The Jewish Divide on Israel

[Classical_Liberal]

The Jewish Divide on Israel
by Esther Kaplan


Print this article
E-mail this article
Write to the editors
Take Action Now!
or a glimpse of how Israel plays out in an American election year, recall the day in September when then-Democratic presidential frontrunner Howard Dean told reporters he would like to see the United States take an "even-handed" approach to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Thirty-four Congressional Democrats responded by sending Dean a harsh letter questioning whether he shared their "unequivocal support for Israel's right to exist," and anonymous e-mails inundated Jewish listservs, accusing him of abandoning Israel. Dean promptly appeared on CNN to defend Israel's assassinations of Palestinian militants.

Or consider the day in February when John Kerry sat down in New York to discuss issues with a group of Jewish leaders hand-selected by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Hannah Rosenthal, executive director of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and one of the few liberals invited, said she had her hand in the air, ready to ask questions about civil rights, poverty and the erosion of the church/state divide, but she was avoided by the facilitators, and the meeting shaped up as a single-agenda affair. "The central issue, no matter how they came at it, was, 'Are you going to be there for Israel in these difficult times?'" Rosenthal recalls. "It was, 'We're putting you on notice that this is our number-one concern.'" Kerry took his cue. During the meeting, he backed off from earlier statements that he'd send Jimmy Carter (seen by the right as pro-Palestinian) to the region to jump-start negotiations, and six weeks later, when George W. Bush, in an agreement with Ariel Sharon, accepted Jewish settlements as permanent and renounced Palestinian refugees' right of return, Kerry immediately endorsed it.

ADVERTISEMENT
Or consider May 18, when the hawkish American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) held its annual conference in Washington. House majority leader Tom DeLay showed up to speak, along with two assistant secretaries of state, an assistant secretary of defense and the President himself. Bush's speech was regularly interrupted by cheering and chants of "Four more years!" The meeting of the Jewish community's most prominent voice on Capitol Hill may as well have been a Republican political rally.

These events reveal a stubborn political fact: that AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents, along with their powerful fellow travelers, Christian Zionists, have forged a bipartisan consensus in Washington that Middle East policy must privilege the "special relationship" between the United States and Israel. In practice, this solid consensus means putting Israeli security before peace; supporting even such extreme Israeli measures as the separation wall and assassinations; and delegitimizing the Palestinian leadership. In AIPAC's view, even Bush's unambitious Middle East "road map" conceded too much to the Palestinians. Until the late 1980s, when the PLO publicly affirmed Israel's right to exist, such positions may truly have represented the vast majority of American Jews. But ever since the 1993 Oslo Accord proved that negotiations were possible, surveys have consistently found that 50 to 60 percent of American Jews favor ending the occupation and dismantling settlements in return for peace.

The trouble is, AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents never fully embraced the Oslo thaw, and once peace talks failed in 2000, they snapped back to their hard-line stance. The combination of Palestinian suicide bombings, the election of Sharon, the ultimate hawk, as prime minister and Bush's with-us-or-against-us "war on terror" allowed the AIPAC consensus to harden throughout the Jewish establishment. After 9/11, United Jewish Communities, the joint Jewish charity, decided to direct funds to Jewish settlers for the first time. And 2002 was a banner year: At a pro-Israel rally in Washington that April, busloads of demonstrators from Jewish social-service agencies and Hillels (the network of Jewish campus organizations) booed Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz for speaking about Palestinian suffering, and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and other groups published manuals on how to discredit "anti-Israel propaganda" on campuses. "Arafat had a chance to move toward peace and he rejected it," says Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the leader of the 1.5 million-strong Reform Jewish movement, and one of mainstream Jewry's most outspoken voices against settlement expansion. "We rallied to Israel's side out of the sense that it was the right thing to do, and out of real anger toward the Palestinians." The joke used to be two rabbis, three congregations; over the past two or three years it's become 6 million Americ.........

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040712&s=kaplan

[Djinn]

1. great article

It’s really nice to see someone willing to state that the AIPAC line is NOT the one favoured by most Jewish people, this article, and the organisations profiled within gives lie to claim that is made here often that the only Jews that oppose the settlements completely are crazy fundies and “self haters”

[Fight_n_back]

2. Since I often get attacked for any rhetoric I use

I would like you to support your assertion that a "claim that is made here often that the only Jews that oppose the settlements completely are crazy fundies and “self haters”" was ever, in fact, actually made by anyone here at all.

I oppose the settlements completly and can't remeber anyone ever calling me anything other than a rational human being that agreed with Golda Maier on the issue.

Although I don't know why we should automatically assume that no Jews should be allowed to live in the West Bank. Especially in places with names like "Hebron" and "Bethlehem".

But then I gave up on logic in this forum long ago.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[Fight_n_back]

4. Then you admit

that you made it up...

[Djinn]

5. no I admit that I can not search the I/P

You're happy to assert that there's frequent "anti-semitism" here though - odd. From my recollection the absolutely worst, vilest most sociopathetic post I've ever seen here was someone's suggestion that they get aroused at the murder of innocent people...but maybe you didn't notice that given the object of that posters sick fantasies were Palestinians.

Didn't even get deleted, it's quite a famous one.

[Fight_n_back]

6. You cannot find any post

where I said that.

If you are talking about something said in private then we could probably find a lot of rules violations in peoples private conversations.

If thats what you want to do...

Suffice it to say, it is not a frequent claim, as you asserted or you would be able to find a post of it rather quickly.

Perhaps people disagree with you because they view the situation differently rather than incorrectly.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[Fight_n_back]

8. Just so its on the record

people sometimes say things rhetorically in order to get across their feelings about an issue. It doesn't mean that they should have their feet held to the fire or that such things should be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

That is a rule I am willing to stick with.

You accussed me of posting about anti semitism. I said I did not do that. Please try and keep up.

[Djinn]

23. not in mine you couldn't

"If you are talking about something said in private then we could probably find a lot of rules violations in peoples private conversations."

If you use PM's to say things that would otherwise be deleted from DU that's fine...most of us dont

[Classical_Liberal]

16. The Jewish community in Hebron wants to govern it, not

just live there. They don't have a right to do that.

[Gimel]

10. Interesting

I noticed your phrase here referring to "most Jewish People" and only Jews that oppose the settlements completely are crazy fundies and “self haters” and

the AIPAC line is NOT the one favoured by most Jewish people

Why are you speaking for the Jewish people, by the way. You object when Ms Bayefsky did the same, referring to the people of the Jewish state, now you seem to think that the only Jews that matter are US Jews. I suggest that you broaden your horizons.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[Classical_Liberal]

17. This is about funding Israel's vices

Since the politicians are motivated by the incorrect idea that US Jews support them, they are pretty damned important.

[The Magistrate]

18. That Is Not An Incorrect Idea, Ma'am

The overwhelming majority of Jews in the United States support Israel, and have no great quarrel even with the current government's policies in regard to the current hostilities, though they may well be less supportive of some details of those policies. Some exceptions to this may be found, but my personal acquaintances have included a Black man who voted Republican habitually, and that does not seem to have altered the general calculus that the votes of Blacks are overwhelmingly cast for Democratic party candidates....

[Classical_Liberal]

19. Supporting Israel and supporting settlements are not the same thing

Most want Israel to evacuate the settlements.

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:PFVU0_pCy5sJ:www.iht.com/articles/117573.html+%22American+Jews%22+survey+settlements&hl=en

In the 2002 annual survey of American Jewish opinion by the American Jewish Committee, American Jews were asked: "As part of a permanent settlement with the Palestinians, should Israel be willing to dismantle all, some, or none of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank?" Ten percent answered "all," 55 percent said "some," 34 percent - "none" (2 percent were not sure). This is exactly how Israelis feel about the West Bank settlements, and it is therefore safe to assume that American Jews may be feeling the same as the Israelis in regards to Gaza as well.

They are timid about criticism and that part I don't get, but they are not in agreement with Sharon. The opinions of non-jewish americans should also count. Mind you that was a self selected SURVEY of Commentary readers.

Here is Zogby's more scientific poll.

http://www.peacenow.org/nia/pr/07252003.html

Palestinian State:

Both communities expressed strong support for the right of Palestinians to live in a secure and independent state of their own. Among Jewish Americans, 82% either strongly or somewhat agree with the notion of such a state. In the Arab American community, 92.7% either strongly or somewhat agree with the right of Palestinians to a state.

Compared with the response to this question in October 2002, there was a 6.8% increase in the number of Jewish Americans who disagree with the right of Palestinians to an independent state, drawing about equally from those who earlier either agreed or were not sure.

Israeli State:

When asked if Israelis have a right to live in a secure and independent state of their own, Jewish Americans almost unanimously (99.5%) either strongly or somewhat agree with the proposition, as do almost all Arab Americans (95.2%).

Road Map:

Jewish Americans and Arab Americans both voiced strong support for the Road Map to Middle East peace as laid out by the Bush Administration. 71% of American Jews either strongly or somewhat support the Road Map, just as 73.8% of Arab Americans either strongly or somewhat support the Road Map. Only 16.4% of American Jews expressed some level of opposition, while 12.6% are not sure. Similarly, just 11% of Arab Americans said they somewhat or strongly oppose the Road Map and 15.3% said they are not sure.

Road Map Implementation:

The survey asked respondents what needs to be done first in order to ensure the success of the peace plan: Israelis need to start dismantling settlements and outposts in the West Bank and Gaza and freeze settlement expansion; Palestinians need to declare a ceasefire and stop the suicide bombings; or both Israelis and Palestinians need to take these steps at the same time. A majority of Jewish Americans (56.7%) said that both sides need to take these steps at the same time; the second-most selected answer was that the Palestinians need to first declare a ceasefire and stop the suicide bombings (37.4%). Among Arab Americans, 73.2% said that both sides need to take these steps at the same time; the second-most popular answer was that Israelis must first dismantle settlements and freeze expansion (18.4%).

Settlement Freeze:

Respondents were asked their level of support or opposition to a freeze on all Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank and Gaza. A significant majority of Jewish Americans (70.6%) either strongly or somewhat supports a settlement expansion freeze, with a plurality (45.7%) strongly backing such a freeze. Only 20.8% somewhat or strongly oppose a settlement freeze, while the rest (8.6%) are not sure. Arab Americans also strongly or somewhat support a settlement freeze (80.2%).

[The Magistrate]

39. This Data Is Nothing Exceptional, Ma'am

It has long been known that most Israeli Jews, and most Israeli Jews, are willing to evacuate the settlements as part of a peace settlement. That latter element, of course, is the key one. The thing will never come about, whatever public willingness to do it may exist, so long as the campaign of violence by the various irregular bodies of Arab Palestinian "ultras" continues, with proclaimed aim of liberating all "occupied territories", by which these mean not the territories over-run in '67, but Israel itself.

The reason this public willingness to rein in settlements does not define government policy is a simple one, that operates in all democracies: the people who do not support settlements do not care very much about the issue; the people who press for settlements to continue care about it very, very much. The ardent minority is generally able to impress its will on the disinterested majority in a democracy, because it is far noisier, and votes as a bloc on that issue alone, while the rest vote in light of other concerns entirely. Thus, few votes are to be gained by opposing settlemeents, while an important number can be lost by doing so.

[Classical_Liberal]

51. It also has to do with structural problems in American and Israeli

democracy. For instance in America we have the electoral college and no instant runoff voting, which dictates to the two party system. Our current election like most is a choice between a moderate conservative and a reactionary. Israel doesn't have a written constitution at all so who knows why the settlers have so much power there. I do believe that like us they are winner take all so the unity of the reactionaries rules.

If violence is what is holding them back why was no progress made in the 90s? There was very little violence then and the settlements expanded.

[Gimel]

59. Electoral College system

This is archaic. No one goes by it anyway, it's a formality. At worst, it distorts the true democracy because one-person one-vote is done away with.

The settlers have had more power because they are more politically active than the Israeli public in general. They have 100% voter turn-out.

[Classical_Liberal]

60. Then it must be a system that allows the plurality to win

in which case the Israelis would also benefit from instant runoff voting.

[The Magistrate]

62. One Hardly Knows Where To Begin, Ma'am

The electoral college certainly allows for a plurality to win a Presidential election: indeed, no one has won a majority in the popular vote for President since 1988. Nor does it dictate a two party system. It has no bearing on local, state, or Congressional races, and a genuine third party that arose, gained real mass following by its attractiveness to a great number of people, built a national structure of elected officials, and on this base ran a candidate for President would not be discommoded by it in the slightest, for all that candidate would have to do would be to win a plurality in a number of states that carried a plurality in the electoral college to win election. The various splinters of cranks and faddists who amuse themselves by playing at nominating a candidate for high office do not fail to win elections because of the electoral college, but because they are splinters of cranks and faddists who the people do not take seriously, and probably ought not to take seriously, either.

Israel has a genuine multi-party system, with at least half a dozen party lists regularly winning representation in the Knesset. Since a majority in the Knesset is required to form a government, the government is almost always a coalition of several parties, as it is seldom possible to achieve the necessary number of votes there otherwise. Indeed, some think that one of the structural weaknesses of the Israeli political system is the multiplicity of parties, as this often operates to give extreme groups a veto on the formation of a government, and to extort great coincessions from more reasonable groups that need their votes to rule.

[Violet_Crumble]

64. Multi-party systems...

I'm one of those who think that multi-party systems are much weaker than systems where there's two prominent major parties. Coalitions crumble easily, and like you said, extreme groups can end up wielding power. Not that I know all that much about this stuff, but historically some countries that start with multi-party systems evolve into ones where there ends up being two major parties and a few less powerful minor parties, and that evolution gives a fair bit of stability to the political system. I'm not much of a fan of the US political system, where it seems to be that if anyone supports a third party, they're scum of the earth. I prefer what we have here, where I can vote Green, knowing my preferences go to Labor, and where supporters of the Greens and the ALP aren't treating each other like the enemy, but actually have a good relationship....

Off on a bit of a tangent here, but another glaring difference between the Israeli and US (and UK, Australia, Canada etc) systems is that Israel doesn't have an Upper House. I'd be interested in finding out about how it all operates without a Senate, because it seems weird to me that the same House that creates bills then passes them into legislation. I figure there's got to be some sort of review system in there somewhere....

Violet...

[The Magistrate]

65. In The U.S., Ma'am

Either house can initiate legislation, with the sole exception of appropriation of funds, measures for which must originate in the House of Representatives. My understanding of England's system is that, by now, the Lords have litle real function, and my ignorance of how you do it down in God's Own Country is appallingly complete....

[Classical_Liberal]

66. Many third parties here in America aren't extreme at all

and actually represent the majortiy better than the major ones. In fact the greens are much less extreme than the republicans. National Health Insurance is considered too batty for the dems, and so is being against the Iraq war, but the greens represent these positions. The republicans can propose a nominee to the court that believes women should be subservient to their husbands, and they aren't marginalized. In America it is ok to be extreme as long as you don't threaten corporate money. It is not always the case that major parties represent a majority point of view or the minority parties don't. Particularly in the US, where we have a winner take all electoral college system and the fucking sunpac decision, not to mention the fact that the media is being owned by fewer and fewer people, so even moderates like Howard Dean are portrayed as extremist just because they want to challenge the power of corporate lobbiest. These flaws can and should be weeded out of the system. I don't accept minority rule, and never will.

[The Magistrate]

67. If You Say So, Ma'am

You would probably find it alarming to realize just how popular the position a wife should be subservient to a husband is among the people of our country, and not just among the men-folk, either. If some party actually reflected the views of a majority of the populace, it would soon come to gain a substantial number of votes, rather than continue as a fringe sect. It is a common enough comfort among splinterists that vast numbers of people actually agree with them, but are somehow prevented from expressing that agreement. My own reason for waking up in the morning is morbid curiousity, but to each their own....

[Djinn]

24. deleted because?

This article is about Jews in the US - that's why I referred to them.
I am not "speaking for the Jewish people" I am alluding to the facts as presented in this article that many US Jews are speaking for themselves and aligning themselves with anti-occupation groups.

I suggest that you read the article and not make posts that are widely innacurate

[Gimel]

25. Right

This article is about Jews in the US - that's why I referred to them.

Next time I refer to the Arab population of Israel as Arabs I won't be corrected either, right?

P.S. I found the article too boring to read beyond page 1, but your comments were what drew my attention.

[Djinn]

26. in other words

you jumped into a conversation without knowing what it was about :eyes:

As for "Next time I refer to the Arab population of Israel as Arabs I won't be corrected either, right?"

what's that got to do with anything? - did I ever tell you not to refer to Arabs as Arabs? did anyone? what did that mystery person suggest you refer to Arabs as? And if you're discussing an article that is specifically about Israeli Arabs then yep - sure go ahead and call them that :crazy:

[Gimel]

28. Not at all

I knew what the article was about. Many sub-threads develop in all of the posted articles, as you may have noticed. :eyes:

The myopic stance of the US posters was the issue that I was bringing up. On this thread you have gone to great lengths to point out that Israel and Jews are not synonymous. Apparently in the US you think the AIPAC and Israel are synonymous. I do not think US politics is a central issue for world Jewry. AIPAC is it's own world. The issues before the UN are more directly affecting Israel than those in the US politics. The article would be more appropriately entitled "the US Jewish divide on Israel." Pointing to Oslo as the determining factor, and barely mentioning the Intifada, pointing to the assassinations of Hamas leaders and the separation fence as "extreme measures" without a word of the crimes against humanity which have brought them into use, calling Sharon "the ultimate hawk" (I think Goldwater and even Johnson would be better examples but the label for Sharon is a cliche)are enough to show where this writer is going.

Support for Israel has remained strong in the US and that is good, in my opinion. Try to undermine that is bad.

[Djinn]

29. where do you pull

your assumptions from??

where on earth do you get "in the US you think the AIPAC and Israel are synonymous" from. What a load of steaming crap.

I said (for the forth time) that MORE JEWS IN AMERICA ALIGN THEMSELVES WITH ANTI OCCUPATION GROUPS THAN OTHERWISE.

Anything else YOU read into posts has more to do with projection

[Fight_n_back]

30. "MORE JEWS IN AMERICA ALIGN THEMSELVES WITH ANTI OCCUPATION GROUPS THAN OT

prove it

[Classical_Liberal]

34. post 19 n/t

n/t

[Djinn]

35. read the article

I base the comment on the atricle - it may be bollocks - PROVE IT

[Gimel]

36. The same to you

where on earth do you get "in the US you think the AIPAC and Israel are synonymous" from. What a load of steaming crap.

I don't "pull" them from anywhere. It is my opinion from statements like the one under the word "ADVERTISEMENT" for example:

when the hawkish American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)...The combination of Palestinian suicide bombings, the election of Sharon, the ultimate hawk, as prime minister and Bush's with-us-or-against-us "war on terror" allowed the AIPAC consensus to harden throughout the Jewish establishment


The suicide attacks and Sharon's office as Prime Minister are events that "allowed the AIPAC consensus to harden throughout the Jewish establishment." Seems pretty clear to me.

Calling Ariel Sharon "the ultimate Hawk" is a cliche. Goldwater or Johnson better qualify for the title. Since Sharon's election three years ago, and this statement much has transpired. It is a very shallow view of everything that has hapepned since, but I am not surprised. Projection? Linking the terrorist suicide bombings and Sharon's election and the war on terror has to be the either a facile oversight or the ultimate of insenativity. No, this piece is not about Israel, it's about US politics. Using Israel's survival under attack as a political tool stinks.

You called my opinion a "load of steming crap" so I'll dish it back to you.

[Djinn]

38. Did Goldwater or Johnson

authorise the slaughter of refugees in a camp..just wondering.

You're still dancing around the issue - you told me I tried to "speak for Jews.

Where did I do that?

[Fight_n_back]

41. Are you saying that you

supported Johnson's Vietnam War?

(just sticking to the IP forum matrix)

[Djinn]

42. Are YOU saying that you wouldn't call Sharon a hawk?

And to Gimel - I don't actually need to preface EVERY statement about Sharon with a list of all other violent leaders who threw their people into war.

Much the same as I don't have to mention Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot every time I mention that Bush sucks.

Your inference that it is anti-semitic to call Sharon based on his record without mentioning every bit of middle eastern recent history may be why some beleive the term has no meaning now.

Glad though that you've presumably got past the first page of this article now and found out that yes it's about US Jews...brilliant deduction on your part with that one. sheesh

[Fight_n_back]

44. Now you are saying that Bush is worse than Pol Pot?

Im not sure you trying to be taken seriously.

[Djinn]

52. No - it's pretty clear what I was saying YAng

that while there certainly ARE worse leaders than BUsh there is no need to mention ALL of them before mentioning that Bush is a corrupt war criminal. Are you honestly trying to claim that you run off a quick list of societies monsters before you complain about your current Pres?

Really I'm dissapointed - your standards are slipping

[Fight_n_back]

54. Why are you so intent on constructing a strawman?

I never said any of the things you are accussing me of.


People use strawman arguments because they don't have a real argument.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[Djinn]

63. What have I accused you of Yang

presumably asking what I've apparently "accused" Yang of isn't against the rules???

There has been no "Accusation" of ANYTHING except where YOU suggested that I beleived BUsh was worse than Pol Pot - when clearly the point was that you don't need to list every worse leader than Bush each time you mention BUsh.

SO please enlighten me - where did I accuse you of anything - on any thread even not just this one?

[Gimel]

46. Huh?

I was talking about what the article said in calling Sharon the Ultimate Hawk. That is a sense of comparison. I guess she just meant Israeli leaders, not US. Focus on Israel. Don't really understand Israel but use cliches to influence the US Congressional system, and promote left wing issues.

No, I didn't get to page two. I've declined to proceed beyond the first page. I have other pressing projects at the moment and I'm not going to settle down and read this nonsense.

P.S. Where did I say it was about US Jews or even imply that? That's rediculus. What I said was:

" No, this piece is not about Israel, it's about US politics. "

[Djinn]

53. Huh?

"P.S. Where did I say it was about US Jews or even imply that? That's rediculus. What I said was:"

I didn't imply anything - I said this was about US Jews - as it clearly is, YOU have admitted that you read only the first page of this article - you are commenting on something in other worsd that you have NO idea about.

This article was very much about US Jews and their opinions - I wouldn't claim you said that because you havn't read the piece and are simply spouting off irrelevant arguments

BTW - are you saying that "promoting left wing issues" is a bad thing, certainly seems that way

[Gimel]

58. Currently

Left-wing issues means against Israel, it seems. The true left I support, but not propaganda.

[tinnypriv]

9. As an aside

Idiocy culled from the Conference of Presidents newsletter is posted around here nearly every day.

[CaliforniaLady]

11. Will Kerry promote peace?

The article sounds like Kerry is taking the same stance as Bush and Sharon.

The number of Muslims in the U.S. is increasing and the groups I know are not happy with the slaughtering of the Palestinians and the treatment of the refugees.

[tinnypriv]

13. Kerry's position is slightly to the hawkish side of Clinton

And therefore will be an unmitigated disaster - principally for the Palestinians, but also Israelis and the rest of the region, perhaps spilling over into the US itself, as on 9/11.

I doubt Kerry knows the first thing about Israel/Palestine in any event - same as most elected officials in the US, who simply read the lines given to them by their PR flaks.

Saying that, I doubt Kerry will pack his adminstration with folks who are "more right-wing than Lieberman" (Avigdor, not Joe), to quote the Hebrew press. That could make a useful difference, though a slight one.

[tinnypriv]

15. My mistake: ignore "slightly"

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/446531.html

[Classical_Liberal]

20. He is such a dissappointment. He is so far to the right of clinton

and Carter it isn't funny. I will oust Bush but then I am going to try and ditch Kerry in 2004. What a snowjob the dlc perpetrated on the dems in presenting him as alternative to Bush. We were really conned.

[Fight_n_back]

21. That has to be

one of the weirdest analyses I have ever seen.

Back up your nutty assertion that Kerry is "too the right" of Clinton.

[Classical_Liberal]

22. He supports the wall, not negotiating with Arafat and moving

the American Embassy to Jerusalem. Did you read the article? He will also give up a much greater percentage of the settlements if he supports Bush's position. Those are positions to the right Clinton. Clinton was definately against moving the embassy to Jerusalem. He is against the wall not being on the green line, and advocated starting negotiations with ARafat. That is to the right of Clinton whether you like it or not.

BTW, it is too late for an edit on that post but I support removing Kerry in 2008 if carries out his stated policies, which are way to the right of Clinton.

[Fight_n_back]

27. Given the current state of American Democracy

I care more about his position on the United States. Perhaps you have divided loyalties on this issue.

Plus, John Kerry is smarter than you so I am willing to give him a bit more benefit of the doubt.

[Classical_Liberal]

31. John Kerry voted for the IWR, against my wishes and obviously

better judgement. Your insults are what are really dumb. If you care about other issues there are other forums to post in. The idea that I care more about this one than my own country is a straw man. This support for the Israeli settlers is just as bad for America as the stupid war. John Kerry's cowardess is one of the reasons are democracy is in such a state.

[Fight_n_back]

32. Left field

Is it an insult to tell someone that someone else is smarter than they are? How ... thin skinned of you.

You are misrepresenting Kerry's position on Iraq.

Support for settlers in the West Bank has very little impact on the United States. The US propping up a theocratic monarchy in Saudi Arabia has a direct and negative impact on the United States. (in the form of two attacks on the World Trade Center, the USS Cole and the Embassy bombings.)

[Classical_Liberal]

33. The US support for settlers is a major recruitment tool for Al

Qaeda and the main reason America is so hated in the middle east. It is outright thievery after all. Arabs have every reason to be mad about it. Furthermore I am a voter so he has to answer to my concerns. I don't have to answer to him. The settlers are theocrats too. Ss are their fundamentalist Christian supporters. Stop supporting them, Al Qaeda's ability to recruite new member drops by 90%. It surely is not a sign of intelligence to support them.

I am not misrepresenting Kerry's position on Iraq. I knew at the time it was a blank cheque. Kerry by his own admission didn't.

[Fight_n_back]

37. "Settlers" aren't even on the radar for Al Queda

Beside the fact that without US oil money funding Al Queda it wouldn't matter what they think, settlers are not even one of their main issues.

People not being Muslim is their number one concern. Do you think we should outlaw abortion because of Eric Rudolph?

Most settlers are not fundamentalists. That is a fact. Most settlers would move back if they received the same commpensation package that moved them out there in the first place.

Terror against Israel and non Israeli Jews predates the occupation and the settlements. The attacks against Israel and non Israeli Jews will continue after the settlements and occupation end. The reason to end the settlements isn't because Arabs will suddenly like Jews. The reasons to end settlements are both pragmatic and moral. The Palestinians will still try to kill Jews until sometime in the future when the two nations become huge allies and the tension is a distant memory. Like France and Germany or England and Spain or the US and Canada or Paraguay and Uraguay or Japan and Russia.

Demanding a cessation of violence from the Palestinians is not the same as supporting the settlements, no matter how many times you say the contrary.

It is easy to sit at a keyboard and say Kerry voted wrong. If you make a mistake no one even knows. He represents a sovereign commonwealth and has to weigh many things on a vote of that nature. If he had voted against that resolution then he would not be his parties nominee. If he had voted against it then it would have still passed and he would not be in a poeition to defeat Bush in November.

Beating Bush in November is the single biggest thing John Kerry will ever do in service to his country.

[The Magistrate]

40. Well Said, Mr. Yang

[Classical_Liberal]

43. Strawman: I never said demanding an end to the violence

is the same as supporting settlements. You use this tactic on Djinn too. When you start talking to me and not a strawman, maybe I'll have some interest.

Also you don't make any sense. In one paragraph, you claim getting out of the settlements is the same as giving into Eric Rudolf on abortion, then in the next you say we should get out of them. Are you for giving into Eric Rudolf on abortion?

The leadership of Al Qaeda is definitely recruiting on anger over the settlements. Bin Laden brings them up all the time and it is the one message that definitely resonates with Arabs, though admittedly his main concern is religion.

The terrorism against the US doesn't predate the settlements. That is my concern. The end of the settlements should not be dependent on a complete end to the violence. That means that end will never occur since it depends on human perfection which will never exist. Furthermore the lack of progress on the settlements in the primary reason for the present violence. Oslo didn't put a dent or even slow their growth. Furthermore the fact that the issue is settlements is proved by the fact that the wall surrounds them and is not on the green line. Furthermore the recent moves to disengage by Sharon, were only predicated on annexation of the West Bank. It says this explicitly in the agreement with Sharon, and Bush. Kerry agreed to this. There can be no state if that happens.

[Fight_n_back]

45. Speaking of strawmen

I never made cessation of violence a condition of removing the settlements.

And I have never heard you make a compelling argument why Jews should be excluded from living in the West Bank.

[tinnypriv]

47. They shouldn't be excluded

To quote a recent op-ed from the Israeli press:

"There is no need whatever, nor would it be proper, to evacuate the settlements by force. All that is required is to offer the settlers a fair compensation deal, and to inform them of the exact schedule when the state will be pulling out its army, its administration and its budget from the colonies. If they so wish, let them come home. If not, let them remain where they are.

Indeed, those staying behind are facing the risk that they may be receiving a credible welcome by the Palestinian authorities. And they may possibly be unable to find a gratifying outlet for their combative passions. However, if their desire to stay put is that intense, then this is a risk they would have to take. And if, when peace and quiet will abound, they should discover that abandoning their belligerence is too difficult for them, then they would always have the option to return home. They could collect their compensation and might settle near some Arab community, which may once again provide them with their former enthusiasm and thrills" ¹

Sounds accurate.

-----

1. B. Michael, 'Let them decide for Themselves', Yediot Aharonot, 2 July 2004.

[Gimel]

48. Accurate?

Meaning? That that's what would or should happen?

[tinnypriv]

49. Both

[Classical_Liberal]

50. another strawman. I have never said Jews should be exculded

from living on the West Bank. If they want to be Palestinians that is their business, but that land is where a Palestinian state will be made and it can't be made there if Israel doesn't leave. Why don't you try having a conversation with me instead of a phantom? If you are going to have one with a phantom you shouldn't put it in the replies to my posts.

[Fight_n_back]

56. Then I guess you haven't been listening to Arafat when he talks

he makes it clear that a Palestinian state will be home to Muslim and Christian Arabs.

It seems that this is something you support.

[Classical_Liberal]

61. Link? Where did Arafat say the Palestinian state will be for Christian

and Muslim Arabs?

[Fight_n_back]

68. The real question is

where didn't he and why haven't you heard it? Could it be that you spend so much time finding ammunition against what you hate that you don't know what you support?

http://www.p-p-o.com/Eng/2003/3/KE5-3-2003-1.htm

"It attempts to consecrate its settler colonialism and occupation upon our land and Christian and Islamic holy places. It attempts to judaiize them totally as is happening now in Holy Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Hebron and all other towns, villages and refugee camps in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, "

"Together, side by side, we will remain on the road to Al Quds Ash-Sharif (Holy Jerusalem), the first of the two Qiblas and the third most holiest mosque, the place of the nocturnal journey of our Prophet Muhammad, God’s prayers and peace is upon him, and the place of nativity and ascension of our lord Jesus, peace be upon him."


http://www.p-p-o.com/Eng/2003/2/KE20-2-2003-1.htm

Our Palestinian people are defending their survival, their life, the future of their children, and their Christian and Islamic holy places in the land of steadfastness and their deep-rooted history on the soil of their homeland, Palestine.

In Holy Jerusalem, the refuge for prophets, the cradle of religions, and the land of civilizations, the holy city is being assassinated and judaiized,...'

Yet you see, day and night, the brutality of the Israeli occupation and its crimes against the Palestinian civilians and against the Christian and Islamic holy places;...

Israel refuses to withdraw, insists on settlements and the Judaization of Holy Jerusalem and blessed Hebron,...

-------------------
Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination.

Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.

Article 21: The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by the armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aiming at the liquidation of the Palestinian problem, or its internationalization.

Article 22: Zionism is a political movement organically associated with international imperialism and antagonistic to all action for liberation and to progressive movements in the world. It is racist and fanatic in its nature, aggressive, expansionist, and colonial in its aims, and fascist in its methods. Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement, and geographical base for world imperialism placed strategically in the midst of the Arab homeland to combat the hopes of the Arab nation for liberation, unity, and progress. Israel is a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world. Since the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence and will contribute to the establishment of peace in the Middle East, the Palestinian people look for the support of all the progressive and peaceful forces and urge them all, irrespective of their affiliations and beliefs, to offer the Palestinian people all aid and support in their just struggle for the liberation of their homeland.

http://www.pna.gov.ps/Government/gov/plo_Charter.asp
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

The Palestinian leadership listened to a report regarding the fact that a number of land speculators have sold, via foreign intermediaries, Palestinian land to foreign companies, which are in fact Israeli companies working in the framework of the settlement plans being carried out by the Israeli government. The Palestinian leadership has decided to forbid the sale of land anywhere in Palestine either directly or via intermediaries. The leadership has empowered the legal authorities and security forces to implement the decision on this matter and to punish anyone who has sold land directly or has assisted in its sale. The sale of land constitutes the gravest danger concerning the Judaization of the Palestinian lands."
--- in a cabinet decision passed at its weekly meeting in Ramallah on May 2-3, 1997 (Voice of Palestine, May 3, 1997)

"This is a very dangerous act and there has been a decision to ban it by putting anyone who sells even a centimeter on swift trial and to seek the death penalty against them... These people are traitors and Israel exploits them in expanding its settlements."
--- in an interview (Agence France Presse, May 5, 1997)

"Whoever is found to have sold land to Jews, his punishment is death. It is forbidden to pray for him, it is forbidden to purify his body before burial, and it is forbidden to bury him in a Muslim cemetery. We are obligated to remind the public of this religious law, so as not to allow Jews to purchase Arab land and property with dollars they receive from America in order to throw us out of this land."
--- in an interview with an Israeli newspaper (Yediot Ahronot, May 20, 1997)

"We condemn this abhorrent crime and emphasize that despite all the conspiracies, Jerusalem and Palestine from the river to the sea will remain Islamic until judgment day... A land speculator for the Jews, in whose birth certificate it states that he is a Muslim, was killed. There is a possibility that his body will be brought to Al-Aksa mosque or another mosque. We wish to remind you that Islamic law forbids the washing and wrapping in shrouds of his body and forbids praying for his soul or burying him in a Muslim cemetery. We call upon you to beware. This should serve as a lesson to all traitors and speculators who collaborate with the Jews."
--- in his weekly sermon at Al-Aksa Mosque on the Temple Mount (Voice of Palestine, May 9, 1997)


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It shouldn't be hard for you to provide links proving Yassir Arafat to be a pro democracy, pro freedom, pro gressive.

[Classical_Liberal]

69. Those links do not say that Jews can't live in a Palestinian State.

They say Israelis can't maintain "Jewish Only! no Arabs allowed!" settlements in Hebron under Israeli governance. Big difference.

The rest are opposed to zionsim, which is understandable since the zionist ethnically cleansed Arab, and refused to allow arabs to live as a majority in the Israeli state, which is what would happen if Israel hadn't actively ethnically cleansed Arabs in 1948. Jews lived in the holy land long before Balfour, so the problem isn't with Jews living there. It's with Zionism, a philosophy which requires Jews live in a majority Jewish state, and required the ethnic cleansing of most Palestinians. I am sure many American Indians would prefer it if the US hadn't been created. Jews and Zionsim are not the same.

Saying Israel can't govern the west bank isn't saying Jews can't live there. Saying they wish Israel hadn't been created isn't the same thing either.

Your comprehension skills are poor.

[The Magistrate]

70. There Are Some Real Gems There, Ma'am

"...Jerusalem and Palestine from the river to the sea will remain Islamic until judgment day..." strongly suggests Jews will be unwelcome, in any sense of equal citizens. What is the difference between insisting the area remain Islamic, and the insistence of Zionism on a state for Jews, you may perhaps be kind enough to explain to me. It is hardly the case that the people of the region were Islamic from ancient times, after all: Islam arrived there by conquest, and not that long ago by the standards of the region. There seems to me no better argument against a state of Jews than there is against a state of Poles, or of Arab Palestinians....

[Violet_Crumble]

71. Since when has Arafat given sermons?

Did he say that, or is he now getting the credit for what any preacher or whatever they are say? I wonder if the same would be accepted and we could blame Sharon for what every Rabbi says? Boy, we could look at some real gems then, couldn't we? ;)

The poster's trotting out the PLO Charter was in my opinion, clumsy, considering the Letters of Mutual Recognition have been posted here plenty of times before, and their existence proves beyond a doubt that Arafat has recognised the existence of Israel...

Unfortunately in the past, I've seen folk in this forum claim that dismantling Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories means that Jews are to be expelled from the future Palestinian state. It's very hard to take that sort of squawkwaffle seriously as I tend to believe it's used as an excuse to continue the occupation of Palestinian territory, even though that would be denied stridently...

Violet...

[The Magistrate]

72. We Could Indeed, Ma'am

But any Moslem may speak in a mosque, and political figures give the homily in many lands on occassions. You are correct that it would be well to be more certain about the attribution of that particular statement. It does seem to me, though, to reflect a pretty widely held view, as do some of the rants from fundamentalist rabbis in Israel, unfortunately. A lot of people in this matter are determinedly unreasonable....

"I want you to know, boys and girls, there are people in this world who do not love their fellow man, and I HATE people like that!"

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[The Magistrate]

75. If You Do Not Mind, Mr. Yang

You are, then, certain that the "sermon" speechifying is Arafat himself?

[Fight_n_back]

77. My intention

in the post was to clearly indicate that which was Arafat and that which was not. If the quote is followed by a different name then it is not Arafat. If it is not followed by any name at all then it is Arafat from the PA archives.


I didn't link to all those quotes about killing those who sell land to Jews because I was tired and a little angry. But I believe they are attributed and as accurately as I am capable with my tiny, Pooh like mind.

[The Magistrate]

80. Thank You, Sir

The clarafication is appreciated. As no name follows that statement, it may be taken as Arafat's words, then.

[Fight_n_back]

81. Which statement?

sorry...I think I missed a post or something.


EDIT:

I looked at the post and see the confusion. Nothing below the semi colons is from Arafat. I was mistaken in that I thought the names followed the quotes but it was the source, not the speaker.

Sorry. What Arafat said was bad enough.

[The Magistrate]

83. Even Better, Sir

[Violet_Crumble]

82. It was a Mufti that said that...

I did a quick google, and it was Mufti Ikrama Sabri who said that...

Violet...

[The Magistrate]

84. Thank You, Ma'am

Perhaps we could handcuff him to Rabbi Kook and hide the key until they had grown civil....

[Fight_n_back]

85. Could you do a quick Google

and find where Arafat welcomes Jews to a Palestinain State? How about something close?

I can prove to you that Arabs are welcome in Israel rather quickly.

[Classical_Liberal]

88. If Arabs are welcome in Israel how come there is a big

controversy over the right of return? Also you failed to prove he said it, so now you move the goal post to where he specifically welcomes them. He didn't specifically welcome them but he doesn't have to either.

[Fight_n_back]

89. The proof of

Arabs being welcome in Israel would be a little thing called ARIEL SHARON'S CABINET and the Knesset.

I did prove that he doesn't want Jews there. Both by his many statements saying that the land is to be for Christians and Moslems as well as his use of the death penalty to anyone who sells land to a Jew (not Israeli...but a Jew).

Showing me where he has said Jews would be allowed to live in a Palestinian state would certainly end any argument wouldn't it?

Why are you defending his xenophobic statements? Supporting Palestinian Statehood doesn't mean you support Arafat. Does it?

[Classical_Liberal]

93. He didn't say they would be welcome

so I don't have to provide proof of it. As for Jew vs Israeli that is either a mistranslation or mispeaking. I would suggest it is grasping at straws on your part since it is pretty well established that zionists gained control of Israel proper by buying land. There were mixed race coloreds in the Apartheid cabinet and serving in their legislative body, so it doesn't mean much. The recent reports in Haaretz of most Israelis wanting Arabs to be encouraged to leave. The highlighting of the demographic problem that Arabs present to the Israelis state, by Likudniks including Sharon, the controversy over the right of return. The Laws making it easier for Jews to immigrate there than Arabs. Even non-Jewish Russian christians have it easier. The recent law passed that says that a Jew of Arab decent doesn't get automatic citizenship in Israel like other Jews. The laws against arab use of public land. All of these things are pretty good evidence of Arabs not being welcome there.

[Fight_n_back]

101. So you cannot find evidence of Arafat

allowing Jews into a new Palestinain state.

Why did you add all of that other stuff?

[Classical_Liberal]

104. Me thinks your projecting a bit.

You said Arafat was ethnically cleansing Jews, and have never been able to back it up so you changed the goal post. That is really imature.

[Fight_n_back]

107. if it was anything it would "imMature"

what goal posts are you talking about?

Blowing people up because of their race...what would that be exactly?

[Classical_Liberal]

112. talk about non sequitors

bye!

[Gimel]

110. Do you find evidence

of even one Russian Christian blowing him/herself up on a crowded bus in Israel, let alone about 200 of them? Maybe the Palestinians who were once able to get right-of-return under a family reunification program now find it more difficult after several suicide bombers were found to have made use of that law to gain entrance to Israel, but I wouldn't call that a very strong claim for discrimination.

[Fight_n_back]

92. Arabs in Israel

http://www.folium.ro/world-encyclopedia/israel/103.htm

Israel's approximately 781,350 Arabs, constituting about 17.8 percent of the population, articulated their views through elected officials on the municipal and national levels and through the Arab departments within governmental ministries and nongovernmental institutions such as the Histadrut. In the past, most elected Arab officials traditionally affiliated with the Labor Party and its predecessors, which expected--erroneously as time has proved--that Israeli Arabs would serve as a "bridge" in creating peace among Israeli Jews, the Palestinians, and the Arab world. Beginning in the mid-1970s and throughout the 1980s, increasing numbers of Arab voters, especially younger ones, asserted themselves through organizations calling for greater protection of minority rights and the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Generally, Israeli Arabs remained attached to their religious, cultural, and political values, but their ethnic homogeneity has not necessarily resulted in political cohesion. Internal fissures among Christians, Sunni Muslims, and Druzes, Negev beduins and Galilee Arabs, and communist and noncommunist factions have made it difficult for them to act as a single pressure group in dealing with Israel's Jewish majority.
<snip>
.........................
So the challenge to you, I guess, would be to find an article talking about Jewish participation in the governments of, oh lets say ANY Arab nation.

[Gimel]

111. Being welcome

is different than being allowed to take up residence. Thousands of Arab workers still come through the gates on most days of the year, when there isn't a surge in terrorist attacks.

[Classical_Liberal]

87. The Judaizing of the Holy Places was probably a responce to

fundamentalists Jews who want to blow up the Al Aqsa mosque, not Jews in general. Besides it seems Arafat didn't say it.


The PLO chater has been moot since Oslo.

I don't think Arabs are treated that well in Israel, but aside from that Arafat has advocated a secular democracy. He doesn't have to personally welcome Jews. If he doesn't ethnically cleans them he will be better than the Israelis.

[Fight_n_back]

90. So that is what you expect from leaders you support?

He has ethnically cleansed them. It is why the only Jews in the West Bank are now in settlements. Did you think it was always thus?

He doesn't just "ethnically cleanse" them, he "eliminates" them.

The PLO charter is rather prominent on the PA official website and does not say that it is moot. It says that it has been amended in spirit but not words.

How does this view you are now espousing fit in with your progressive ideals?

[Classical_Liberal]

94. What proof do you have that Arafat ethnically cleansed them

or that the only Jews on the West Bank are in the settlements?

The view that I am espousing that Jews should be allowed to live in a Palestinian state fits very well with progressive Ideals.

I really wish you would talk to somebody present in this conversation.

Also the PLO charter, which has been moot since Oslo respected the establishment of two states, called for a multi-ethnic Palestine. This would include Jews.

[Classical_Liberal]

86. Arafat didn't say that either.

so what is your point? The PLO charter has been moot since Oslo.

[Fight_n_back]

91. Show me

where Arafat has advocated a secular democracy that includes Jews.


http://www.pna.gov.ps/Government/gov/plo_Charter.asp

Here is the "government" section on the PNA website. I can't find the part where this is called moot. Could you direct me to that part please?



"""""""""""""'
The constitution that hasn't taken effect yet.

Article (2)
Palestine is part of the Arab Homeland. State of Palestine shall abide by the charter of the League of Arab States. The Palestinian people is part of the Arab and Islamic nations. Arab unity is a goal of the Palestinian people.


Is this the Palestinian Constitution mandating an Arab majority in their new country? Isn't this something you have said you are against?

Article (5)
Arabic shall be the official language and Islam shall be the official religion in Palestine. Christianity, and all other monotheistic religions, shall be equally revered and respected. The Constitution guarantees equality in rights and duties to all citizens irrespective of their religious belief.

Here is the establishment of a state religeon. Something you have said you are against. They state Christians by name and then say "and all other monotheistic religions". So...no Hindus? It isn't explicitly anti Jew...just purposefully disrespectful and a distortion of the history of the area.

Article (7)
The principles of Islamic Shari’a shall be a major source of legislation. The civil and religious matters of the followers of monotheistic religions shall be organized in accordance with their religious teaching and their denominations, within the framework of law and in a manner that preserves the unity and independence of the Palestinian people.

Another progressive policy to get behind. Isn't this something I have seen you complain about elsewhere?

Article (25)
The right to life is guaranteed by the law.

Thats a surprise... not really relavent though.

http://www.mofa.gov.ps/constitution/index.asp

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Look, the occupation should end and the Palestinians should have a state but that doesn't mean everybody needs to pretend they are good guys. If Arafat were the leader of any other country you would call him worse names than you call Sharon. Its a little maddening, actually.

[Classical_Liberal]

95. In Israel you have to go to a religious court to get a divorce

if you are a Jew. You also have to get married and divorced orthodox. This looks no more offensive. I object to the establishment of religion, but Israel isn't secular either by that standard either, so what is your point?

You have proven that non-monotheists might not be welcomed in the Palestinian state. I don't think this includes Jews.

Neither the Jewish state or the Muslim one is my progressive ideal. The two states are more progressive than the apartheid that exists now.

[Gimel]

97. Marriage and divorce laws

Apart from the obvious fact that it shouldn't concern anyone who isn't Jewish, marriages performed outside the state of Israel are recognized. In other words, a couple could go to the Island of Rhodes or anywhere in Europe to be married, like Americans who go to Tijuana to tie the knot. These laws are not the only measure of a secular state, and secular marriages are being performed in Israel, in contravention of the law. As a young country and a young legal system these matters remain in flux. The constitution is being drawn up now, and I wouldn't be surprised if you'll see some changes.

[Fight_n_back]

99. Does Arafat control Israel divorce laws?

If not then how does that fact support your assertion that Arafat will welcome Jews in the West Bank?

"Apartheid"...how many Black South Africans held seats in government in South Africa? Perhaps you can think of a more cogent example.

If you really think that Israel is as bad as South Africa was during aprtheid then I am dissapointed in your lack of action against Israel. Perhaps you were just being hyperbolic.

[Classical_Liberal]

103. The constitution looks ok to me.

. They don't welcome monotheists, which wouldn't include Jews.

[Fight_n_back]

105. ?

"They don't welcome monotheists, which wouldn't include Jews"

Im not sure this is what you meant to say.

The PA constitution would make a US Republican cream their Sears suit. Right to Life, free market capitalism, state church...

[Classical_Liberal]

113. They welcome all monotheistic people which would

include Jews.

Israel has laws against intermarriage between Jews and non Jews, and discriminitory immigration laws. It has state sanctioned religion and is also free market fundy. Netenyahu is a neoliberal and loves cutting social services.

[Fight_n_back]

115. Why do you keep bringing up Israel?

Arafat has no control over Israeli policies. I am comparing Arafat against your stated beliefs as a progressive, not some country the size of New Jersey.

[Jim Sagle]

108. Horseshit.

[Fight_n_back]

76. Im willing to be convinced

post where Arafat says Jews will be allowed to live in the West Bank and have the same rights that Arabs have in Israel. Shouldn't be hard to find should it?

Ethnic cleansing? Have you done research on this? The number of Jews that were eliminated from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Iran after the Shah fell is rarely mentioned by you.

The West Bank itself is full of names like "Hebron" and "Bethlehem", perhaps you recognize the origin of these names? Is yopur assumption that the judenfrein nature of the West Bank was because of regular and voluntary migration?

You state things as if they are fact when they are not fact but rather your belief about what happened.

Your view that Jews lived in Palestine without incident is convenient and indefensible. Plus, the Kurds wouldn't have had trouble from Hussein if they hadn't been all uppity and demanded to govern themselves.

Science:
Geneticists have found that Palestinains and Jews have a very recent common ancestry. What are today known as Palestinains are Jews who converted to Islam and Chrisitainity in the recent past.
http://www.harpers.org/Genetics.html#20030929223215-1617076330

Something to remember when you are throwing around this indidgenous stuff.

[Classical_Liberal]

96. Those incidences weren't done by Arafat

They were however done after the Balfour declaration of intent to create a zionist (Jewish majority)state.

Bethleham was ethnically cleansed by Romans. Hebron was destroyed because of antizionist riots. Zionsim itself intended to ethnically cleans arabs and did. The incidences in the other countries happened after 1948 and were a responce to ethnic cleansing of Arabs from Israel. Furthermore they weren't state sponcered. Those Jews left of their own volition in responce to a negative political climate that occured against them after the creation of Israel. It wasn't fair to accuse them all of being zionists, but that is often what happened.

[The Magistrate]

98. The Eviction Of Jews From Various Moslem Countries After '48, Ma'am

Certainly were state-sponsored.

[Fight_n_back]

100. Another interesting non sequiter

your revisionist history (Jews left, suddenly and without taking any belongings with them, of their own volition....this sounds like what conservative Israelis say about Palestinian refugees) that ill informed view of history does not support your assertion that Arafat will provide Jews with the same protections and rights that Arabs in Israel have.

[Classical_Liberal]

102. You ought to know about non-sequitors

. You said Arafat said he was building a state for Arabs only, and haven't been able to provide one bit of proof of this. You showed a constitution which by your own account would welcome monotheists including Jews. Not being able to back up you claims you moved the goal post to whether they will be personally welcomed.

[Fight_n_back]

106. Please look up the definition of non sequitor

You cannot back up your claim that ARAFAT would allow Jews in the Palestinian nation. He explicitly mentions Christians and Muslims. Do you think he can't think of another religion, offhand, that lives in the area?

What other world leaders are you willing to bend this far over backward for?

Perhaps your handle should be Neo Classical Liberal

[Classical_Liberal]

114. It explicitly mentioned monotheists, which would include Jews

. They are monotheists aren't they?

Maybe you should look up the term straw man?

[Fight_n_back]

116. Thanks for the suggestion

Strawman doesn't apply in this instance.

So as a progressive, you support a constitutional limit on religious freedoms?


You still haven't been able to find anything where ARAFAT talks about how it will be for Jews in Palestine. I have shown you several quotes where he talks about Christians and Moslims. Can you show me one where he talks about Jews?

Do you think it has never occurred to him?

Would you accept his behaviuor from any other world leader that you support?

[JohnLocke]

14. I was going to post this...

[Fight_n_back]

57. There are many voices in the Jewish community

It is one of things that we are proudest of.

There are disagreements, harsh disagreements, between family members over this issue.

The situation will not change because there are different voices from American Jewry. The situation will not change because of the varied and colorful voices of Israeli Jews, Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews and Arabs working together.

The situation will only change when there is a large Palestinian peace movement. When there is an embracing of many different voices in Palestine.

Both sides are often shrill, both sides are often hateful. Only one side openly engages in and favors vigorous debate. There are many Jews who are openly hostile to Israel, many who support neither side, many who only work on building bridges and never engage in the politics. Where are the Palestinians who fight for peace, only peace, with no agenda except peace? Where are the Palestinian students in the US that carry Israeli flags and beg their countrymen to stop the bloodshed? Where are the Palestinian voices that say, "To hell with rhetoric, we need to stop the bloodshed".

That is the one major blockade to peace in the region.

Since Israel took over the occupation of the West Bank from Jordan in 1967 there have been 8 (I think) Prime Ministers of Israel. There have been at least that many approaches to the occupation and Palestinian statehood.

During that time there has been ONE leader of the Palestinian people. One man driving the cause of Palestinian Nationalism.

They should fire that guy, he isn't doing a very good job. He is against virtually every progressive ideal I have worked in my life to promote. I don't want that guy to have his own country. That would only be good for Arafat.

I sent money to Sharon's opponent in the last election. If I sent money to Arafat's opponent what would I be funding? Where would the money go? Would I be put on a watch list?

Like it or not, the Palestinians aren't getting their own nation until they fire the Egyptian.

[JohnLocke]

74. "Two Jews, Three Opinions!"

:)

[Fight_n_back]

78. You are correct

and you are also correct.


But Tevya, they can't both be correct..


You are also correct!

[JohnLocke]

79. No, I think he is correct!!

[Jim Sagle]

109. You're quite mistaken. And so are you. And so am I.