Historical Arab Oppression of Jews

[MMMMMM]

In a thread below, Cyrus claims that Jews were not historically oppressed by Arabs. Au Contraire, dear Cyrus.

Here a few links cataloguing some of the oppressions of Jews in Arab lands. It is not my intention to write a term paper on this subject(;-)); I am merely providing a few links (of many) which show Arab oppression of Jews. The first is included for the sake of brevity and is in fact a post from a Canadian media board. The second is more thorough and contains references footnoted by the author, Mitchell Bard. Many more such catalogues of Arab oppressions and persecutions of Jews throughout history exist. It is not my purpose to sift through many of them, but rather to show that those who think the Arabs did not oppress the Jews are in fact deeply mistaken. Even a small percentage of the oppressions listed would be sufficient to show that such oppression did indeed exist. Also, the concept of dhimmi, or second-class "protected people of the Book," is in fact not "protection" at all but rather extortion (special yearly poll tax collected, on pain of death) and absolute consignment to second-class citizenship. That in itself is a serious form of oppression, but some of the examples listed below are much more than mere oppression; they are persecution as well.

I do agree that the Jews were more persecuted in Europe, but that in no way mitigates the oppression and persecution they suffered at the hands of the Arabs/Muslims.

(excerpt)

"Jews living in Arab/Moslem lands were officially second class citizens, century after century, having to yield the sidewalk to Muslims, unable to testify in court (which makes it difficult to defend yourself from false accusations), often not allowed to build/repair synagogues (which in any case couldn't be as grand as the neighboring mosques) and subject to pogroms.

Albert Memmi, a Tunisian-born author and political theorist, writes: "Never, except for two or three eras with very clear boundaries in time, such as the Andalusian period ...have the Jews lived in the Arab countries otherwise than as a diminished people in an exposed position, periodically overcome and massacred."

For example, decrees ordering the destruction of synagogues were enacted in Egypt & Syria (1014, 1293, 1301), Iraq (854, 1344) and Yemen (1676). Forced conversions (or death) in Morocco (1275, 1465, 1790) and Baghdad (1333, 1344). Even massacres (5000 Jews in Grenada in 1066, all but 11 Jews in Fez in 1465), Libya (1785), Algiers (1805, 1815, 1830) and Morocco (1864 and 1880).

Previously faced with the Grenada massacre, the "anti-Zionists" tried to lie their way through this by arguing that the Jews were massacred not by Muslim Arabs but by European Christians.

http://www.vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/03/35142_comment.php#35580

Unfortunately for them, this was more the 300 years prior to the Christian reconquest of Spain.

Here's another dose of reality:

http://www.nitle.org/arabworld/texts.php?module_id=6&reading_id=54

| As the nineteenth century began... Jews had to bear the burden of social isolation, inferiority, and general opprobrium. Over the preceding four centuries, they had become increasingly confined into overcrowded ghetto-like quarters, which were called by a variety of names throughout the Muslim world (for example, Mellah, Harat al-Yahud, and Mahallat al-Yahud ). European travelers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were unanimous in their reports of the overall debasement of the Jews living in the Islamic lands. The Italian Jewish poet and traveler Samuel Romanelli, who spent four years among his coreligionists in Morocco in the late eighteenth century, described them as "oppressed, miserable creatures, having neither the mouth to answer an Arab, nor the cheek to raise their head." 3 And the Englishman Edward William Lane, who lived in Cairo during the 1820s and 1830s and was a keen and sympathetic observer of native life, depicted the Jews of Egypt as being "held in the utmost contempt and abhorrence by Muslims in general." 4 He also noted that the condition of the Jewish lower class was wretched and that many in this group depended on alms. 5

Even in the Holy Land, the Jewish homeland, the fate of the Jews under foreign Arab/Muslim rulers was no better:

The Jerusalem Jews were bitterly and mercilessly persecuted during the 17th century reign of an Arab ruler Ibn Barouk who bought the rule from Murad IV. In 1660 the entire Jewish community was massacred by Arabs with only one survivor.

Little is known by Arabs as to why Ahmad Basha El-Jazzar (The Butcher) held this name, his sadistic wanton exploits became legend during the 1800s, who was known to travel accompanied by an executioner. When The Butcher encountered a subject who was adjudged to be misbehaving, "The criminal bowed his neck, the executioner struck, and the head fell" (DeHass). Hayim Farhi, the only Jew who has risen to power in the area was imprisoned by The Butcher, cutting off his nose, ear, and gouging out his eye. The Jews were at the bottom of the heap of peoples in status who had to pay to pray on the Wailing Wall, protection money was always collected against destruction and vandalism of the Jewish burial grounds, and to prevent molestation of Jewish travelers.

In the 1830s havoc was created during the Egyptian reign of Palestine, and the Jews were persecuted brutally throughout the country. In 1834 the inhabitants of Eastern Palestine crossed the Jordan River to join natives of Nablus, Hebron, and Bethlehem, 40,000 of them rushed on Jerusalem and looted the city for 5 days where the Jews had their homes sacked and their women raped. (DeHass, History, vol V, p.393).

The Jewish story in Palestine was like the story of a rape victim, blamed for being there at the time. Between 1848 - 1878 scores of incidents involving anti-Jewish violence, persecution, and extortions filled page after page of documented reports from the British Consulate in Jerusalem.

Throughout the 19th century Jews were victims of mass hunger and of Arab attacks. The 1929 Arab riots resulted in the rape and massacre of most of Hebron's Jewish community.

All this long before 1948." (end excerpt)
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/40079.php

(excerpt)

The Treatment of Jews
in Arab/Islamic Countries
By Mitchell Bard
Arabs sometimes claim that, as "Semites," they cannot possibly be anti-Semitic. This, however, is a semantic distortion that ignores the reality of Arab discrimination and hostility toward Jews. Arabs, like any other people, can indeed be anti-Semitic.

The term "anti-Semite" was coined in Germany in 1879 by Wilhelm Marrih to refer to the anti-Jewish manifestations of the period and to give Jew-hatred a more scientific sounding name.(1) "Anti-Semitism" has been accepted and understood to mean hatred of the Jewish people.

While Jewish communities in Arab and Islamic countries fared better overall than those in Christian lands in Europe, Jews were no strangers to persecution and humiliation among the Arabs and Muslim. As Princeton University historian Bernard Lewis has written: "The Golden Age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam."(2)

Muhammad, the founder of Islam, traveled to Medina in 622 A.D. to attract followers to his new faith. When the Jews of Medina refused to convert and rejected Muhammad, two of the major Jewish tribes were expelled; in 627, Muhammad's followers killed between 600 and 900 of the men, and divided the surviving Jewish women and children amongst themselves.(3)

The Muslim attitude toward Jews is reflected in various verses throughout the Koran, the holy book of the Islamic faith. "They [the Children of Israel] were consigned to humiliation and wretchedness. They brought the wrath of God upon themselves, and this because they used to deny God's signs and kill His Prophets unjustly and because they disobeyed and were transgressors" (Sura 2:61). According to the Koran, the Jews try to introduce corruption (5:64), have always been disobedient (5:78), and are enemies of Allah, the Prophet and the angels (2:97*98).
The Dhimmi

Still, as "People of the Book," Jews (and Christians) are protected under Islamic law. The traditional concept of the "dhimma" ("writ of protection") was extended by Muslim conquerors to Christians and Jews in exchange for their subordination to the Muslims. Peoples subjected to Muslim rule usually had a choice between death and conversion, but Jews and Christians, who adhered to the Scriptures, were allowed as dhimmis (protected persons) to practice their faith. This "protection" did little, however, to insure that Jews and Christians were treated well by the Muslims. On the contrary, an integral aspect of the dhimma was that, being an infidel, he had to openly acknowledge the superiority of the true believer--the Muslim.

In the early years of the Islamic conquest, the "tribute" (or jizya), paid as a yearly poll tax, symbolized the subordination of the dhimmi. Later, the inferior status of Jews and Christians was reinforced through a series of regulations that governed the behavior of the dhimmi. Dhimmis, on pain of death, were forbidden to mock or criticize the Koran, Islam or Muhammad, to proselytize among Muslims or to touch a Muslim woman (though a Muslim man could take a non*Muslim as a wife).

Dhimmis were excluded from public office and armed service, and were forbidden to bear arms. They were not allowed to ride horses or camels, to build synagogues or churches taller than mosques, to construct houses higher than those of Muslims or to drink wine in public. They were not allowed to pray or mourn in loud voices-as that might offend the Muslims. The dhimmi had to show public deference toward Muslims-always yielding them the center of the road. The dhimmi was not allowed to give evidence in court against a Muslim, and his oath was unacceptable in an Islamic court. To defend himself, the dhimmi would have to purchase Muslim witnesses at great expense. This left the dhimmi with little legal recourse when harmed by a Muslim.(4)

Dhimmis were also forced to wear distinctive clothing. In the ninth century, for example, Baghdad's Caliph al-Mutawakkil designated a yellow badge for Jews, setting a precedent that would be followed centuries later in Nazi Germany.(5)
Violence Against Jews

At various times, Jews in Muslim lands were able to live in relative peace and thrive culturally and economically. The position of the Jews was never secure, however, and changes in the political or social climate would often lead to persecution, violence and death. Jews were generally viewed with contempt by their Muslim neighbors; peaceful coexistence between the two groups involved the subordination and degradation of the Jews.

When Jews were perceived as having achieved too comfortable a position in Islamic society, anti-Semitism would surface, often with devastating results: On December 30, 1066, Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, Spain, was crucified by an Arab mob that proceeded to raze the Jewish quarter of the city and slaughter its 5,000 inhabitants. The riot was incited by Muslim preachers who had angrily objected to what they saw as inordinate Jewish political power.

Similarly, in 1465, Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a Muslim woman in "an offensive manner." The killings touched off a wave of similar massacres throughout Morocco.(6)

Other mass murders of Jews in Arab lands occurred in Morocco in the 8th century, where whole communities were wiped out by Muslim ruler Idris I; North Africa in the 12th century, where the Almohads either forcibly converted or decimated several communities; Libya in 1785, where Ali Burzi Pasha murdered hundreds of Jews; Algiers, where Jews were massacred in 1805, 1815 and 1830 and Marrakesh, Morocco, where more than 300 hundred Jews were murdered between 1864 and 1880.(7)

Decrees ordering the destruction of synagogues were enacted in Egypt and Syria (1014, 1293-4, 1301-2), Iraq (854-859, 1344) and Yemen (1676). Despite the Koran's prohibition, Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face death in Yemen (1165 and 1678), Morocco (1275, 1465 and 1790-92) and Baghdad (1333 and 1344).(8)

As distinguished Orientalist G.E. von Grunebaum has written:

It would not be difficult to put together the names of a very sizeable number of Jewish subjects or citizens of the Islamic area who have attained to high rank, to power, to great financial influence, to significant and recognized intellectual attainment; and the same could be done for Christians. But it would again not be difficult to compile a lengthy list of persecutions, arbitrary confiscations, attempted forced conversions, or pogroms.(9)

The situation of Jews in Arab lands reached a low point in the 19th century. Jews in most of North Africa (including Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Morocco) were forced to live in ghettos. In Morocco, which contained the largest Jewish community in the Islamic Diaspora, Jews were made to walk barefoot or wear shoes of straw when outside the ghetto. Even Muslim children participated in the degradation of Jews, by throwing stones at them or harassing them in other ways. The frequency of anti-Jewish violence increased, and many Jews were executed on charges of apostasy. Ritual murder accusations against the Jews became commonplace in the Ottoman Empire.(10)

By the twentieth century, the status of the dhimmi in Muslim lands had not significantly improved. H.E.W. Young, British Vice Consul in Mosul, wrote in 1909:

The attitude of the Muslims toward the Christians and the Jews is that of a master towards slaves, whom he treats with a certain lordly tolerance so long as they keep their place. Any sign of pretension to equality is promptly repressed.(11)

The danger for Jews became even greater as a showdown approached in the UN over partition in 1947. The Syrian delegate, Faris el-Khouri, warned: "Unless the Palestine problem is settled, we shall have difficulty in protecting and safeguarding the Jews in the Arab world."(12)

More than a thousand Jews were killed in anti-Jewish rioting during the 1940's in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Syria and Yemen.(13) This helped trigger the mass exodus of Jews from Arab countries.
Notes



1. Vamberto Morais, A Short History of Anti-Semitism, (NY: W.W Norton and Co., 1976), p. 11; Bernard Lewis, Semites & Anti-Semites, (NY: WW Norton & Co., 1986), p. 81.

2. Bernard Lewis, "The Pro-Islamic Jews," Judaism, (Fall 1968), p. 401.

3. Bat Ye'or, The Dhimmi, (NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985), pp. 43-44.

4. Bat Yeor, pp. 30, 56-57; Louis Gardet, La Cite Musulmane: Vie sociale et politique, (Paris: Etudes musulmanes, 1954), p. 348.

5. Bat Yeor, pp. 185-86, 191, 194.

6. Norman Stillman, The Jews of Arab Lands, (PA: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1979), pp. 59, 284.

7. Maurice Roumani, The Case of the Jews from Arab Countries: A Neglected Issue, (Tel Aviv: World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries, 1977), pp. 26-27.

8. Bat Ye'or, p. 61

9. G.E. Von Grunebaum, "Eastern Jewry Under Islam," Viator, (1971), p. 369.

10. Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam, (NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984) p. 158.

11. Middle Eastern Studies, (1971), p. 232.

12. New York Times, (February 19, 1947).

13. Roumani, pp. 30-31. (end excerpt)
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Jews_in_Arab_lands_(gen).html

[Moonsugar]

Jews have been oppressed by Arabs. It is common knowledge and: So what?

One day both sides are going to have to step out of the past and into a future.

[ACPlayer]

Jews by arabs, christians; muslims by jews,christians; muslims by jews; christians by muslims

They all trace their roots to Abraham. The Judaic-christian history is one of extreme immorality in the name of god.

Killing humans in the name of god. They are all god-less.

Time for us to grow up and abandon rcognize that religion is a tool used by politicians to get and stay in power. A panacea for the masses.

[andyfox]

Whie plenty of examples of mistreatment of Jews can be found in both Christian and Muslim countires, overall, historically Jews were treated worse in Christian lands than in Muslim lands.

According to Bernard Lewis, Jews fared better under Islam than under Christianity:

"If we compare the Muslim attitude to Jews and treatment of Jews in medieval times with the position of Jews among their Christian neibghbors in medieval Europe, we see some striking contrasts. In Islamic society hostility to the Jews is nontheological. It is rather the usual attitude of the dominant to the subordinate, of the majority to the minority, without that additional theological and therefore psychological dimension that gives Christian anti-Semitism its unique and special character." [The Jews of Islam]

Lewis goes on to note that the Jews were one of several minorities in Islam, not the sole minority, as in Europe. And, because Muslim society was "diverse and pluralistic," the minorities were "far less noticeable."

If you're interested in exploring this further, M, Lewis's The Jews of Islam is a good place to start. Also Mark R. Cohen's Under Crescent & Cross.

[MMMMMM]

I don't disagree that Jews were treated even worse elsewhere, and I think I said that in my post.

Since several people in recent threads seemed to think that Arab oppression of Jews was insignificant (or even nonexistent), I though it appropriate to post this.

[MMMMMM]

"Jews have been oppressed by Arabs. It is common knowledge and: So what?"

It may be common knowledge to you, but apparently it wasn't common knowledge to some others involved in recent threads.

[Chris Alger]

"I do agree that the Jews were more persecuted in Europe...."

But you've never suggested that this fact has any relevance to European rights of national self-determination, or to Israeli or Jewish claims that could abrogate or infringe on those rights. Nor do you concede that similar Israeli rights must be compromised as a result of its history of anti-Arab persecution.

As a result, an impartial observer must conclude that your discriminatory emphasis on history amounts to a crude, self-contradictory pretext for rationalizing the ongoing mistreatment by Israel of Palestinian Arabs and U.S. support for same.

P.S. The claim that the 1929 Hebron massacre leading to the rape and murder of "most" of the Jewish residents is inaccurate. 67 Hebron Jews from a population of 800 were murdered, the worst act of anti-Jewish violence in Palestine through that date. Hebron Arabs saved "dozens, maybe even hundreds of Jews" from the hands of the marauders. Jewish Virtual Library (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/hebron29.html). Hebron was also the location of Baruch Goldstein's 1994 massacre of 29 praying Palestinians, followed by attacks on funerals by armed settler gangs and IDF shooting the riots that followed, leading ot a death toll of around 50 Arabs. Danny Rubenstein (http://www.acj.org/april/april_3.htm). This other "Hebron massacre" sparked the first wave of Palestinian suicide bombings, which in turn led to....

Enough already.

[nicky g]

It was insignificant in that it was not a systematic or consistent persecution in the way the Christians persecuted the Jews, and did not stand out from hundreds of other incidents across the centuries. It was the occasional persecution of a minority by members of a dominant group, by certain leaders at certain times. Furthermore it applied as much to Chrisitians as Jews, and other "non-book" religions suffered far far more, as they did not fall under the "protection"; in that sense, the Jews were in no way at the bottom of the heap - they were in the middle, along with the Christians. There was no consistent ideological desire on the part of Muslims or Arabs to persecute or eliminate the Jews from their society, and it is a nonsense to sugget that occasional instances of persection hundreds of years ago over centuries in territories spanning thousands of miles and millions of people, of a people who by and large fared much better on those parts of the world than any other, leads to the conclusion that Palestinian peasants should have had to give up their land to Zionists by some way of compensation, especialy given the horrific events that happened in Western Europe immediately prior to the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. By the standards of the time, and in comparision to the treatment of minorities virtually anywhere else, Christians and Jews were treated well under Muslim rule, and there was no consistently dominant specifically antisemitic ideology.

[Gamblor]

Jews killing Muslims in the name of God?

It is explicitly against the Jewish religion, as evidenced by the 6th of the 10 commandments, and shown through practice, that nobody may be killed for any reason other than self defence. Period.

That being said, the whole argument is whether or not the situation constitutes self defence.

I argue yes.

Many here argue otherwise.

You want an idea of why I think it is?

How often do Jews riot and make Muslim lives miserable abroad?

How often are bomb threats phoned into Muslim airliners? Perhaps the El Al airliner diverted to Hamilton last week might show the other side's moral character.

How many Muslims have been hurt by Jewish anti-Muslim riots?
Perhaps the incident at Concordia a couple years ago may show the other side's moral character.

What happens when Jews protest Arab terror on the streets? At worst, a shouting match. In Toronto last year, my father's friend passed an Arab protest outside the Israeli embassy - he shouted something from his car about bombings at a red light, and the protesters dragged him from his car and beat him up.

How many synogogues are desecrated, vandalized, how many Jews pay for Israeli policy? Perhaps you don't notice them on the news, I certainly do.

This is why it is not an Israeli issue, it is a Jewish issue. There are 25-odd Arab/Muslim homelands. And that is why the necessity of a Jewish homeland is more true now than in '48.

[ACPlayer]

The argument here is patently self serving.

Setting up attacks against alleged criminals where there is a high probability of innocent deaths is immoral.

Christians too argue that they are prohibited from murder. See, Germany, Balkans, inquisitions, etc.

Muslims are prohibited from suicide, yet they commit it and argue, just as you, that there is some justification for the same.

The problem is that each side searches and finds justifications for continuing the crap, rather than searching for and finding solutions.

[MMMMMM]

nicky:

It was constant oppression (dhimmi status), and occasional persecution. That's far from "insignificant", and it doesn't constitute being "treated well" under any standards. This oppression and occasional persecution persisted over many centuries, up to and including the 20th century, and even today.

[nicky g]

"It was constant oppression (dhimmi status), and occasional persecution. That's far from "insignificant", and it doesn't constitute being "treated well" under any standards."

I disagree. I don't agree that dhimmi status was the same as constant oppression - the status of the dhimmis changed all the time, and in many cases they flourished, if not consistently. It is insignificant in comparison to the out and out consistent and continued persecution and slaughter millions of people have suffered at the hands of others, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries at the hands of Western powers, and it was being treated well compared to the treatment of minorites/other religions under other religions, especially Christianity, at the time. You will also admit that they Jews were not singled out for persecution, as is often implied, and were treated better than many other tribes/religions. It was not what we would deem acceptable now but it was certainly progressive then. As for today, what exactly are you referring to?

[MMMMMM]

I think this discussion started because I pointed out that the Jews faced oppression and/or persecution in Europe and the Middle East for centuries, so they needed a safe haven. Some posters disagreed and even nearly took me to task for claiming that Jews were historically oppressed in Arab/Muslim lands.

I don't think the situation is entirely invertible regarding Arab:Jewish/Jewish:Arab oppressions. However to a degree you do have a point. Bear in mind though that the Jews have been and are fighting for their survival--apparently against a world replete with murderous bigots whose aim is to subjugate and destroy them. So I think they should get a little extra leeway when it comes to trying to defend a tiny, tiny haven in the midst of all their historical oppressors and enemies, especially so considering they are under routine attack by death-cultists wearing high-powered explosives. Also, all through the long centuries, Jews did not generally oppress Arabs/Muslims: it was pretty much a one-way streeet in the other direction.

I'm not surprised that you found some inaccuracy in the cited links, and thanks. However I think enough instances of oppression and persecution were cited that the point is made regardless.

[Gamblor]

Setting up attacks against alleged criminals where there is a high probability of innocent deaths is immoral.

Okay, if this is the crime you believe the IDF is guilty of, then I will accept that.

Turn alleged into "blatantly obvious" and you have a deal.

And my only response is: immoral, but necessary for now.

You don't answer my question regarding whether this is a Jewish or Israeli issue.

How many times, outside of Israel, have you heard of Jews turning to violence?

How many times, outside of Israel, have you heard of Arabs turning to violence?

[ACPlayer]

I do have to smile and acknowledge your brutal honesty about yourself.

Well, it is an Iraeli issue and not a jewish one. Every Jew I have met has been a fine upstanding non-violent person.

The sad part about Israel is that this is, to my knowledge, the first time that the Jewish people have had a state that they rule, and they have made a mess of it. There is a deep irony here that appears to be missed by Zionists, including apparently yourself.

Violence in third world countries, including Arab countries, African countries and some Asian countries is due to, in large part, lack of knowledge and poor exploited economic conditions. It is unacceptable to say that this is something in the makeup of Arabs or Africans etc that they are more violent than Westerners. I dont believe it is a religious issue and is more an economic issue. The politicians use religion where they can to exploit the economic miseries of the populace.

[Gamblor]

The sad part about Israel is that this is, to my knowledge, the first time that the Jewish people have had a state that they rule, and they have made a mess of it.

Exactly what I mean about singling out the Jews.

I would argue that minus the foreign Arab element, Israel has done beautifully. 55 years on, and it's a vibrant democracy, it has had a strong economy at many points in its history, even if its in recession. It has survived 6 wars and thousands of political attempts at marginalization via the UN's Arab conglomerate, and ultimately, has lived up to its mandate - to be a state for and a haven for Jews.

55 years. Where was the US in 1831? Reeling from a trouncing in the war of 1812, by my account /images/graemlins/smile.gif Wait 100 years, see where Israel is.

Violence in third world countries, including Arab countries, African countries and some Asian countries is due to, in large part, lack of knowledge and poor exploited economic conditions. It is unacceptable to say that this is something in the makeup of Arabs or Africans etc that they are more violent than Westerners.

I was not referring to 3rd world countries. I was referring to the anti-semitic brutality commited by Muslims and/or Arabs in France, the US, and Canada. Lynchings of Netanyahu, who was going to speak to the Jewish Students at Concordia University in Montreal, when the Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights Movement broke windows and assaulted and injured rabbis, students, etc. trying to get into the lecture. Or perhaps the French Rabbi who was beaten and mugged by some Arabs, or the French Jewish cemetary and synagogue that was vandalized with "Free the Palestinians". Perhaps the El Al flight counter the LA airport at which a Muslim walked right in, fired 7 rounds, and murdered 3 employees. Or my friend who wears a large (and somewhat ostentatious, by my account) Jewish star on a necklace being chased down and beaten by a group of Arabs at a Palestinian rally.

My favourite: The New York Times, who showed a bloodied and beaten person kneeling in front of an Israeli policeman holding a raised baton in front of an Israeli gas station, and the caption: "A Palestinian and an Israeli policeman on the temple mount." What they seem not to notice is the kippa the bloody kid is wearing, that there are no gas stations on the Temple Mount, and the letter written two days later by the child's mother, stating that the bloody and beaten child is in fact Tuvia Grossman, a Jew riding a cab he was dragged out of and stabbed by an Arab mob. The policeman saved his life and was shouting at the rioters.
Why am I convinced this is a war against the Jews? I'll never know.

There are those that can fairly criticize Israeli policy. Certainly it is open to criticism. But I consider the alternative and Israeli policy is the best option. They are the democratically elected government, made of people that were born in the same situation as me.

"If I am not for me, then who will be for me?"
-Rabbi Hillel

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that minus the foreign Arab element, Israel has done beautifully

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the most ridiculous statement I've ever read. Why would we ignore the Arab thing? You can't just ignore the biggest issue and say that they're otherwise doing well.

Minus Apartheid, South Africa really was a good place.
Minus all the lynchings, the civil rights movement went really smoothly.
Minus the sexual indiscretions, the Clintons have a great marriage.
Minus Iraq and the economy, GW is a great president.

[Gamblor]

A country's role is to do more than just deal with the foreign population.

Israel's ability to perform its role as a nation is not dependent on its ability to deal with various Arab nations.

And besides that, it provides all of the services a nation is supposed to provide to its people, and again, it has lived up to its mandate as a haven for Jews.

I'd rather die fighting for my safety than live my life as a second class citizen, and you never know when the world will go to hell again.

[Gamblor]

There's nothing today because 99% of the Jews were smart enough to leave and make it to Israel.

And they're much happier now than before.

[Moonsugar]

[ QUOTE ]
Turn alleged into "blatantly obvious" and you have a deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know the Jews were the "blatantly obvious" criminals many times in the past. In almost every Christian and Arab country your people have been labelled this. Nazi controlled Europe being the worst example. It amazes me that the oppressed have become oppressors of a similar sort.

Turnabout is not fair play. An eye for an eye and we all end up blind.

It is silly to make these arguments that all actions are taken for self-defence. In the short term Israeli actions have been successful in self-defence. But, as you have stated, demographics are not on your side. Jews are a huge minority compared to Muslims and sooner or later a Muslim state close to Israel will have nuclear weapons. And unfortunately, one of them will use them. It would not be hard to obliterate Israel and make it unlivable for hundreds of years. Hopefully Israel and Zionists worldwide will soon realize this and work hard for a peaceful solution.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd rather die fighting for my safety than live my life as a second class citizen...

[/ QUOTE ]

I would suspect that this is the position of the Palestinians as well. If both sides see themselves as second class citizens and want to die trying to change their position, then we're in quite a quagmire. There has to be a paradigm shift away from this mentality or else the fighting won't stop until one side is completely obliterated.

[Moonsugar]

[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that minus the foreign Arab element, Israel has done beautifully

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, living in a police state is beautiful. Just ask the Jews from Nazi controlled Europe and the Chinese of Manchuko and the Palestinans of Israel, etc.

Infact!!!!!:

[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that minus the foreign Arab element, Israel has done beautifully. 55 years on, and it's a vibrant democracy, it has had a strong economy at many points in its history, even if its in recession. It has survived 6 wars and thousands of political attempts at marginalization via the UN's Arab conglomerate, and ultimately, has lived up to its mandate - to be a state for and a haven for Jews

[/ QUOTE ]

Subsitute 'Germany' for 'Israel'; 'filthy Jewish' for 'foreign Arab'; '6 years' for '55 years'; 'League of Nation's Jewish conglomerate' for 'UN's Arab conglomerate' and 'haven for Aryans' for 'haven for Jews' and this little speech could have been given by Hitler on 8/31/1939 right before WWII. Frightening isn't it? Step away from the Kool-Aid and look into the mirror pal.

[ QUOTE ]
55 years. Where was the US in 1831? Reeling from a trouncing in the war of 1812, by my account

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhh? We won our independence from the world's most powerful empire. Israel was given to the Jews by the British and the US after WWII. Who gave massive foreign aid to the US in its first 55 years? Where would Israel be without the protection and support of Christian countries these last 55 years? It would be a footnote in history and the Jews would be in the camps Israel built for Palestinians. And we would all be dealing with Zionist terrorism instead of Muslim terrorism.

[ QUOTE ]
Wait 100 years, see where Israel is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am dreadfully sorry about this, but: My guess is it is gone.

[Gamblor]

I would suspect that this is the position of the Palestinians as well.

That's my point. If they want to fight soldiers I will not complain.

But they fight dirty. What did the Cafe Hillel, Sbarro pizza, the man riding the bus or the mother shopping for her family do to deserve that fate?

[Gamblor]

I would suspect that this is the position of the Palestinians as well.

That's my point. If they want to fight soldiers I will not complain.

But they fight dirty. What did the Cafe Hillel, Sbarro pizza, the man riding the bus or the mother shopping for her family do to deserve that fate?

My point is that nowhere do the Palestinian Arabs MUST be 2nd class. There are many places they may go to be equal, the most obvious example being Jordan. But Jews dont have any option other than Israel. And America is at best a temporary solution that has managed the conquer its anti-semitic element by those who are a little more enlightened. But it doesn't mean that the next time the economy and society goes to hell, they won't turn around and blame the Jewish bankers, the Muslim oil barons, or the black criminals, or the Japanese etc. etc. etc.

[Gamblor]

Palestinans of Israel, etc.

Palestinians are not Israeli!
They are not members of the nation, they have no citizenship, it is not Israel's responsibility to cater to their needs!

Why is it an Israeli problem? Because the Arab states of the mid-east are convinced they can bleed Israel dry of its Jewish majority and set up a Muslim state, by refusing the Palestinians entry into their land. They have been kicked out of Tunisia, Lebanon, and Jordan, for general stupidity involving assassination plots, crime, etc.

Now, suddenly these people want their own state, alongside Israel?

[Gamblor]

The Palestinians are not just by themselves, there are 300 million Arabs in the middle east. There are 15 million Jews in the entire world.

Germany you say? How many Aryans were oppressed? How many laws were written to oppress Aryans such that they needed their own state? Now, Jews?

Palestinans of Israel, etc.

Palestinians are not Israeli!
They are not members of the nation, they have no citizenship, it is not Israel's responsibility to cater to their needs.

Why is it an Israeli problem? Because the Arab states of the mid-east are convinced they can bleed Israel dry of its Jewish majority and set up a Muslim state, by refusing the Palestinians entry into their land. They have been kicked out of Tunisia, Lebanon, and Jordan, for general stupidity involving assassination plots, crime, etc.

Now, suddenly these people want their own state, alongside Israel?

The war of Independence was 1776. 1812 was the war in which the US (a large population) attempted to take over Canada (a tiny number of people), believing it to be the tool of Great Britian (the worlds great superpower)'s grand scheme to take back the US. Canada repelled the US, the most famous battle being the Battle at Fort York (basically downtown Toronto). At least, that's what they taught us in high school. Let's hope history repeats itself in the Middle East.

[Gamblor]

They have realized this for 20 years.

See: Osirak, Iraq, 1981. Note the Arab "spin" was Israeli aggression.

Sharon's speech to the EU, yesterday, about Iranian nuclear capability.

The thing is, I beleive Israeli nukes are there simply because ideally, they will never have to use them. Having them is deterrent enough.

I don't think Muslim/Arab nukes would have the same rationale. We all know how much Arab leaders value their populations.

[Moonsugar]

[ QUOTE ]
Palestinians are not Israeli!

[/ QUOTE ]

Jews weren't German either. Actually they weren't even human.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, suddenly these people want their own state, alongside Israel?

[/ QUOTE ]

A little history lesson for the uninformed radical: Before 1947 there was no such thing as Palestinian identity. Of course, there hadn't been an Israel in well over 2000 years either so why would they need one? . Once the UN decided to divide the Palestine Mandate into a Jewish and Arab state and the majority of the Arab world agreed the Palestinian identity emerged. And why would it not? It was their land being given to the Jewish refugees. They were the Arabs the question most concerned. In 1947 Jews only made up 1/3 of the population of what became Israel on May 15. Of course, they were 'cleansing' the area of Arabs well before the British pulled out.

The Palestinians made a major mistake, they refused to accept the UN's plan in 1947. But maybe they were asking themselves a question similar to yours:

Now, suddenly, these people want their own state alongside Palestine?

Of course, they answered incorrectly. And Israel has answered incorrectly too.

That is all from me because talking to you is like talking Goebbels (I'm sure you don't know who he was so look him up on Google).

[Gamblor]

No rational Israeli advocates killing Palestinians except for those that have killed Israelis.

Same cannot be said for der Fuhrer.

There is no basis for comparison. At the very worst, the closest thing to your claim that the truth will come to is that Israelis do not want to kill Arabs, they just don't want them around. And that's even a stretch, given the indigenous 1.5 million Israeli Arabs who enjoy full civil rights.

As far as those of you who constantly harp on the subject that Arabs cannot buy land, that is true. This crap was posited by Walter Lehn writing in the Journal of Palestine Studies at U of Minnesota in 1974, and all the anti-Israel fools eat it up. Of course, for all you Israel haters, it should interest you to know that Jews cannot buy land either. Land in Israel is leased by the government or the KKL to BOTH Arabs and Israelis, with equal criteria for evaluation for both. Contrast this with the PA, who have written into law the old Jordanian edict that any Arab caught selling or leasing land to Israelis or Israeli corporations is punishable by death. And most have been executed as "collaborators".

Why don't any of you talk to some successful Israeli Arabs and see how badly they want to move to Egypt or Jordan, if they're so oppressed?

[nicky g]

"A country's role is to do more than just deal with the foreign population"

What foreign population? The "foreigners" who've been living there for centuries? Or d'you mean the foreinges who get to turn up and take people's homes because of their religion?

[nicky g]

"Land in Israel is leased by the government or the KKL to BOTH Arabs and Israelis, with equal criteria for evaluation for both. "

Crap. As you yourself have admitted the Jewish Agency owns or manages on behalf of the governement most of the land in Israel. And it cannot lease or sell it, or allow houses to be built on it, by non-Jews.

[Gamblor]

Or d'you mean the foreinges who get to turn up and take people's homes because of their religion?

Now how do you know their religion is why they lost their homes? Perhaps it was their repeated attacks on Jewish settlements in the old Yishuv.

Assumptions are the root of idiocy.

And foreinge juice is my favourite beverage.

[Gamblor]

Wrong again, nicky.

Land in Israel was originally purchased by the Jewish Agency for the purpose of settling refugee Jews.

The only thing the Jewish Agency does now is promote Jewish immigration to Israel.

Now, most (probably 95%) of Israeli land is owned either by the government or by the Keren Kayemet L'Yisrael. There is no land that Jews are permitted to lease that Arabs are not permitted to lease.

In a landmark case in which a Jew sued and lost over a virtual "affirmative action" in which an Arab was chosen over him to develop land, to distinguish between Jews and Arabs in the leasing of land to citizens. I quoted the Lehn article as a misleading allegation, and the basis for your false claim.

Yes, nicky, Arabs are forbidden from purchasing Israeli government and KKL lands. But so are Jews.

Why don't you do a little research.

[nicky g]

"Land in Israel was originally purchased by the Jewish Agency for the purpose of settling refugee Jews.

The only thing the Jewish Agency does now is promote Jewish immigration to Israel."


Lol. You really arre ridiculous. This is what you wrote less than a week ago:

"The Jewish Agency owns all the land in Israel."

( Link (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=exchange&Number=380408&For um=exchange&Words=Jewish%20Agency&Match=Entire%20P hrase&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=3months&Main=37420 1&Search=true#Post380408)

Now you write "The only thing the Jewish Agency does now is promote Jewish immigration to Israel." I see.

Again:
"the Jewish Agency owns the land, and their mandate is to sell land to Jews only. "
Link (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=exchange&Number=379225&For um=exchange&Words=Jewish%20Agency&Match=Entire%20P hrase&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=3months&Main=37420 1&Search=true#Post379225)

And now you have the gall to tell me to do some research?


"Now, most (probably 95%) of Israeli land is owned either by the government or by the Keren Kayemet L'Yisrael."


As you well, know, the KKL, otherwise known as the Jewish National Fund, is closely intertwined with the JA and works through it on issues of land etc. If you want to make the distinction the fine, but don't start accusing me of shoddy research and being wring when you yourself have repeatedly referred to the JA in place of the JNF (and, incidentally, defended its practice of excluding non-Jews, which you now deny even happens).

[Gamblor]

I thought we were talking about the formation of Israel before.

5% of Israeli land is privately owned.

Land is not sold in Israel.

Land is leased with no regard to religion or ethnicity.

[Gamblor]

I thought we were talking about the formation of Israel before.

5% of Israeli land is privately owned.

Land is not sold in Israel, to anyone.

Here:Israel's land ownership policy (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_israel_land.php)

[nicky g]

"thought we were talking about the formation of Israel before."

Is that why you wrote in the present tense?

[Gamblor]

yes.

[nicky g]

Gamblor: "There is no land that Jews are permitted to lease that Arabs are not permitted to lease."

The US State Department: In 2002 :"The Jewish National Fund (JNF), an organization established in 1897 for the purchase and management of land for the Jewish people, owned 8 percent of the country's land area, including a considerable amount transferred directly from the Government, and managed another 8 percent on behalf of the Government. The JNF's statute prohibits the sale or lease of land to non-Jews."

2002 Human Rights Report (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18278.htm)

It even says the same thing in a more roundabout way in the "PalestineFacts" article you posted.

[Gamblor]

In practice, that is not the case, as Arabs often are leased JNF land.

Even if they weren't, that is 13% of the land, hardly enough to consider Israel an "Apartheid" state.

Consider the PA, who explicitly calls for the murder of any Arab caught leasing land to a Jew.

[nicky g]

"In practice, that is not the case, as Arabs often are leased JNF land. "

For "often" read exceptionally, on extremely short-term leases.

"Even if they weren't, that is 13% of the land, hardly enough to consider Israel an "Apartheid" state."

No non-racist state would allow such an organisation to administer government lands. Furthermore, this is hardly the only example of discrimination against Arab-Israelis.

[Gamblor]

It has long been established that Judaism is not a race, thus Israel cannot be a non-racist state.

[nicky g]

I don't follow your logic. By not discriminating against Arabs, it could be a non-racist state. Discriminating on the basis of religion is sectarianism rather than racism, but it amounts to the same thing and is generally termed racism.

[Gamblor]

Frankly, I'm starting to think it doesn't even matter if it's a racist state. I know it is not, but if it were, so what?

When was the last time Gentiles gave the Jews some GOOD advice?

"No no no, don't bomb the Osirak reactor"
"No no no, don't fight the Arabs"
"Sure, these are just communal showers, just take your clothes and take out your gold teeth and put them over here"
"Do you take Jesus to be your lord and saviour? No? Okay, step over here behind this guillotine."

Nicky, I suggest you put yourself in this situation, as a Jew and Israeli, having been picked on and booted around for thousands of years, and imagine how you would act when faced with yet another threat.

If you haven't considered the possibility that I have put myself in an Arab position, you are mistaken. I still maintain Israeli higher morality.

[Cyrus]

When in a debate (yes, more friendly advice!) you should expand on your strong points and try to avoid/bypass your weak points. The argument that the Israelis have won enough wars to merit the Arabs' consent to a victors' peace is a strong argument. (I alone in this forum, at least as far as I remember this year, have submitted (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=exchange&Number=317069 &Forum=All_Forums&Words=226&Match=Username&Searchp age=16&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=313350&Search=tr ue#Post317069) that position recently.) The argument that Jews have been historically persecuted in the Middle East by citizens of that region, and particularly the Arabs (who arrived on that scene later than yout think, btw), is a weak argument.

Especially weak when one compares, unashamedly I would say, the (true and horrible) persecution meted on Jews by Europeans to that by Muslims and Arabs. The comparison is simply out of the graph, as the saying goes. The latter persecution is truly negiligible. Ands it's downright insulting to the memory of the Jews who died during the countless pogroms, to compare their tragic fate with the benevolent lives led by Jews in (what is today) the Middle East.

Persist at this folly to the detriment of your whole position. (But you keep doing this allatime, so this is merely a rhetorical suggestion!)

--Cyrus

PS : As a home assignment (rhetorical also!), I would suggest pausing to think more on the term Middle East. East to what, baby?..

[Cyrus]

. . . lousy argument.

As usual.

(Nicky already called you on the laughable inconsistencies of your posts. Did you go to see Memento together with MMMMM?)

[MMMMMM]

"Especially weak when one compares, unashamedly I would say, the (true and horrible) persecution meted on Jews by Europeans to that by Muslims and Arabs. The comparison is simply out of the graph, as the saying goes. The latter persecution is truly negiligible. Ands it's downright insulting to the memory of the Jews who died during the countless pogroms, to compare their tragic fate with the benevolent lives led by Jews in (what is today) the Middle East."

The issue is first of all not comparison: why do you insist on
comparing? However since you insist: Arabs consistently oppressed the Jews, and sometimes horribly persecuted them as well, as the links catalog (and you had even argued that the Arabs didn't oppress the Jews). Europeans did worse to the Jews. What the Arabs did to the Jews over centuries is certainly NOT "negligible" as you put it above: it was HORRIBLE. That the Europeans did even worse in NO WAY mitigates what the Arabs did to the Jews.

Gee Cyrus...I guess Son of Sam didn't treat his victims all that badly compared to Jeffrey Dahmer...right? Sheesh.

[nicky g]

There is a legitimate comparison to be made, as you can only judge societies by the standards of their time. You can't expect present modern-day Sweden to emerge out of the Iron Age, or the Declarationi of human rights out of feudal Spain. By the standards of the time, Islamic society and its tolerance for others constituted considerable progress and enlightenment; it was a net good, regardless of the fact it did not go far enough. Furthermore, Jews were not singled out for oppression as is consistently implied; they had the same status as Christians, and were much better treated than members of other religions. It's therefore absurd to continually focus on the "persecution" of Jews under historical Muslim rule. It would make much more sense to argue that Zoroastrians or Muslim heretics deserve a state of their own because of persecution under Muslim rule than Jews. I eagerly await your assumption of those causes.
Finally, the quote from Bernard Lewis is seriously out of context. In "The Middle East", he writes that Dhimmi status was often barely or not at all enforced, and furthermore that almost all administrations under the Caliphat had both Christians and Jews working in senior positions. He goes on to write that they were not treated as equals, and follows with the paragraph quoted, but he nevertheless makes it clear that they were considerably better off than the passage quoted would suggest. I don't have the book to hand as I'm at work, but I'll try to post the quote in the next few days.

[Gamblor]

So then shall we compare human rights violations in Israel against Israeli Arabs vs. human rights violations in virtually every single Arab country, against virtually anyone who isn't a member of the religious/ruling elite?

And Israel is the pariah?

Why don't you walk down the street in Riyadh with a big fat cross hanging out, or a pair of football shorts on.

Instant jail.

(a potato in Israel is called tapuach adama. You might recognize adama from the name Adam who was created from the earth. Hence, adama is earth, i.e. dirt. Tapuach is an apple. Tapuach adama = Potato = ground apple. Apples and Oranges.)

Israel may not be the US, but I think the UN, and all of you, in fact, would be hard pressed to find a more democratic country in the region. Perhaps efforts should be focussed elsewhere for the time being.

Unless, of course, we aren't allowing comparisons. You may fire when ready at Muslim oppression of Jews, M.

[nicky g]

"but I think the UN, and all of you, in fact, would be hard pressed to find a more democratic country in the region"

For its own (Jewish) citizens, sure. For its Arab citizens, less so. For the people who live under it's occupation, far from it; ditto for those it expelled and refused to allow back. By the standards of the region, Israel is not the worst offender in terms of human rights, though it's still pretty serious. By the standards it claims to upold - those of a Western-style democracy - it's a joke, and there's no exuse for the West supporting any such country, whether Arab, Israel, or other, especially not to the extent it supports Israel. Israel is living in the era of the Declaration of Human Rights; not that you'd know it. If you hold it up to the declared standards of the are, it's a miserable failure.

[MMMMMM]

Israel's human rights record may be not be the best, but I'll bet that every single Arab country's human rights record is much worse. In the Middle East, Israel is by far the most tolerant county. If you think Israel's policies are bad or unfair, how would you categorize the policies of the Arab states today? Why don't you apply your relativism here? Call a spade a spade and say that Israel might be somewhat bad but it is nothing compared to the incredible racism, fascism, totalitarianism, and indeed all-around "backward-ism" of all her neighbors. And any religious fascism in Israel is very mild or DWARFED by the religious fascism of many of her neighbors. Jeez, you guys have all the wrong focus, IMO.

[elwoodblues]

So then, should the standard for Human Rights be "whatever the worst are doing?" I would suspect that most would argue that both Israel and other Middle Eastern countries have poor human rights records.

This standard just doesn't make sense...In Minneapolis a few weeks ago there was an allegation of police sexually assaulting a man with a plunger. I wonder how people would respond if policer respondes was "Well in New York..."

[Gamblor]

How can you expect a nation to uphold the Human rights of those that have been indoctrinated with, and support, the destruction of that nation?

[Gamblor]

How can you expect a nation to uphold the Human rights of those that have been indoctrinated with, and support, the notion of the destruction of that nation?

[elwoodblues]

That's a very good question. I fully expect that the Human Rights of, for example, terrorists (and terrorism suspects) in the US to be preserved. One of the founding principles of the US is that people are born with certain rights and that those rights are inalienable. That may be a naive principle to try to uphold, but that's where I come from on the issue.

For me, state-sponsored violations of human rights are worse than violations by groups of individuals because the state is acting on behalf of everyone (at least in a democracy-based government).

The Israel situation raises two problems with me. One is that I tend to not buy into "end justifying means" analyses. The other is that I don't think I know enough about the "end" to make a truly informed decision. A lot of what I'm seeing posted here suggests that the "end" is really an Israeli-only state (even if that isn't the declared "end"). If that's the case, I support neither the end nor the means.

~elwood

[Gamblor]

I understand that coming from someone born and raised in the "land of the brave, and the home of the free".

That is fair. If Israel tried to do create a Jewish only state in New York City, or London, or Paris, you would have a point.

But the Jewish State is in an area of the world where it makes perfect sense to build states around an ethnicity. Every Arab state is just that - an Arab state. Nobody raised a lot of concern about it then, but when the Jews tried to do it for themselves, suddenly rockets fly.

Which brings me to my next point - anyone who doesn't think terrorism and suicide bombings are a religious/cultural issue take a look at Iraq.

When a Palestinian child walks down the street named after a suicide bomber, enters his public, PA-run school named after a suicide bomber, and sees pictures on the wall of suicide bombers, what can you do? And this is a PA-run school. Yes, the same PA that wants peace so badly.

[Gamblor]

I understand that coming from someone born and raised in the "land of the brave, and the home of the free".

That is fair. If Israel tried to do create a Jewish only state in New York City, or London, or Paris, you would have a point.

But the Jewish State is in an area of the world where it makes perfect sense to build states around an ethnicity. Every Arab state is just that - an Arab state. Nobody raised a lot of concern about it then, but when the Jews tried to do it for themselves, suddenly rockets fly.

When a Palestinian child walks down the street named after a suicide bomber, enters his public, PA-run school named after a suicide bomber, and sees pictures of suicide bombers on the wall, what can you do other than show them suicide bombing doesn't work? And this is a PA-run school. Yes, the same PA that wants peace so badly.

[MMMMMM]

There is a legitimate comparison to be made, as you can only judge societies by the standards of their time. You can't expect present modern-day Sweden to emerge out of the Iron Age, or the Declarationi of human rights out of feudal Spain. By the standards of the time, Islamic society and its tolerance for others constituted considerable progress and enlightenment..."

nicky, did you even read the catalog of persecutions and massacres of Jews by Arabs? Do you realise it wasn't only in the Middle Ages that all his happened? It happened all thoughout the 19th century as well! And it happened in the early 20th century, well before 1948, and it happens today in Africa where Muslim governnment has been slaughtering Christians and animists, to the tune of well over a million, and enslaving hundreds of thousands. Haven't you read about Sudan, etc.?

We aren't comparing apples and oranges because it was going on even in fairly recent times. The 1800's and 1900's weren't the Middle Ages, nicky, so your argument that we are comparing different time frames is not a valid rebuttal.

The Muslim world/Arab world has never grown out of this mindset. You just don't understand. Even a few days ago, the leader of Indonesia received a standing ovation from all Muslim heads of state present, for his totalitarian and anti-Jewish statements.

Maybe you will understand what the free world is facing if and when Muslims start agitating, then rioting or committing terrorism, in England, for the "right" to institute Sharia in certain sections of England. I'm afraid you might not recognize a totalitarian outlook if it came up and slapped you in the face.

[MMMMMM]

No, that should not be the standard, but if people are going to criticize for human rights violatins or racism or religious fascism, perhaps the most criticism should go where it is most deserved.

[elwoodblues]

I absolutely agree with that. But I also think that because of the relationship that the US has forged with Israel we have more of a vested interest in ensuring that they uphold basic human rights.

[MMMMMM]

Yes, I agree that that should be part of the weighting as well.

[nicky g]

The point isn't to criticise, it's to persuade. There is no reason to persuade anyone here that many regimes in the Middle East are autocratic, disrespectful of human rights etc; everyone here is convinced of that already, and a good deal of you of a lot more besides. On the other hand, there is a huge need to persuade people that Israel behaves badly, has treated the Palestinians badly, shares a lot of blame and responsibility for the conflict, and could act to improve things, because if everyone keeps this attitude that it's all the Palestinian's fault and they're culturally engrained to be violent and deceiving, no kind of progress is ever going to be made, and the likely result wll be more violence, a deepening of the conflict and large-scale ethnic cleansing.

[nicky g]

"Why don't you apply your relativism here?"

OK, I will. For a long time Islamic rule created the most tolerant and progressive societies in not just the Middle East but the world at that time. Israel is, er, better than some of her neighbours and worse than others, and doesn't live up to the professed human rights standards of the day.
Hey! Great!

[nicky g]

"We aren't comparing apples and oranges because it was going on even in fairly recent times. The 1800's and 1900's weren't the Middle Ages, nicky, so your argument that we are comparing different time frames is not a valid rebuttal."

The 1800s and 1900s. Hmmm. Let's see what I remember about them. Well. Slavery in America based on white supremacy till the 1860s you say? Are you sure ? Racial segregation till the 1960s! Really? Rampant colonialism around the world subjugating and massacring millions upon millions of people, enslaving their children and exploitng their resources for the benefit of the West, you say? Well I never. And then two world wars both starrted in and by Western European (Christian) powers resulting and the deaths of millions of soldiers and the slaughter of tens of millions of civilians?

You're right, these Muslim folks are in intolerant, violent, cruel lot, aren't they?

[MMMMMM]

nicky: you are changing the subject (not that that's an unworthy subject, but you are not allowing the first point to progress to its logical conclusion before changing the subject.) So please allow us to close one point first before moving on.

The initial point ( from a previous thread) was that European and Arab oppression/persecution of Jews has existed throughout the ages and even thru today, and that this is one good reason the Jews needed a haven. Cyrus denied that this Arab oppression/persecution of Jews existed prior to 1948 and challenged me to find evidence of it--which I did, plentifully, in this new thread (the old thread was getting pretty long).

You then said this oppression of Jews was in fact pretty good for the times. I then said, in effect, that it's still serious oppression/persecution (and thus more evidence that the Jews needed a safe haven not only from the Europeans but also from the Arabs). I also pointed out that being treated "pretty good for the times" can still be pretty damn bad. You then said that we weren't comparing time frames properly, so I pointed out that even in the 1800's-1900's widespread oppression of Jews existed in Arab lands (and the fact that it existed in Europe too in no way mitigated the extent of this oppression). I also pointed out that it even exists today in Arab/Muslim lands, and I said that philosophically their ideology (and practices) are still backwards to a large degree (which is true). You then took issue with this and compared the West's opppression and violence with that of Arabs and Muslims. OK, we can discuss that point if you wish. But first, let's please close the initial point which is that historically, Jews have been oppressed by both Europeans and Arabs/Muslims. Whether you think that entitles them to a tiny sliver of land as a safe haven may be another matter, and comparing the West with Arabs and Muslims is certainly interesting and perhaps valuable, but again, it's another (though somewhat related) matter.

How's that for a summary right within 30 minutes of waking up this morning /images/graemlins/grin.gif !?

[MMMMMM]

"For a long time Islamic rule created the most tolerant and progressive societies in not just the Middle East but the world at that time."

Well nicky, even if this is so, just how long are they supposed to be given a pass to rest on their laurels? What may have been progressive in the Middle Ages is today very backwards and oppressive.

[nicky g]

"Well nicky, even if this is so, just how long are they supposed to be given a pass to rest on their laurels? What may have been progressive in the Middle Ages is today very backwards and oppressive."

Well yes, but the situation today isn't the same as it was (Christians and Jews don't have to pay special taxes in Iran, for example), although in many countries it's far from perfect. My point is that suggesting that the Muslim world has always consistently persecuted or singled out Jews, or that Jews were the bottom of the pile in their societies, or condemning their treatment out of historical context, or using the comparatively decent treatement of Chrisitians and Jews by Muslims back then as evidence for a theory that Islam is inherently or specifically antisemitic and always will be, is absurd. Religious and ethnic minorities have been persecuted throughout history and throughout the world, yet for some reason we're told that Israel is necessary because of Islamic persecution of Jews, despite the fact that Jews were treated better under Islam than many religious minorities across the world that don't demand a homeland where other people are already living.

My main point though is the singling out - the constant repetition of "Jews were oppressed under Muslim rule". By comparison to todays standards, this is undoubtedly true. But it makes it sound like Jews were singled out for such oppression the way they were in Europe, which isn't true. The "oppression" was not antisemitism in the way Hitler for example specifically blamed the Jews for all Germany's problems - it was teh mistreatement of one of many religious minorites. Compared to other religions they were privileged, and were treated exactly as Christians were. It's imporant to remember this because it refutes the myth that Islam and Judaisim have always been at each other's throats, that antisemitism is a mjor feature of Islam, which gives rise to the sort of crap we hear occasionally such as "They've been fighting for 2000 years, let them wipe each other out", or the notion that all Muslims want to commit genocide against Jews, all of which impede any sort of reasonable solution to the problems of the Middle East, and make it look like a puerly religious/sectarian/irrational conflict, when it's in fact based on the disposession and ethnic of hundreds of thousands of people. Saying "Jews were oppressed in Muslim societies" is not a false statement; but saying it again and again, as if it were some sort of unique case, as if it were the same as NAzi antisemitism, and ignoring all historical context, is absurd.

[MMMMMM]

nicky, you seem to be very focused on how much ultimate "blame" is laid on the Arabs/Muslims for their historical oppression/persecution of the Jews. But that was not my initial point nor is it my main point. My main point (from the earlier thread) is that the Jews were oppressed/persecuted throughout history in pretty much all regions, and therefore the need for a safe, tiny Jewish haven is not out of line.

[ACPlayer]

The need for any state based on and to promote a single religion is out of line.

Includes all Islamic states, any Jewish state, Hindu nationalist states, Christian fundamentalist states.

[MMMMMM]

It is a response to the rest of the world (European and Middle Eastern) being so out of line in their oppression and persecution of Jews--a rather justifiable defensive response.

If the world for centuries had been oppressing, persecuting and killing off all people with red hair, I'd say the Redheads would have a pretty good case for seeking a small safe haven of their own as well.

[nicky g]

Out of interest, do you think the Kurds should be given their own state?

[nicky g]

My point isn't about blame; my points are that the Jews were not so badly treated under Islam (and by comparison, historically quite well treated) that their "need" for a "haven" was anymore pressing than many oterh religious minorites or superceded the rights of the Palestinians who paid for it with their homes and livelihoods; that the "oppression" was not of the same systematic, ideological or genocidal nature as European antisemitism, and a distinction has to be made between these; that the distorted focus on "Islamic oppression" of Jews is used to unfairly and illogically justify the presence of a Jewish state on Arab land, as if by some way of compensation; and that singling out Arabs or Muslims as historically or particulalry "antisemetic" is not only absurd but perpetuates the myth that the conflict is some unsolvable tribal or religious conflict and that the Palestinians are just more irrational religious/racist fanatical Muslims.

[Gamblor]

Israel's policies are certainly open to question, and nobody knows this more than the Israelis themselves.

But that is the point. When Israeli policy is analyzed, even by Israelis, both sides of the story are presented. When the PAs policy is analyzed, the only information you receive is specifically what the PA wants you to receieve, presenting the cause in the best possible light.

It should be fairly obvious where the first step has to come from.

[Gamblor]

The need for any state based on and to promote a single religion is out of line.

Includes all Islamic states, any Jewish state, Hindu nationalist states, Christian fundamentalist states.


Why? Because you don't like it?

Israel is based on, but doesn't promote Judaism. In fact, it is forbidden to promote Judaism. Converts cannot be solicited in Jewish Law.

[MMMMMM]

I believe the oppression was worse than you seem to think, and continues to this day, and has its roots in ideology. So, it wasn't as bad as Nazism or Russian pogroms--so what. Also did you know the Grand Mufti looked forward to the Nazis' promise to exterminate the Jews and was in dialog with them about this, and many imams today call for the killing of the Jews.

Also, you are calling that tiny bit of land "Arab land" when in fact both Arabs and Jews over the ages lived there.

[nicky g]

"Also, you are calling that tiny bit of land "Arab land" when in fact both Arabs and Jews over the ages lived there."

At the time it was taken, nearly all the land in mandated Palestine belonged to Arabs and had belonged to Arabs for centuries.

[MMMMMM]

I haven't studied the Kurdish situation but I will remark on a couple of things. I think these facts are pretty accurate, but if they are in error please realize this is based on just a few news articles read over the years.

First, Iraq itself is a badly outlined state as for its boundaries. Weren't these boundaries somewhat arbitrarily drawn last century? Iraq comprises several distinct populations who hate each other: the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds. Maybe a Kurdistan should have initially been created when Iraq's boundaries were drawn. The Kurds also are engaged in terrorism in neighboring Turkey in their dream of a greater Kurdistan. I don't think terrorism as a political tool should be rewarded because that shows disgruntled future dissidents anywhere in the world that the method of terrorism may get them what they want. So I think the Turks should ruthlessly suppress the Kurdish terrorists. However in Iraq I think a Kurdish state may be a good idea--though maybe less so now, since the rule and terror of Saddam against them are ended. Also, I think if Iraq had initially been divided into three countries: Kurdistan, the Sunni north, and the Shiite south, that would probably have made more sense and would have averted a lot of internal misery.

[nicky g]

Interesting. I more or less agree with you on the Iraq situation; te arbitrary border thing is true of almost everywhere that European colonisers drew the borders of.

As for your position on terrorism, I really don't udnerstand it. I agree that terrorism is wrong, but if it's in the cause of something that's right, I don't see how it invalidates that cause. If I plant a bomb to protest against human rights abuses, does it mean human rights abuses should continue? Of course not. If Ireland is invaded by North Korea and some of the resistance groups target North Korean civilians, does that mean North Korea should remain in Ireland? As I understand it, most PKK action was guerilla action against Turkish soldiers, and the Turks engaged in massive ethnic cleansing, though I don't know an awful lot about it.

[Gamblor]

At the time it was taken, nearly all the land in mandated Palestine belonged to Arabs and had belonged to Arabs for centuries.

Lie.

Jewish presence, even in the West Bank and to a much lesser extent Gaza, has been continuous for millenia, save for the years between 1948-1967.

[nicky g]

It's not a lie. I said nearly all, which is true. I'll try to find the figures for you.

[Gamblor]

You are correct, nearly all, is true.

So where are the Jews supposed to live where nobody will bother them?

[ACPlayer]

Why? Because it promotes divisiveness and sets the basis for dumb conflicts.

[ACPlayer]

So, lets keep perpetuating this stupid bigotry.

[nicky g]

I don't know; most Jews seem to be happy to stay where they are. If the question is "where should the Jewish refugees of WW2 have gone", then I'd say some to Palestine, some to America, some to other places; wherever they wanted within reason, really. The Jews who weren't refugees had no reason to go anywhere.

Now that Israel exists, I'm not proposing that those in Israel should have to leave; they're Israelis and have every right to be there. I don't think creating a Jewish state where over a million and a half non-Jews already lived was a fantastic idea but it's there now. Nevertheless the Palestinians should be given full rights, either as Israeli citizens or in an independent Palestinian state.

If the question is "Where can the Jews live by themselves with no non-Jews", then the answer is nowhere. I can understand why some people see this as a solution to various problems but it's just not practicable within the framework of the modern world and modern human rights, and the attempt to create such a state has not surprisingly caused 50 years of conflict. Working to ensure the protection of minorites where they already live is a much better solution to everyone carving out their own little segregationist states.

[MMMMMM]

"If the question is "Where can the Jews live by themselves with no non-Jews", then the answer is nowhere. I can understand why some people see this as a solution to various problems but it's just not practicable within the framework of the modern world and modern human rights, and the attempt to create such a state has not surprisingly caused 50 years of conflict. Working to ensure the protection of minorites where they already live is a much better solution to everyone carving out their own little segregationist states."

A beautiful dream-like solution, nicky. For ages Europeans and Arabs intermittently tried to kill off the Jews and today many Arabs/Muslims call for the same thing in the mosques. You would expect the Jews to be willing to entrust their security to pledges or laws for "protection of minorities" or something like that. Tell that to the Jews who saw the Arabs preparing for the final war to solve the Jewish problem (as Nasser put it, paraphrasing here), or some of the worse things that actually happened. Just like the UN can't create world peace, and goodwill and laws for protection only go so far, the Jews would be foolsz to trust in laws protecting them to actually do the job.

When millions of Arabs/Muslims no longer wish to exterminate the Jews, you might have a point. Until then the Jews need a safe haven.

[MMMMMM]

As if this bigotry will just go away by itself, and as if the Jews would be safe from "this stupid bigotry" if they just dissolved Israel or opened it up entirely to the Palestinians?

ACPlayer, before Israel existed, "this stupid biogotry" flourished in Europe and in the Arab/Muslim world, so the cause of it is not the existence of Israel. And do you think if we just "stop perpetuating it" that the Arabs/Muslims are suddenly going to accept the Jews? Do you think the millions of Arabs/Muslims who currently would love to see the Jews exterminated wuld suddenly lose this desire? Do you think the Jews would then be safe?

Wow...anyone who thinks like you I would LOVE to have at my poker table. Or maybe you'd like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge?

[nicky g]

What's your solution? That every religion and race should live by itself in its own little culturally homogenous enclave?

[Chris Alger]

Is there no end to the stupid limit to which you will try to cram the square peg of anti-semitism into history's round holes?

"Nobody raised a lot of concern about it then, but when the Jews tried to do it for themselves, suddenly rockets fly."

Like saying: all throughout Eastern Europe, states were organized around ethnicity. But when the Germans try to obtain a bit of living space for themselves, suddenly rockets fly. Implication: the hostility must be caused by irrational and unfair anti-German sentiment.

"When a Palestinian child walks down the street named after a suicide bomber ... what can you do other than show them suicide bombing doesn't work?"

Well, you definitely don't want to take them for a walk down Stern street near Emeq Yisrael (named after Zionist terrorist Avraham Stern), or on Beit-Tzuri Street in Tel Aviv (named after Lord Moyne's assassin), or have them visit the many museums or listen to the many speeches glorifying Zionist hero-terrorists, or remind them that three Israeli Prime Ministers are widely acknowledged as terrorist leaders, including the current one.

BTW, which PA-run school is named after a suicide bomber, or are you thinking of Dalal Mugrahbi Girls H.S., named after the terrorist (not a suicide bomber) who "murdered" 37 people with Israeli guns when Barak's troops opened fire on the bus she hijacked in 1978?

[MMMMMM]

My position against terrorism is that terrorism is increasing in popular use as a political tool, and that rewarding it is very dangerous for the human species as a whole. Rewarding terrorism encourages disaffected groups to turn to terrorism in order to gain their goals. Of course it doesn't influence the underlying validity of the cause, right or wrong as it may be, but the human race cannot afford to have truly widespread employment of terrorism by most of the disaffected groups on the planet. The method of terrorism must not be seen as something that is generally rewarded. This is increasingly important to the human species as a whole as small groups continue to gain increasing potential to wreak immense damage through modern destructive technologies.

In addition to the pragmatic considerations above, I hold deep moral objections to terrorism. If someone sets off a bomb that kills a lot of innocents in order to draw attention to human rights viuolations, I think that is just wrong and morally depraved. If they want to call attention to such things, why not do as the Buddhist monks did to protest the Vietnam war, by practicing self-immolation while sitting in meditation or prayer? Or just blow themselves up in a publicly visible place where no innocents are close enough to be harmed by the bomb. Why do they have to take innocents with them too?

[MMMMMM]

Gamblor: "Nobody raised a lot of concern about it then, but when the Jews tried to do it for themselves, suddenly rockets fly."

Chris Alger: "Like saying: all throughout Eastern Europe, states were organized around ethnicity. But when the Germans try to obtain a bit of living space for themselves, suddenly rockets fly. Implication: the hostility must be caused by irrational and unfair anti-German sentiment."

Er Chris, the difference between the amount of living space the Germans had and tried to obtain, and the amount of space the Israelis have had and tried to obtain, is rather vast, wouldn't you agree?

[nicky g]

"BTW, which PA-run school is named after a suicide bomber, or are you thinking of Dalal Mugrahbi Girls H.S., named after the terrorist (not a suicide bomber) who "murdered" 37 people with Israeli guns when Barak's troops opened fire on the bus she hijacked in 1978?"

Incidentally no longer called that. Is it even a PA school? All the articles I found on it (all anti-Palestinian) said it was in a "PA-controlled town", but didn't actually state it was a PA school, which makes me dubious, as surely if it were they'd insist upon this. I couldn't find any conclusive info either way.

[MMMMMM]

No, but the Jews should have that option as long as a large portion of the world wishes them dead.

[nicky g]

Noone's arguing that terrorism isn't immoral. But I still don't understand why you would argue that Iraqi Kurds could have their own state, but Turkish Kurds can't because some people have committed terrorist acts in their name; especially given that doing the right thing in this case will end the terrorism? Don't you ahve a duty to potential victims of the terrorists to do the right thing here as well as to the oppressed Kurds/Paelstinians/whoever? It seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face to refuse to accede to something you think is right because of the methods some have used in its name. Surely you assess causes in themselves, and make it clear that the terrorism has nothing to do with your decision?

[nicky g]

And noone else should be allowed to live their at all? Even a minority of people who've lived their for hundreds of years and who have zero chance of wiping out anyone?

[Gamblor]

That every religion and race should live by itself in its own little culturally homogenous enclave?

Not that I particularly agree with that statement, but it certainly begs the question:

Why not?

[Gamblor]

Like saying: all throughout Eastern Europe, states were organized around ethnicity. But when the Germans try to obtain a bit of living space for themselves, suddenly rockets fly. Implication: the hostility must be caused by irrational and unfair anti-German sentiment.

Excuse me? What is the difference in ethnicity between the French, English, German, etc. etc?

Don't simplify the German position. I don't see any ovens in Israel with Arabs lined up.

BTW, which PA-run school is named after a suicide bomber, or are you thinking of Dalal Mugrahbi Girls H.S., named after the terrorist (not a suicide bomber) who "murdered" 37 people with Israeli guns when Barak's troops opened fire on the bus she hijacked in 1978?

www.pmw.org.il (http://www.pmw.org.il) - Palestinian Media Watch

How exactly is Ariel Sharon a terrorist? What innocent civilians has he killed to further what political cause?

[Gamblor]

Because Jews are a warlike and violent people?

What would eliminate all conflict, Mr. Guatama?

[Gamblor]

Do you even read these posts anymore?

Jews don't want a Jewish only state.

They want a Jewish MAJORITY state, with self-determination.

They have never had this anywhere else in history since biblical times.

There are many Arab and Muslim majority states. Why do they want this one too?

[ACPlayer]

The zionists are about as violent and warlike people as any other that I have seen. Jews are peaceful.

I dont know what will eliminate conflict, but putting in place situations designed to increase conflict seem stupid.

[Gamblor]

Shall we compare the violence of the early Zionist settlers with the current violence of the Arabs?

I don't think you want to go there.

At worst, you can point to 2 specific "massacres" of which the details are sketchy at best, despite what revisionists of today would have you believe. I'll concede that Deir Yassin and Sabra and Chatila, have at best negligence on the part of the "Zionist entity" (to use a phrase you'd probably like to hear).

Considering the constant and unending bombardment of Israeli citizens, I don't think you can even compare the Zionists to the Arabs.

I will not for one second accept the position that Israel targets civilians in the same way. It's simply false. I will not re-iterate my experiences as an IDF Golani soldier. The targeting of civilians is abhorred by all officers and soldiers of the IDF.

[MMMMMM]

The Palestinians may have zero chance of wiping out anyone but they're doing their best to wipe out as many as they can. Also the Hamas Charter pledges violent conflict until all of Palestine is reclaimed from the river to the sea.

It's not like the Palestinians are willing to live in peace, nicky--the majority of them might be, but the violent, psychotic minority of death-cultists is so large as to make the arrangement you suggest quite impractical, and would be anathema to Israel's security.

[MMMMMM]

Maybe the Turkish Kurds should have their own state, or maybe they shouldn't--I haven't followed the situation, have you? But I believe the terrorist groups should be wiped out entirely--their training camps should be bombed to smithereens (practically nobody is ever at those camps but the terrorists themselves anyway), and the terrorists should be lined up and shot or at least imprisoned for a very long time. Or perhaps as David Sklansky said on this forum quite some time ago: those who target innocents for terror and death in order to draw attention to and further their own political agendas, deserve to be enslaved.

The blackmail of terrorism must not be allowed to succeed as a viable and effective political tool or it will become ever more popular worldwide. The civilized world needs to send a very clear message that the targeting of innocents for terror and murder in order to further political agendas will not be tolerated.

[Chris Alger]

No. The outrage and anguish associated with the invasion stems from the fact of the invasion and the displacement that followed, not the amount of the acreage or the degree to which it was coveted. Your argument means that the degree to which 800,000 people object ot their forcible displacement is a function of the amount of land they inhabited, which is idiotic.

[Chris Alger]

1. Ethnicity is not the issue, although "ethnic" means "of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background." The various nationalities of Europe constitute different ethnic groups, just as Poles and Italians in the U.S. are considered different ethnic groups.
2. "Ovens" were not the reason the world objected to Germany's invasion of Eastern Europe.
3. I'm not going to search your link to find evidence for your point if you are too lazy to do the same, and will therefore assume that you lied (again).
4. Sharon is a terrorist because of the death squads he led in the 1950's, the thousands of defenseless civilians he killed through indiscriminate shelling and the deliberate targeting of refugee camps in Lebanon, the massacres at Sabra and Shatila that he facilitiated (and probably orchestrated), and for his ongoning campaign of terror against the civilian populations of the occupied territories, easily killing over a thousand civilians during the last three years.

[Chris Alger]

Figures. The same links show facilities run by "the Palestinians" and named after terrorists, as if they had the imprimatur of the PA and Palestinian culture. Then when you look hard it's a camp run by a Islamic Jihad, "the" Palestinians.

[Gamblor]

So you use the degree of their outrage and objection to their displacement as a barometer of the moral implications of the conflict?

THAT is idiotic.

[Gamblor]

Now now, don't shirk your responsibility.

I couldn't post the site because when I copied and pasted it back into the address field it refused to go. Might have been a form problem. Regardless, one thousand civilians in three years of daily warfare is a massacre? That's 3 people a day. And a significant percentage of those deaths are due to PA executions of collaborators and bomb-making accidents.

Perspective and context, Chris.

In any event, not one civilian death is acceptable. But that goes both ways, and once again (everybody now) there is no deliberate targeting of Arab civilians by the Israeli Defense Forces.

[MMMMMM]

LOL. That you refer to entire countries which Germany "tried to obtain for living space" as merely "a bit of land" is idiotic. A bit of land?

If your criteria for comparison rests on such things as human suffering and the degree to which people object to their displacement, I suggest you consider the sufferings, objections, and outright mass murder of millions of Czechs and Poles.

Once again you apparently display little or no desire or ability to objectively compare degrees of atrocity, numbers of killed, or magnitudes of evil.

[MMMMMM]

I don't know about all that, but I suggest if the Palestinians don't want to be thought of as terrorists or in bed with the terrorists, they rise up and get rid of the terrorists. It's the same old story: say one thing and do the opposite (or have your buddies do the opposite for you). The Palestinias and the PA have been in bed with terror for far too long. And the matter of the PA not being strong enough to do stop it is a red herring because they never did anything to truly eliminate the terrorist orgs before.

It's all a big smokescreen, a trick with mirrors; and Arafat and the PA love terror. They just want enough distance so that they can "condemn it", all the while chuckling behind the world's back.

[Chris Alger]

"they rise up and get rid of the terrorists"

Obviously this is no solution for the likes of you because (1) no matter what they say or do, you'll still insist that their "savage and barbaric culture" prohibits them from exercising any real rights over their land; and (2) the right wing will insist that the terrorists are still there, "rearming," using the same high quality evidence they used for the Iraqi WMD debacle, and you'll swallow it hole.

[Chris Alger]

Only to one with such an ingrained Nazi-like mentaility that the degree to which people object to being displaced, meaning losing their livelihoods, their property, and being turned into refugees, isn't worthy of consideration on the grounds that the victims are, as you put it, "merely Arabs."

[Chris Alger]

Once again proving that you not only can't stick to the point but have to fabricate straw man arguments -- and even quotations -- that no one has said or made.

[Chris Alger]

"Whether you think that entitles them to a tiny sliver of land ...."

This is so dishonest it's sickening. There is, of course, no person or group that has ever objected to Israeli or Zionist policy on the grounds of desiring or being entitled to a "little sliver of land." The issue is whether age-old oppression of Jews that had nothing to do with the origins of Zionism can provide a pre-facto rationale, together with an explicit ideology of national and racial supremacy, for Israel's policies of ethnic cleansing and keeping 8 million people in permanent refugee status or outright bondage, or both.

[MMMMMM]

Nothing dishonest there.

I guess there aren't any any more "tiny slivers of land" on the globe that nobody owns, unless talking Antarctica maybe.

[MMMMMM]

"Obviously this is no solution for the likes of you because (1) no matter what they say or do, you'll still insist that their "savage and barbaric culture" prohibits them from exercising any real rights over their land;"

No I won't insist anything of the kind.

"...and (2) the right wing will insist that the terrorists are still there, "rearming," using the same high quality evidence they used for the Iraqi WMD debacle, and you'll swallow it hole."

And then they'll attack again.

[Chris Alger]

You said that one or some PA schools are named after suicide bombers. Name it. Your link doesn't.

"And a significant percentage of those deaths are due to PA executions of collaborators and bomb-making accidents."

The percentage is zero because those victims aren't killed by forces under Sharon's command.

[MMMMMM]

What do you call referring to Chechoslavakia and Poland as "a bit of land"? You are drawing a horrid false equivalence between large scale Nazi conquest, and the Zionists.

[Gamblor]

Again with the deviation from the discussion.

Does your rhetoric know no bounds?

[Gamblor]

Sorry, Chris, the body counts include Arabs killed in those accidents.

So the percentage is significantly more than 0.

[Chris Alger]

Again, same response: I didn't say that, and it's not an argument I've made.