PDA

View Full Version : Response to Cyrus


09-15-2001, 04:16 AM
I wrote in response to the Meanwhile in the Middle East... thread below, but I thought I'd post it up here. Something about the attitude behind the post bothered me when I first read it, but I couldn't figure out what. In my response, I'm trying to express what it is that I found disagreeable about Cyrus' post. Sorry about the length, comments appreciated.


***The Palestinian Authority issued a protestation for the attacks and called on the European countries and the U.S. once again to send neutral military observers in the area to establish peace. There was no response to the pleas, once again.***


Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority planned strikes of its own against the elected goverment of its country.


When the PA puts children in front of armed fighters and attacks Isreali soldiers, then complains about children being shot at by Isrealis, who is to blame?


I understand that Isreal's tactics are not the most admirable, but you certainly can't claim that the PA is an innocent victim. You refer to the Palestinians as people defending their homeland, but that homeland is Israeli territory. How many Mexicans were attempting to fight off the US in new mexico or california in 1870? What about Germans attacking in West Germany in 1970? How can Israel give up its land, especially its most important city, to a band of terrorists, regardless of the current living conditions, religion, or historical presence of those terrorists? You should not be arguing that Israel is dealing with them in an unreasonable way. You should be arguing that Israel needs to find a way to enfranchise and aid the Palestinians living in its country. Or you could argue that the Palestinians who don't want to be a part of the same country as the Jewish population of Israel should find a different place to live.


In our country, we support the right of people to hold different points of view. We believe this is the only logical way to run a country, and it is this freedom which we are most fervent about defending. Not all of the world agrees with us. Our own forefathers didn't entirely agree with us. We believe that the responsibility of a government is to provide for the livelihood and safety of all its citizens regardless of their background. Israel does not currently do this, but just like in this country, where we are able to make provisions for minority groups and to focus on the protection of those people who are part of a minority, Israel should be capable of working out a similar system, if its people are willing. There has been so much hatred in that part of the world, and the religious conflict is so deeply ingrained, that this may not be possible.


Simply pointing out some attack made by the Israeli government, which is engaged in a process of fighting rebels within its borders, does not make any point. Saying that because we support Israel, we shouldn't be surprised that Palestinians cheer at our death, is simply wrong. If you think the US has not been trying to peacefully end the conflict in the Middle East, you apparently haven't been paying any attention to the situation. If you think that we should stop sending foreign aid to Israel, you should realize that we send to foreign aid to countries as a reward for supporting the process of diplomacy and making efforts to help their people. That money may be used to train soldiers or buy weapons, or it may be used to pay for the things that money which is used on the military would have payed for. It doesn't matter. We don't give aid to countries which refuse to engage in diplomacy or which insist upon violating the human rights of their people. We also don't give aid to rebels unless they are fighting countries which we are opposed to, thus aiding us in our own fight.


Killing people whom you believe are engaged in the process of killing others, and who do not care to engage in the political process cannot be compared to killing people who have done nothing, merely to make some sort of point. The military action you refered to in Israel was aimed at eliminating the leaders of a rebel organization. The attack on the WTC was aimed at killing as many people as possible.


You say that they want to have some influence on our lives, because we have been influencing theirs, but is a completely unreasonable goal. They should be more concerned with figuring out how to improve their lives. We do not influence people's lives for the sake of doing so. We influence people's lives either by accident or in order to help them. And we respond to people who bring their concerns to us in a peaceful way and sit down to talk things over and arrive at a reasonable solution. We do not respond to people who refuse to compromise and instead to use violence to attempt to achieve their goals.


You act as if the US goes around arbitrarily taking sides in various conflicts and funnelling heaps of money into the side they support. We do not take sides arbitrarily. We do not take sides purely out of some monetary interest. We do not attack peaceful countries or support attacks against them. If we were only interested in money, we would have been on the side of the OPEC nations in every conflict they've entered. We would not support Israel at the risk of alienating countries which supply us with oil. However, we have experienced hostile reactions from the OPEC nations, and have thus supported Israel, which was friendly to us. We have continued to support Israel, which has a democratically elected government, and which has been attacked openly on many occasions, as well as being constantly under pressure from terrorists the last few years. We do this because they have been involved in attempts to find peaceful solutions to problems consistently over the last half century.


Critically evaluating the actions of our government and then voicing our opinions is something which Americans have to do to keep our country true to itself. The right to disagree with the actions of our government is what makes us a free country. But there is a difference between propagandizing and engaging in debate. If you want to examine our position in the Middle East you cannot look only at acts commited by Israelis, or only at acts commited by Palestinians, you have to look at the actions of both, as well as the actions of the neighboring states and the rest of the world.


Finally, I want to say that the following thought process is not likely to be the one which went on in the celebrators heads:


Israel is occupying our country; the US has supported Israel; the support the US has given Israel has been used to make our lives miserable; the US was just attacked; therefore we are happy.


I'd like to submit the following as a more likely thought process:


I've been told over and over during my life that the West is evil; the US is the symbol of the West; the US was just attacked; therefore we are happy.


Cutting our aid to Israel, giving the Palestinians a homeland, sending peacekeepers into Jerusalem, and providing for the use of that city's holy sites by anyone who wants, will not be possible, nor would it solve any of the problems. Merely understanding the point of view of the terrorists and those who support will certainly not solve the problem, nor will it necessarily present a course of action which would solve the problem. We can do what is possible to help other countries work through their problems and solve them peacefully. We can also do what is possible to replace violence with diplomacy. We cannot, however, use respect for another point of view as an excuse for violence commited by the holders of that point of view. Attacking innocent civilians to make a political point, or as a method of achieving political aims, is not acceptable. Destroying an organization which exists to attack innocent civilians in lieu of political discourse is not only acceptable, but necessary.

09-15-2001, 10:34 AM
I won't respond to all this because its nothing more than a paraphrase of remembered propaganda that's so inaccurate and chauvinistic it would make most Israelis blush. And while I believe it's racist to deny Palestinians homeland rights in the former Palestine while awarding them to Jewish immigrants from the United States and elsewhere, I realize this morality is not generally shared by many Americans. However, labeling four million Palestinians and their leadership a "band of terrorists" is straightforwardly racist, which I think virtually everyone -- including most Israelis -- would acknowledge, in my experience it's simply a waste of time trying to argue with white supremacists and their ilk.


But let me pose a hypothetical. The following was reported yesterday by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights in Gaza:


On Thursday, August 30, 2001, an Israeli combat helicopter opened fired with heavy machine guns on Palestinian residential areas in Tulkarm refugee camp. A Palestinian street sweeper on duty at the time, Daoud Saleh 'Abdel-Nabi Fahmawi, 32, was killed by a live bullet in the chest. Three other Palestinian civilians were wounded. Also on Thrusday, Mousa Safi Qudeihat, 50, a physician from Kharas village near Hebron, was killed by a heavy caliber bullet that entered the abdomen and exited the back. Qudeihat was crossing a street on his way to the offices of Ministry of Health when he was shot dead by Israeli occupation soldiers, during heavy shelling of Hebron. Additionally, 17 Palestinians, including 16 civilians, were wounded. One of the wounded, a 10-year-old child, Bilal Ismail El-'Amassi, was seriously wounded by a live bullet that entered the back and exited the chest. The child was shopping with his family in preparation for the new school year when he was shot by Israeli occupation soldiers.


[Quoted with minor paraphrasing from electronicintifada.org]


Do you think the families of the people killed above were "terrorized" by this incident? If the attackers in the above account were Palestinian were Israeli, would you call this terrorism? If a foreign country provided the weaponry for such Palestinian attacks, knowing full well the purpose for which it would be used, would you say that country supported terrorism? Would you then question that country's moral right to generally condemn terrorism?


Lenny, can you name a single book or article that puts forth the case for a Palestinian state or Palestinian resistence to the continued Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza? If not, don't you think you should at least consider what the other side has to say before publishing condemnations of it?

09-15-2001, 11:40 AM
"If a foreign country provided the weaponry for such Palestinian attacks, knowing full well the purpose for which it would be used, would you say that country supported terrorism? "


If you are saying that the U.S. provided weapons to Israel "knowing full well" that the Israeli's purpose is to terrorize the Palestinians then you are just plain wrong. I am not naive enough to believe that the U.S government has clean hands in our handling of the situation in the mid east. But we support Israel to help them with the self defense of their country.


What is being said here is that there are countries in the world that are supporting Terrorist groups "knowing full well" that their sole purpose is to terrorize the populace of certain countries. What is being said here is that because of this act of murder against United States citizens the perpertrators have declared war on the United States or a crime has been committed against the United States. In either case, a War or a crime the U.S. believes it has the right to seek retribution against the perpertrators and their supporters, allies and accomplices in this act. This is not about Israel or Palestine. This is about 5,000 Americans killed at the Word Trade Center, the Pentagon and a plane crash in Pennsylvania. When McVeigh was found to be the perpertrator of Oklahoma City the U.S. went after anyone else that may have been involved or supported McVeigh. The same will happen here.


Vince

09-15-2001, 12:07 PM
"If you are saying that the U.S. provided weapons to Israel "knowing full well" that the Israeli's purpose is to terrorize the Palestinians then you are just plain wrong. I am not naive enough to believe that the U.S government has clean hands in our handling of the situation in the mid east. But we support Israel to help them with the self defense of their country."


Then aren't the Palestinians that shoot soldiers of occupying forces in the West Bank and Gaza also defending "their country?" And isn't this what Israel and the U.S. includes in their definition of terrorism?

09-15-2001, 12:38 PM
If Israel withdrew from the West Bank and Gaza would there be peace?

09-15-2001, 01:00 PM
The country of Israel is defined according to international law. The Palestinians are not defending a country. Maybe they should have a country, but they don't. The two issues, while interrelated, are not the same.

09-15-2001, 01:01 PM

09-15-2001, 01:12 PM

09-15-2001, 01:13 PM

09-15-2001, 01:41 PM
"The country of Israel is defined according to international law."


That's right, and under international law the West Bank and Gaza are not part of the country of Israel, and it's army is one of foreign occupation.


"The Palestinians are not defending a country."


Defined as a land on which a nation lives, they most certainly are. But assuming you're right, does that make the violence they inflict in order to create a country terrorists? Does this mean that those that used violence to create the present state of Israel, including it's present Prime Minister, are subject to condemnation as terrorists, or is "terrorist" just a convenient label we use to demonize those we oppose?

09-15-2001, 02:37 PM
It would remove the root cause of the current problem. The days when the organized Palestinian fronts like Fatah and the PLFP proclaimed their desire to replace Israel with a "secular" state are long gone. The central conflict now is that Israel is determined to isolate the Palestinians in the occupied territories into Bantustan-like enclaves seperated by a network of fortified settlements connected with Israel-controlled roads and superstructure (water, utilities, etc.), and sees little reason, in the absence of U.S. pressure, to consider any significant departure from this plan.


The Palestinians refuse to go along with it. What self-respecting people would?

09-15-2001, 03:22 PM
--""The country of Israel is defined according to international law. The Palestinians are not defending a country. Maybe they should have a country, but they don't. The two issues, while interrelated, are not the same.""--


You're presenting only half the story.


The Palestinians who have been getting killed are not "outsiders" attacking Israel. The Palestinians who have been getting killed are not "guerillas", i.e. armed and dangerous, but ordinary civilians, including women, children and old men. Israelis kill indiscriminately - then are surprised when Palestinians respond to barbarism and terrorism with babarism and terrorism of their own, such as the discotheque bombings.


Note also, that Israel has been formally asked by the int'l forum specifically & uniquely empowered to execute International Law, which is the United Nations, to abandon land won in 1967, explicitly. It is Israel that is re-occupying now the land won in 1967 and supposedly handed over to the Palestinians after Oslo (not really, read the small print). It is the Israelis who have violated International Law many times over, not the occupied Palestinians, but Israel has avoided codemnation on the basis of ONE SOLE VETO. Guess what country vetoes automaticall any condemnation of Israel for 50 years now. Not that a unanimous condemnation would sweat the Israelis any, when not followed by real measures, but still! It goes to show you who's for the Law and who's not. Isn't that what you're after, the rule of law?

09-15-2001, 03:24 PM
You wrote:


"We don't give aid to countries which refuse to engage in diplomacy or which insist upon violating the human rights of their people."


Bulls***!. Are you saying that Israel does not violate the human rights of it's people? Perhaps if those people are of Jewish descent but that's it. The number one principle that a democracy must abide by is to follow the Rule of Law. Meaning that all of it's citizens are treated equally before the law and that nobody is above the law. A country is not a democracy unless it does this! You cannot call Israel a democracy simply because it let's it's citizens vote every four or five years.. that is NOT enough!


I'll admit that this is a separate issue from the World Trade Centre attacks. I'm not saying there was justification for it. But to say that the U.S. only supports countries which don't violate human rights is complete nonsense.

09-15-2001, 03:35 PM
Chris Alger wrote --"The central conflict now is that Israel is determined to isolate the Palestinians in the occupied territories into Bantustan-like enclaves seperated by a network of fortified settlements connected with Israel-controlled roads and superstructure (water, utilities, etc.), and sees little reason, in the absence of U.S. pressure, to consider any significant departure from this plan.""--


Precisely. Exactly.


But why quibble with fate?! It is kishmet, it is fate that Israel will win this battle. (That the U.S. will bomb the greater Afghani/Pakistani/Bellagiani area to smithereens will be totally irrelevant to the process.)


And the Palestinians shall be confined in reservations. And they shall breed and multiply and go forth. And they will get full sovereignty in their little 100-acre free lands. And they will struggle to get out of poverty and they will display their ancient culture's wares for the tourists. And they will sport their traditional garb proudly if sullenly. And their kids will be educated in Israeli schools and they will learn law, mathematics and business. And one day they will apply for a casino licence.


And then Palestinians will have their revenge.

09-15-2001, 03:39 PM
But will there be peace? Yes or no. If no, why?

09-15-2001, 03:45 PM
No, I'm not after the rule of law, per se, and I'm glad you provided some information of which I was not aware.


If Northern Mexico had historically been used as a springboard for terrorist attacks on the U.S., I bet we would occupy Northern Mexico too (if the attacks persisted after our fisrt massive response), and it might well be necessary as a means of self-defense. Is this a somewhat valid analogy?

09-15-2001, 03:57 PM

09-15-2001, 04:02 PM
--""If Northern Mexico had historically been used as a springboard for terrorist attacks on the U.S., I bet we would occupy Northern Mexico too (if the attacks persisted after our fisrt massive response), and it might well be necessary as a means of self-defense. Is this a somewhat valid analogy?""--


Analogy to what? The Israeli occupation of South Lebanon, perhaps? I don't understand.


..A general point, the most important point:


The Palestinian refusal to be quiet was accurately analyzed by Chris Alger (check my post titled "Crystal Ball"). But when do we move beyond the nationalist/irredentist claims on LAND, which have been keeping the whole world in a 19th century mindset with all this?! We are pro-Israeli if we believe that Israel has a divine claim on those or those lands, and we are pro-Palestinian if we believe that it's the Palestinians that have a historical claim on the land. I say be done with it!.. The world moves towards globalization, whether we want it or not, which involves the weakening of frontiers and the strengthening of ideas. Why is a secular, non-religious, all-race state, along the lines of a United States not an objective?


If only the Jews had created such a country in 1948!.. They would have truly been our saviors, literally. They would have truly become, by circumstance, the chosen people. A free country such as this would have ushered the whole humanity past our childhood, into a new age of reflection and enlightment.

09-15-2001, 04:27 PM
Given 50 years of conflict I can't imagine that the unilateral acts of any side to this conflict could bring immediate peace throughout Israel and the occupied territories. It's really a question of whether the parties continue on their present course, which will certainly result in greater violence, perhaps even more unimaginable than what has already occurred, or whether they radically shift their efforts towards negotiating a reasonble solution.


This is all so much wishful thinking, as Israel's leadership is not inclined to alter their plans for territorial aggrandizement in the absence of firm U.S. pressure, which is probably less likely now. I note that Sharon today cancelled planned talks between Peres and Arafat, exploiting the political advtange to Israel provided by the WTC bombers.

09-15-2001, 06:38 PM
50 years!!! I thinbk you've sadly revealed something about yourself, here.


Try a few thousand years.


Do you really think that the creation of the State of Israel is responsible for ALL the turmoil in the mideast?


I'm not saying Israel is blameless. I think they're continuing policy of settling the West Bank is doing nothing more than throwing gasoline on the fire. Still it remains, as M pointed out, that Israel is a recognized political entity on this planet. Those who are committed to her extermination, and try to bring it about through violence, are criminals.


I feel the Palestinians deserve a homeland. I feel Palestinians deserve to live in peace and should be able to live and raise their children in a world in which they'll have some stake. They refuse to live under Israel rule yet they desire to live in Israel territory. I just don't see a solution. I'm sure Solomon would have had difficulty as well.

09-15-2001, 08:11 PM
"Try a few thousand years."


Not even the current ethnic Palestinians have been living there that long. Islam isn't even that old.


My understanding is that the Arab v. Jew turmoil began in the middle east at the onset of Zionest attempts to colonize Palestine n the late nineteenth century. There were sporadic riots and other disturbances prior to WWII, but it became a sustained conflict only when zionism became a viable movement to create an exclusionary state.


"Do you really think that the creation of the State of Israel is responsible for ALL the turmoil in the mideast?"


Of course I don't. I think Israel and U.S. unilateralism cuased the current intifada and remain the largest obstacle to peace, but certainly there are intractable elements and other difficulties on both sides.


"Still it remains, as M pointed out, that Israel is a recognized political entity on this planet. Those who are committed to her extermination, and try to bring it about through violence, are criminals."


I though I was the one that was suppose to complain about the U.S. being founded by criminals;-). Broken down, this amounts to a "might makes right" argument.


"They refuse to live under Israel rule yet they desire to live in Israel territory."


The only thing that makes it "Israel territory" is the Israeli army: it is an occupying force. Apart from the obduracy of the most powerful actors, the possibilities for peace are not far-fetched. There is a general solution to this problem that the world outside the U.S. has been advocating for many years.

09-15-2001, 08:26 PM
>>"We don't give aid to countries which refuse to engage in diplomacy or which insist upon violating the human rights of their people." <<


http://www.amnesty-usa.org/countries/saudi_arabia/justice/a_system_open_to_abuse.html


Check out this link. Personally I think we've prostituted ourselves by being aligned with the Saudi's.

09-15-2001, 09:00 PM
Quote from nasser in 1967,


"Again, a few months later, Nasser expressed the Arabs' aspiration: "...the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel."(4)

09-15-2001, 09:12 PM

09-15-2001, 09:21 PM
At some level, when we get past all the international law stuff and sovereignty talk and civilized controls, all that ever makes a country a sovereign unit within whatever borders it has, is the fact it can occupy and control its territory through means that are forceful. They are not always outwardly violent means, but sometimes they are. And in the last 50 years, several countries have taken their shot at Israel and lost. In the end if Israel keeps its existence alive, it will have been through violent means. And the same goes for most countries.

09-15-2001, 11:05 PM

09-16-2001, 03:09 AM
Jake, nice, funny description of the Saudi political system: "one man, one vote, literally". But it is not accurate. I prefer to call their system the Perfect Mafia.


See, this is a country run by a Family, the Sauds, who have spawned numerous princes and princelings and whatever, all placed in various key positions of the regime, all "consulted" through the family hierarchy according to the seriousness of the matter at hand, and all sharing (again, according to hierarchy) the loot (read : oil income) on a pro rata basis. Above everyone rules the Capo Di Tutti Capi, Guardian of some familye jewels or other - and a very harsh Law.


No family wars, no fratricides, no turncoats, no stoolies, no trouble. The perfect way to run a mob!


...Next week, on HBO : "Tony Goes To Jeddah For Some Primers".

09-16-2001, 03:21 AM
--""50 years!!! I think you've sadly revealed something about yourself, here. Try a few thousand years."" --


No.


The conflict between Palestinians and Jews does not go back to antiquity. The Palestinians are, in fact, a semite racial group and have never been anti-semites, historically. Their antagonism towards Jews began when the Zionists started seriously demanding the Palestinian land for the Jews and the Jews only. This started some 100 years ago. And it borne fruit, for the natives, when Israel was created.


--""I just don't see a solution. I'm sure Solomon would have had difficulty as well.""--


Solomon would prove himself to be the equal of the Founding Fathers by completely separating State from Religion, and doing away in one swoop with both sides' fundamentalist notions- not to mention, establishing the best basis for a total amalgamation of races in the area.


Himmler's nightmare! A totally mixed race, prospering on the ancient Holy Land. Now, THAT would be the Jews' perfect vengeance.

09-16-2001, 05:35 AM
How does it amount to a "might makes right" argument? Didn't Israel come into existence under U.N. auspices and wasn't it created in accordance with international law? That's my very limited impression; feel free to correct me if I am wrong. And if that is so, then it doesn't seem like a "might makes right" argument to me, unless the might is used to hold on to what Israel has a right to.

09-16-2001, 09:18 AM
So, you think the Palestinians have only hated the Jews for about 100 years? I guess that depends how you define palestinians. Did they spring into existance with the creation of palestine? Are they descendants of the nomads that people generally associate with the holy land? Where did they come from? And who have been fighhting the jews since the time of Abraham?


In 1947 the jews took by force the area we used to know as palestine. the jews needed a safe place considering what happened during world war 2. They had been ejected from every country in the world except for France and the US. They were granted political life by the UN in 1948. In 1956 they were attacked. They won. In 1967 they were attacked, they won land they held it, they won, they gave the land back. In 1973 they were attacked they won they won land, they held the land as a buffer.


Israel recognizes every other state's right to exist. The Arab world has made it clear time and again that the destruction of Israel is the only solution. They might talk nice, they might make promises, but I'm pretty sureeven the most rabid anti zionist in the world wouldn't blame Israel for not trusting the words of Arafat and Assad.


Israel is here to stay. Get used to it. You don't have to like it.

09-16-2001, 11:12 AM
I'm used to having Israel in the neighborhood, Sammy, but I sure don't appreciate your distortion of facts here! And I'm not talking about arcane stuff, either...


You wrote "In 1947 the jews took by force the area we used to know as palestine."

Thanks for admitting that the Zionists had started the take-over b e f o r e the UN proclamation. This is indeed correct. The Zionists never were and never will be supporters of an Arab/Jewish cohabitation of the land. And didn't you just admit that this was Palestine?


You wrote "You think the Palestinians have only hated the Jews for about 100 years? Who have been fighting the jews since the time of Abraham?"

The people who call themselves Palestinians are descendants of the ancient occupiers of those lands only in name. And so are the Jews. Unless you believe in some biological continuation & purity of blood, along with the theory that stronger race blood overcomes the weaker one. Tell me, it would be intriguing!


You wrote "[The Jews] had been ejected from every country in the world except for France and the US."

WRONG. They were "ejected" from France, too. Read your history, man.


You wrote "They [Israel] were granted political life by the UN in 1948."

WRONG. Contrary to what you want us to believe, it was not the United Nations that gave birth to Israel in some peaceful & idyllic manner. Zionist armed bands led by Ben-Gurion proclaimed unilaterally the birth of Israel on May 14, 1948, right after the British vacated Palestine, ignoring pleas by the "civilised worlds" for continued talks with the Arabs who had rejected the idea of a strictly Jewish state. The Arabs of course promptly attacked - and yes, they lost. (And don't think that Israel was "weak and helpless" either. We know better. It was Goliath defeating David to be exact. Arabs fell for it wholesale.)


See http://domino.un.org/UNISPAl.NSF?OpenDatabase


The United Nations accepted Israel as a member in 1949 - with the strongest support coming from the Soviet Union.


You wrote "In 1956 they [Israelis] were attacked."

WRONG. It was the Israelis who attacked in 1956.

The Israelis invaded Sinai, along with the French and the British, advanced to the canal, and captured the Gaza Strip. A cease-fire was arranged, because the United States opposed the invasion and strong-armed its allies and Israel to stop it. In early in 1957 the invaders' troops were replaced by the UN Emergency Force. I guess, you could say that "they won", yes.


See http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0796/9607083.htm


(Side note: The Israelis tried to undermine Nasser's efforts whereby the British colinists would vacate Egypt. They staged sabotages of British and American facilities, including bombs planted in American libraries, that were to be pinned on Egypt. To the Israelis' embarassment the whole thing blew in their faces. Read about the Lavon affair as detailed by a Jew : http://www.intellex.com/~rigs/page1/lavon.htm)


You wrote "In 1967 they [Israelis] were attacked"

WRONG. In 1967, the Zionists attacked again. You must assume that everyone in this forum was born after the 70s, man!


You wrote "Israel recognizes every other state's right to exist."

WRONG. Ariel Sharon and others, including Labor ministers, have often proclaimed in the past, and most prominently in the 80s, that the Kingdom of Jordan should not exist! That it was the rightful place for all those who called themselves Palestinians. King Hussein did not exactly fell in love with that view.


....Don't take my word on all this, guys, run a search on the Internet and read for yourselves. Start with http://www.mideastfacts.com/index_zion1.html

09-16-2001, 01:49 PM
Sammy wrote: "still, ...Israel is a recognized political entity...."


SFW? Having status as a legitimate political entity doesn't absolve Israel for assassination and terror on the occupied territories any more the recogniztion of the legitimacy of Indonesia, the PRC, or South Africa absolved them for doing the same respectively in East Timor, Tibet or Namibia. Nor does the absence of international political recognition (which, BTW, the PA already has) render resisting victims such invasions more culpable.


Israel's legitimacy, which I accept, doesn't give it the right to use military force beyond what's necessary for self-defense. The occupation and colonization of the West Bank and Gaza aren't necessary to Israel's self-defense, indeed they obviously detract from it, but are part of a scheme of territorial aggrandizement, or as Gore Vidal provacatively put it: "stealing other people's land at gunpoint in the name of an alien theocracy."


The idea that Israel is less culpable for terrorism because it is an established political entity with a regular army, etc., doesn't wash. Given the greater ability of tanks and helicopter gunships to inflict terror, and given the exponential number of innocent civilians Israel's military and security forces have killed and maimed since it's invasion of the occupied lands (apart from wartime, so excluding the Lebanon invasion), one can easily conclude that Israel, despite it's legitimacy as a sovereign nation-state, is one of the major terrorist organizations operating out of the middle east. I realize this sounds insane given Israel's image in the U.S., but the body count doesn't lie.

09-16-2001, 03:10 PM
I agree that the settlements on the West bank and Gaza are huge mistakes. But, how many of the other "political entities" that you cite have neighbors who have vowed to obliterate them?

09-16-2001, 04:18 PM
The Nassar quote you cited is from 1967. Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia have since made peace with Israel and no longer call for it's obliteration. Perhaps Syria has too, or is waiting for the resolution of the dispute of the Golan Heights.