at the CBC" with promoting the elimination of Israel.

Such paranoia does little more than stifle debate. If you don't unconditionally align yourself with Israeli policy, you support eliminating Israel by default? It makes the entire article difficult to take seriously.

[Jack Rabbit]

17. Black-or-white fallacy

The article is based on the black-or-white fallacy. Basically, the argument is presented as a simple choice between two extremes when in reality there are multiple choices. Here, the writer, Mr. Worthington, is focusing on how events are reported. It would seem to be his view that if one is showing hostility to Israel if one is at all critical, and if one is at all critical then one is in league with Arafat, suicide bombers, etc., etc. It doesn't seem to occur to Mr. Worthington that one can condemn suicide bombing and be critical of Israel at the same time. Can't one can think suicide bombing is gastly and that bulldozing someone's house in a inappropriate response that will have no positive effect? One could hold that point of view and not advocate Isreal's elmination.

Another good example of this fallacy, often heard on the right, is that if one is opposed to the US occupation of Iraq, then one favors the return of Saddam to power, as if there might not be some other Iraqi government possible that is neither Baathist nor colonialist.

[bigrootcanal]

18. Many forget that Arabs tried to destroy Israel in 1949

The young and brave Israeli farmers fought them off and Israel started to build a strong defense against future attacks. Well Israel is still being attacked and still defending herself and has out support.

There are still those that want to see Israel destroyed and we are not going to let that happen.

[edzontar]

20. Blah Blah Chickens came first.....

That story can be told two ways, at least, as we all know by now.

How about a constructive suggestion for peace?

[bigrootcanal]

21. Blah blah indeed. The cowardly surrounded Israel and tried to destroy her

You can not spin historical fact that the Arabs were attacking Israel unprovoked and set to destroy her.

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

22. Attack of the clones

oh my!

[Forkboy]

23. A lot of people come to DU

especially for the I/P forum.

[Jim Sagle]

45. Omigod, the pro-Israelis are coming!!!!!!!!!!

Head for them thar hills!!!!!!

[edzontar]

27. I repeat: Chicken and Egg

Israel was carved out of land where Palestinains already lived, and had lived for immemorial centuries.

The mandate was passed in the immediate post-WW2 era, when Arab nationalism was just getting started--it was considered an outrageous colonial land-grab by that side.

But what is the point of fighting this now?

Israel exists--Palestinians exist--let's get to a settlement of the damn thing.

[GabysPoppy]

28. That's your version

In 1948, after the UN voted to give Israel statehood, Jordan and 6 other Arab countries invaded the reborn Jewish homeland, despite the fact that those Arab states were not directly affected by Israel's rebirth. The stated purpose of this invasion was to "push the Jews into the sea", i.e. genocide. What Hitler didn't finish three years earlier, the Arabs would finish once and for all. This is not mere speculation; the Arabs of the former British Mandate of Palestine were led by a Nazi collaborator, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who was up for charges at Nuremberg before escaping in 1946. Entire books have been written on how al-Husseini actively supported Hitler's aim to exterminate the Jews in WWII.

http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/warindep.html

It's always nice to see people drag out UN Resolutions when they approve of them yet when some actions don't agree with their point they are easily forgotten.

[bluesoul]

29. The only ones that are being driven out

of their homes are Palestinians not Israelis. And the talk about "transfer" in Israeli parliament and society is still alive...

[Classical_Liberal]

33. So then Isrealis pushing Palestinians out of their homes

were guilty of more than wishful thinking. Look if Israel had set up a multicultural state, you might have a leg to stand on. They didn't.

[GabysPoppy]

34. They did

"We appeal ... to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the building-up of the state on the basis of full and equal citizenship and representation in all its ... institutions.
"We extend our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and goodwill, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land."

- David Ben-Gurion in Israel's Proclamation of Independence, May 14, 1948

[rini]

47. Thank you

for posting one of my favorite speeches.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. And that's yr version??

Some crap site on the internet that contains hate and racism towards Arabs? Something's telling me that's somehow not a reliable source and isn't much different from someone trying to tell us a version of history from some nasty anti-semitic site....

And yr comment about ignoring UN resolutions is kind of interesting, especially as Mr Ed wasn't ignoring any UN resolutions with what he said in his post, though I think pointing that out was a case of needing to remind oneself that there's times they should take a deep breath and step back slowly from that mirror they're looking into ;)

btw, just out of interest, what 1948 UN Resolution is it that yr talking about? Have you got a link to it so I could have a squizz?

Violet...

[jplawne]

41. break an egg over some facts

Edzontar: Though you say 'what's the point', I will still respond to your historical inaccuracies. The reason is that it is this type of false inflammatory language that convinces the world that Palestinian terrorism is simply a national struggle a'la the 1950's and killing Jews is no different than killing British colonial soldiers or conquistadors.

Arabs have not lived in the areas called Palestine for immemorial centuries. They were immigrants just like Jews. The actual indigenous population of Jews, Christians and Arab (mainly Egyptian) was very small. The League of Nations, UN and colonial powers inherited Middle Eastern land with the demise of the Ottoman Empire. Only Egypt had any historical legitimacy as a nation. The Arabs from the territories (current Palestinians, Jordanians, Syrians and Arab Iraqis) were all of the same ethnic group with NO national identity. The area that was majority Jewish was turned into Israel. Just like the area that was majority Arab (though in contained 100s of thousands of indigenous Jews and Kurds) was turned into Iraq. The act of giving Iraq to the Arabs (who descended from tribes from Arabia and oppressed indigenous Jews and Kurds) is not considered an an act of colonialism. Similarly giving Israel to Jews, who lived there continuously for thousands of years and also began immigrating there in the 1880’s and then formed a majoirty on a few percentage points of the total land is not colonialism and is no different. There is NO such thing as Arab land, just like America is not Native American land or White Christain land. It is a bigoted concept that says only Muslim Arabs can live or rule on the lands that they conquered.

The supposed Palestinian civilization that is claimed to back so far contained only 15k in Jerusalem in 1840 (about half Jews) and 300k total, which included people from all over the Middle East and Mediterranean and did not reflect any kind of national identity. There is no Palestinian culture, literature, art, or language indigenous to that area. Palestine was the name of the territory, like Mojave is the name of a desert. Moreover the partition plan, which the Arabs rejected and Israel accepted, called for equal rights and the allowance of Jews and Palestinian-Arabs to say in one another states. A Jewish state in no way meant a Jewish only state. It was Jewish because that was the majority of the people there. At the end of War, 200k Palestinians remained in Israel and are now a population of 1.2m along with 300k other minorities and share in the democracy that is Israel. Unfortunately, Jews, Christian and other minority populations throughout the Middle East have been decimated by Arab racism and exclusion. Are their Palestinians now; sure, they are Arabs and descendants of other ethnic groups who are the children and grandchildren of people who were made refugees during war and are refused citizenship by Arab countries though most were born there. Israel is now being asked to step in where the Arab nations have failed their own people. Though this is unfair, it is the humanitarian thing for Israel to negotiate with Palestinians for statehood on lands that have been occupied owned by various nations for a thousand years. The fact that so many people stand behind Palestinians because they are only trying to reclaim their national identity and statehood is 100% false.

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1911 edition, finds the "population" of Palestine composed of so "widely differing" a group of "inhabitants" -- whose "ethnological affinities" create "early in the 20th century a list of no less than fifty languages" -- that "it is therefore no easy task to write concisely ... on the ethnology of Palestine." In addition to the "Assyrian, Persian and Roman" elements of ancient times, "the short-lived Egyptian government introduced into the population an element from that country which still persists in the villages."
. . . There are very large contingents from the Mediterranean countries, especially Armenia, Greece and Italy . . . Turkoman settlements ... a number of Persians and a fairly large Afghan colony . . . Motawila ... long settled immigrants from Persia ... tribes of Kurds ... German "Templar" colonies ... a Bosnian colony ... and the Circassian settlements placed in certain centres ... by the Turkish government in order to keep a restraint on the Bedouin ... a large Algerian element in the population ... still maintain(s) the Sudanese have been reduced in numbers since the beginning of the 20th century.
The disparate peoples recently assumed and purported to be "settled Arab indigenes, for a thousand years" were in fact a "heterogeneous" community 7 With no "Palestinian" identity, and according to an official British historical analysis in 1920, no Arab identity either: "The people west of the Jordan are not Arabs, but only Arabic-speaking. The bulk of the population are fellahin.... In the Gaza district they are mostly of Egyptian origin; elsewhere they are of the most mixed race."

[Darranar]

43. LOL...

The Arabs from the territories (current Palestinians, Jordanians, Syrians and Arab Iraqis) were all of the same ethnic group with NO national identity.

There were distinctions, however. Some were desert-dwellers, others lived near the river or on the coast. To say that they were all of the same group is incorrect.

The area that was majority Jewish was turned into Israel.

I have no problem with partition; however, it is no secret that the heads of the Zionist movement did not intend to keep those borders forever. Some wanted to expand into all of what is now Jordan as well as all of what is now Israel and the Occupied Territories.

Iraq is another matter entirely. If it had been done along ethnic lines, the Shi'ite center, Kurdish North, and Sunni South hwould all be seperate and the history of that region would be dramatically different. The borders of the majority of the Arab states weres imply colonial decrees, not based on anything but the whims of the colonial rulers.

[jplawne]

50. LOL?

Agreed mostly. What does LOL mean? Not up on the chat room lingo

THe Zionist movement was very diverse, so it is difficult to talk of one preferred policy regarding Jordan and the territories. There were right wingers and left wingers. Either way, Arab hostility avoided the need to make a decision on this policy

JP

[Darranar]

54. LOL = laughing out loud...

and Ben Gurion, when it came to foreign policy, was no moderate.

My point is, in essence, that Jordan is not a Palestinian state and that Palestinians, though they are Arabs, are a distinct group. That is one reason why they have had so much trouble in Jordan.

[pschoeb]

55. Huh!, what's all this about ethnic/cultural purity and such

You do realize that Israeli's largely only share the fact that they are predominatly Jewish. They come from many different countries and regions originally, and some of their cultures are quite different, as well as native tonques. So who cares if the Palestinians share only that they are predominantly Muslim and speak Arabic, and for all their differences share much in common?

To be honest, going by your "Criteria", if the US's power crumbled(like the Ottoman) and some outside colonial power came in after a war and divided up the land in wierd ways including a new mandate called the Chicago mandate, which is a 40 mile wide strip of land from just north of Milwaukee to the Illinois river in the South. Since the population is ethnically and culturally diverse with a large number of various native languages, and many aren't "really" from the mandate because their parents were from northern Michigan or some other former state, and they should realy move to the new country called the Great White North, which is made up of Northern Wisconsin and Upper Penninsula of Michigan. There are certainly plenty of English speaking puppet states created by the colonial power, they can live in. The Chicago mandate seems ripe to be made into a new Ethnic majority State, because it's no big deal if the inhabiatants have to leave, as they have no "real" unified culture or ethnicity and certainly don't deserve any self rule. I mean there has never been a Country of Chicago, and even the city of Chicago has never even been a capitol to the English speakers, not even a regional state capitol.

Who the hell cares what the 1911 Britannica says!!!! especially since there are so many ellipses and outside additions to your qoute.

You do realize this is a British publication, when Britain(and the US) was at the height of the eugenics craze, and was also a self important imperial power?

here's the 1911 entry for Eugenics, all very positive.

http://32.1911encyclopedia.org/E/EU/EUGENICS.htm

And here's what it has to say about Italy, sounds similar to Palestine. Note the eugenic language, this sentiment fills almost every entry of the 1911 Britannica, where it is applicable.

"The population of the different parts of Italy differs in character and dialect; and there is little community of sentiment between them. The modes of life and standards of comfort and morality in north Italy and in Calabria are widely different; the former being far in front of the latter. Much, however, is effected towards unification, by compulsory military service, it being the principle that no man shall serve within the military district to which he belongs. In almost all parts the idea of personal loyalty (e.g. between master and servant) retains an almost feudal strength. The inhabitants of the north, the Piedmontese, Lombards and Genoese especially have suffered less than those of the rest of the peninsula from foreign domination and from the admixture of inferior racial elements, and the cold winter climate prevents the heat of summer from being enervating. They, and also the inhabitants of central Italy, are more industrious than the inhabitants of the southern provinces, who have by no means recovered from centuries of misgovernment and oppression, and are naturally more hot-blooded and excitable, but less stable, capable of organization or trustworthy. The southerners are apathetic except when roused, and socialist doctrines find their chief adherents in the north. The Sicilians and Sardinians have something of Spanish dignity, but the former are one of the most mixed and the latter probably one of the purest races of the Italian kingdom. Physical characteristics differ widely; but as a whole the Italian is somewhat short of stature, with cl~ark or black hair and eyes, often good looking. Both sexes reach maturity early. Mortality is decreasing, but if we may judge from the physical conditions of the recruits the physique of the nation shows little or no improvement. Much of this lack of progress is attributed to the heavy manual (especially agricultural) work undertaken by women and children. The women especially age rapidly, largely owing to this cause"
http://91.1911encyclopedia.org/I/IT/ITALY.htm

Interestingly in the Britannica entry on Jews, it has this to say about Palestine:

"The similarity uniting the peoples of the East in respect of racial and social characteristics is accompanied by a striking similarity of mental outlook which has survived to modern times. Palestine, in spite of the numerous vicissitudes to which it has been subjected, has not lost its fundamental characteristics. The political changes involved in the Babylonian, Assyrian, Egyptian or Persian conquests surely affected it as little as the subsequent waves of Greek, Roman and other European invasions. Even during the temporary Hellenization in the second great period, the character of the people as a whole was untouched by the various external influences which produced so great an effect on the upper classes. When the foreign civilization perished, the old culture once more came to the surface."
http://64.1911encyclopedia.org/J/JE/JEWS.htm

Of course 1911 Britannica is hardly a usefull source for much, except the prejudices of it's writers.


Patrick Schoeb

[Aidoneus]

56. don't bother jplawne

s/he's just quoting from Dersh's book, based on the discredited Peters nonsense, or perhaps directly from Peters' work (exact phrases show up under both).

[edzontar]

65. All of this just goes to prove my Chicken-Egg post was correct...

Both "sides" can continue to throw this stuff out ad infinitum--but guess what--what has happened has happened--and each side has at least some valid points to make in defending THEIR version of history.

What does it matter, though?

No-one will ever convince the other that they have NO LEGITIMATE RIGHTS--because you can't argue a people or nation to define ITSELF into oblivion just because you want them to go away.

The question is not who was more "right" or wrong THEN--it is what should we try to do NOW.

I would suggest that BOTH peoples should stop trying to write the OTHER's history and move to a more CONSTRUCTIVE exchange based on mutual recognition and finding a solution that best serves the needs and aspirations of BOTH populations.

We can't determine whether the Chicken or Egg came first.

But we can see that they both NEED each other now...it seems an apt metaphor to me.

[Classical_Liberal]

32. If someone established a country where you live and told you

that you had to leave would you wouldn't try and destroy that country. Unprovoked my ass.

[Jim Sagle]

46. Ain't gonna happen. End of story.

[drewb]

37. Deleted message

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

[BlackFrancis]

49. Does anyone still push what was offered as "95%"?

I thought Barak apologists had finally shut up with that old lie.

Throw blame around wherever you want to, there is plenty to go around. I did think however the myth of the "generous offer" was dead and it's sad to see it rise again like some undead monster you can't kill despite the fact that it requires math to make it true that would make Jeff Skilling blush and it's easy enough to point out why this tact is sheer sophism.

[rini]

51. Barak was the legitimate

representative of the liberal, and democratic State of Isreal. Surely you don't accept the propoganda put out by an undemocratic, non-liberal person such as
Arafat?

[BlackFrancis]

53. I can do math

I can look at maps.

These things have very little to do with personality.

[rini]

61. That was not the question

n/t

[BlackFrancis]

62. it's not a question

it's a rhetorical dodge.

[number6]

57. pure BS

...