A look at Democracy in the Arab World

[Gamblor]

Associated Press

ALGERIA: Multiparty state with elected parliament and president. National Liberation Front, dominant party since independence from France 40 years ago, won 2002 parliamentary elections marred by violence. In 1991, fearing fundamentalist Islamic Salvation Front would be elected, army aborted final round of election and sparked bloody insurgency.

BAHRAIN: Declared constitutional monarchy in 2002 as part of reforms that paved way for first legislative elections in 30 years. Women voted and ran in October election, which secularists narrowly won. Final authority on all matters still resides with king, Sheik Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa.

EGYPT: President Hosni Mubarak took over from assassinated President Anwar Sadat in 1981. His security apparatus and National Democratic Party have almost absolute control over elected parliament. Mubarak stands every five years as only presidential candidate in yes-no referendums that always produce yes vote of more than 90 percent. Speculation persists Mubarak is grooming his son to replace him.

IRAQ: U.S.-led coalition to run country through June 30, when new Iraqi-run government replaces Saddam Hussein's 35-year dictatorship. Washington promises Iraq will be democracy, but history of repression and deep divisions in society will make that difficult.

JORDAN: King Abdullah II, who succeeded late father, King Hussein, has virtually absolute power but has pledged to transform kingdom into the "model of a democratic Arab Islamic state" that can serve as an example to other Middle East nations. He has abolished the Information Ministry that enforced censorship and put more women into government, but broader public freedoms are lacking. Political elite, conservative tribal leaders, would-be reformers and Islamic fundamentalists argue over direction of reform.

KUWAIT: Politics controlled by emir, Sheik Jaber Al Ahmed Al Sabah, and family. Kuwait pioneer among Arabs in electing parliament, in 1963, but emir regularly dismisses national assemblies. Women barred from voting or running for office.

LEBANON: Elections regular and lively, but not open because of power-sharing agreement meant to prevent resurgence of 1975-90 sectarian civil war. Legislative seats apportioned equally to Christians and Muslims; prime minister must be Sunni Muslim, president Christian. Syria, a dictatorship, wields great influence over Lebanese politics.

LIBYA: Moammar Gadhafi in absolute power since 1969 military coup.

MOROCCO: King Mohammed VI appoints prime minister and members of government following legislative elections; can fire any minister, dissolve parliament, call for new elections, or rule by decree. Incumbent socialist party won September 2002 parliamentary elections praised as clean and fair. Conservative Islamic parties did well.

OMAN: Sultan Qaboos became ruler by overthrowing father in 1970. Family has ruled for about 250 years. In October 2003, the country held its first elections open to all citizens for an advisory council. No political parties or elected legislature.

PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY: Yasser Arafat, under growing pressure to share power, appointed a prime minister in 2003 but Mahmoud Abbas' government collapsed in a dispute with Arafat over security control. The same disagreement nearly sank Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia's government, appointed in September, until Qureia gave in. Arafat essentially retains indirect control in many areas, including security.

QATAR: Promising parliamentary elections after holding first municipal elections in 1999, with women fully participating. Famous as home of al-Jazeera satellite TV station, lambasted by Arab and Western governments for shows critical of governments. Qataris overwhelmingly voted in April 2003 for a new constitution that guarantees freedom of expression, religion, assembly and association. It also provides for a 45-member parliament, two-thirds of which will be elected and the rest appointed by the emir.

SAUDI ARABIA: Crown Prince Abdullah rules on behalf of ailing King Fahd; no elected legislature. In sign royal family feeling pressure to reform, the Cabinet announced in October that Saudis will be able to vote in municipal elections. Government also recently set up a national human rights commission and let international rights monitors visit for first time.

SYRIA: President Bashar Assad wields near-absolute power, disappointing those who expected the young, Western-educated doctor to open up politics. Succeeded father, longtime dictator Hafez Assad, who died in 2000.

SUDAN: President Omar el-Bashir in power since 1989 coup. Recently moved to lessen influence of fundamentalist Islamic leaders, but democratic reform not on agenda.
TUNISIA: Republic dominated by single party, Constitutional Democratic Assembly, since independence from France in 1956. Opposition parties allowed since 1981.

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: Federation of states, each controlled by own emir and family.

YEMEN: President Ali Abdullah Saleh presides over largely feudal society. Despite constitution, elected parliament and lively press, power rests with military and tribes.

Keep calling it racism, Chris.

[Chris Alger]

The endemic tyranny of the Arab states does indeed evoke much sympathy for the hapless civilians within them. But the same cannot be said for Israel, a vibrant and open democracy where the people have voluntarily chosen to live by the sword and take the consequences come what may. So why should anyone care if the people responsible for this (http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1700.shtml) and so much else are called to account?

Because unless we are racists we condemn violence against civilians across the board, and not according to their form of government or ethnicity.

[Gamblor]

We DO condemn violence against civilians across the board.

What we don't condemn are acts against armed combatants that choose to bring their unarmed neighbours into the fray by using civilian homes as sniper posts and bomb-making facilities, forcing the army into choosing the action least-destructive to human life - destroying the house risking soldiers' lives in the process, and not flattening the entire city to root out the terrorists.

Of course, "electronicintifada" is an unbiased news source and can be trusted to disseminate nothing but truthful accounts of events in question.

[thylacine]

It sounds like you guys have a debate ongoing, that I have not followed. But, Chris, you have siad something deeply disturbing that shows a fundamental flaw in your way of thinking. Unless you address this flaw you will be at constant risk of forming bogus opinions. Chris, you said ...

[ QUOTE ]
... and not according to [1] their form of government or [2] ethnicity.

[/ QUOTE ]

([Brackets] inserted by me to make a point.)

In life we must make decisions and judgements. We must also make meta-decisions and meta-judgements about which criteria (e.g. characteristics of individuals, nations and other entities) can legitimately be used to make decisions and judgements, and which criteria do not form a legitimate basis.

In a single phrase you haxed mixed two examples of very different type. [2] ethnicity is an exmple of a criterion on which judgements should not be based, just like gender, religious beliefs or lack thereof, sexuality, etc. etc. On the other hand [1] form of government is most certainly a legitimate criterion on which to judge a country. And individuals can be legitimately judged based on all kinds of legitimate merit-based criteria.

You cannot simply have a blanket ban on all forms of judgement in a disingenuous attempt to appear bias-free; or worse still, to pretend you're doing that, when in fact you selectively choose to ban judgements only when such a ban suits you. It is bad to tolerate intolerance, but it is even worse to selectively tolerate only those forms of intolerance that you sympathise with (all the while saying look at how tolerant I am).

It is time to recognize and condemn fascistic cult-like ideologies such as political-correctness.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
It is time to recognize and condemn fascistic cult-like ideologies such as political-correctness.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am not going to jump in chris and gamblor's debate here, but I love this sentence. I truly do despise PC. It's halfway between censorship and bullshit.

al

[B-Man]

[Chris Alger]

You're missing the point, which is that those that constantly invoke Israel's democratic virtues in apology for its faults are either raising an irrelevant point or have it backwards.

Israeli policy is either unjustifiably brutal or it isn't. If it isn't, case closed. If it is, the effect of Israel being a democracy doesn't excuse atrocities one bit. If anything, it broadens the scope of responsibility for them. Therefore, if we are inclined to blame populations, as Gamblor prefers, then democratic populations are inherently more blameworthy (and prideworthy, when policy is good) than those suffering under dictatorship. Iraqis under Saddam could plead powerlessness to prevent their government's atrocities. For Israelis, Americans or Canadians to do the same would be a bad joke. Yet the argument that Gamblor and other chauvinists make is that democracy excuses atrocious policy, which is ridiculous. To take an extreme example, one can't imagine invoking Hitler's 1933 popular election and subsequent popularity as someone excusing or ameliroating the brutality of Nazi policy. It's simply a amatter of elementary logic and has nothing to do with "meta-decisions and meta-judgements," or whatever the hell you're talking about. The legitimacy this silly argument appears to have through its persistence in public propaganda doesn't make it any more rational.

As for "judging countries," it's a fool's pastime. A "country" is too many things: people, culture, institutions, rulers, places, history, potential, etc. Policy, OTOH, is something concrete that we can evaluate based on its actual effects.

So your distinction between an immutable characteristic like ethnicity and a maleable one like government ie neither here nor there.

[Chris Alger]

In other words, you condemn the killing of Palestinian civilians by Israeli invaders by condmening the Palestinians for fighting invasion, getting in the way of Israeli bullets, not surrendering, making Israel look bad, etc. etc.

The lore of apologists for terror is riddled with similar "condemnations."

[thylacine]

I hadn't been following your posts Chris Alger, but I now realise that you are simply totally full of sh!t. You cannot even grasp the simplest of concepts. I was making an important point which completely eluded you, and all you can do is foam at the mouth about Israel, which was not even part of the topic of conversation.

[jcx]

A large part of the reason there is no democracy in the Arab world is the West does not want the Arabs to have democracy. Some of the biggest fans of democracy in the Arab world are the mullahs because they know the people in most countries currently controlled by dictators would overwhelmingly vote for Islamic rule. That is why we actually don't mind the various despots that control Libya, Syria and the like because the alternative is much worse.

We are finding out on our little Iraqi adventure that bringing Western-style secular democracy to people who (Minus the machine guns) are not much different from their 12th century counterparts is all but impossible.

[nicky g]

"because they know the people in most countries currently controlled by dictators would overwhelmingly vote for Islamic rule"

This is an exaggeration. But in general, you're spot on. Islamic parties are currently by far and away the main proponents of democracy in the Arab world, and western-backed allies amongst its most stubborn opponents.

[nicky g]

"I was making an important point"

Very much so. You may wish to contact the Nobel Foundation in Sweden

"which completely eluded you, and all you can do is foam at the mouth about Israel, which was not even part of the topic of conversation."

Mmm. I imagine your groundbreaking points, that one can judge people on certain "merit-based" criteria and one can judge countries based on their form of government, probably were understood by Chris. They fail, however, to establish, that one can blame populations or individuals for the actions of "their" country or government, particularly an undemocratic one, which I believe was part of Chris's point. As for Israel being off-topic, it was both a relavant example to the point Chris was originally making(as a democracy which many people view to be behaving badly and treating other people in a very undemocratic way), which you seem to ahve misunderstood, and also the implied standard-bearer of deomcratic rule to which Gamblor was making a comparison.

Ultimately there are two questions here: can you blame people for the nature of their government, and can you blame people for the actions of a democratically-elected government? Can you blame the undemocratic nature of a country on its people? I don't know. I severely doubt it. It would presuppose a recent overnight change in the character of dozens of Eastern European and Latin American countries, amongst others, which have recently moved from autocratic rule to democracy.

Anyway, perhaps you could make a proper case for or against, instead of making a couple of simple-minded points in a convoluted pretentious manner in response to a post and then ranting and insulting the poster when he replies to you.

[Gamblor]

I have never claimed that by mere virtue of democratic process is Israeli action "better".

What I have argued is that

1) Israeli action, democratic or otherwise, is justified and necessary to protect the civilians of the state.

2) That Israel is a democratic state brings opinions that dissent from government action (right or wrong) and as such we hear a lot more criticism and a lot more eloquent criticism of Israeli policy via historians such as Shlaim and Morris than we do of those who deserve it more. In Israel, we have people who are on the "inside" who have criticism (whether or not we agree with it). But in Arab nations, there is virtually no criticism of government policy from the inside.

As such, people like you are left comparing criticism of both sides and given the freedom of information in Israel, and the near-blanket ban on anti-government literature in Arab nations, it is easy to begin to believe the facts as they are presented by the anti-Israel camp. After all, if some Israelis don't like the policy, it must be flawed!

[Gamblor]

In other words, you condemn the killing of Palestinian civilians by Israeli invaders by condmening the Palestinians for fighting invasion, getting in the way of Israeli bullets, not surrendering, making Israel look bad, etc. etc.

How many more words are you going to try to stuff into my mouth?

I condemn the intentional killing of Palestinian civilians by any Israeli soldier who is more trigger-happy than he should be.

But when you walk through those cities, you'll understand why they're a little antsy.

"condemning the Palestinians for fighting invasion"

Is this a joke? Invasion?

I thought Israel was "taking Palestinian land" through the legal system.

The security fence was to separate the peoples and a land grab, but Israel is trying to colonize the entire West Bank.

You're tripping all over yourself here. Is that foam in your mouth?

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, you condemn the killing of Palestinian civilians by Israeli invaders by condmening the Palestinians for fighting invasion, getting in the way of Israeli bullets, not surrendering, making Israel look bad, etc. etc.

How many more words are you going to try to stuff into my mouth?

[/ QUOTE ]
This from someone who belongs to an organization that heroizes Jewish terrorists as martyrs, while claiming that Palestinian martyrdom of the innocent proves Arab backwardness and cruelty, who casually justifies a 30-year dicatorship over 3.5 million people on the grounds that the land on which they live was "up for grabs," who excuses the King David Hotel bombing on the grounds that the terrorist murderers "warned" some of the victims beforehand.

If I could stuff words into your mouth I'd be doing you a favor.

[Gamblor]

This from someone who belongs to an organization that heroizes Jewish terrorists as martyrs

Nope, they ain't martyrs, and they ain't perfect, but they fought for the cause. Their terrorism isn't what makes them heros, it is standing up to the British imperialist armies and the genocidal Arab rioters.

Now, what prevents you from simply inserting "Israeli" for "British"? Simple: the British had no desire to do anything other than collect the spoils of war from the Middle East, while Jewish desire and the right to settle the area and establish homesteads. Naturally, any Jews living on "Palestinian land" can not be tolerated and is justifiably met with murder, as it was in the late 19th century as well as today.

while claiming that Palestinian martyrdom of the innocent proves Arab backwardness and cruelty

So nothing has changed in 75 years? If the Arabs are using tactics 75 years obsolete, that doesn't make them "backward"? But I digress.

If you don't see the fundamental differences between pre-state Jewish political-terrorism, and post-modern Arab terrorism, then there's no use trying. But even more hilariously, are you claiming that Arab society, especially Palestinian society, is living in the 21st century? That's the biggest joke of all! Oh, don't forget to have your wife wear her burka and to turn off your Britney Spears MP3s when you land in Ramallah.

who casually justifies a 30-year dicatorship over 3.5 million people on the grounds that the land on which they live was "up for grabs,"

Nope, no dictatorship. Police-State. And given the Arab belligerence and terrorism that pre-dated any "occupation", you would have the terrorist groups running free to plan these mass-murders? And yes, again, say it with me now:

There was no internationally-recognized claim to the land, by a sovereign nation, after the 1967 war. Israel, on the other hand, was a UN-recognized state by 1948, so the claim on that land has been fulfilled. That justifies the settlement activity. The terrorist attacks on the new villages justify the Police-State. Simple.

who excuses the King David Hotel bombing on the grounds that the terrorist murderers "warned" some of the victims beforehand

I don't excuse it out of hand, certainly morally it was suspect, but it is far less suspect than, and absolutely incomparable to, the "terrorist murderers" that desire to maximize casualties and offer no warning beforehand, apologizing when they accidentally kill an Arab (a Christian Arab no less), and cheering and dancing in the streets when a Jew dies.

You know, when you listen and read what I write, instead of spouting "criminal terrorist murderer occupation blah blah blah" rhetoric, I might be more inclined to take your joke-ridden opinions seriously.

Incidentally, have you ever even met a Palestinian "national"?

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't see the fundamental differences between pre-state Jewish political-terrorism, and post-modern Arab terrorism, then there's no use trying.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's certainly true that there "no use trying" to get me to abandon my abhorence for all forms of terrorism. Unlike you, I'm against "political-terrorism," Jewish or otherwise. I believe that murdering children sleeping in their beds and passersby in markets is simply wrong regardless of the ethnicity of the perpetrator. You contend that terrorists are criminals when they're Arabs, but "heroes" (in the words of your Betar group) when they're Jews, "fighting for the cause" as you say. I judge people according to their actions, while you judge them according to their ethnicity, condemning Arab murderers but celebrating Jewish ones.

[ QUOTE ]
There was no internationally-recognized claim to the land, by a sovereign nation, after the 1967 war.

[/ QUOTE ]
Only a dozen or more overwhelmingly passed UN Resolutions recognizing sovereign Palestinian national rights, such as UNGAR 2649 (1970: condemning “those Governments that deny the right to self-determination of peoples recognized as being entitled to it, especially of the peoples of southern Africa and Palestine”); 4377 (1987: acknowledging “the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988"); 5126 (stressing “the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination”); 51/190 (1996: reaffirming “the principle of the permanent sovereignty of people under foreign occupation over their natural resources” incluing “the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and the population of the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources, including land and water”).

All of these constitute “internationally-recognized claim[s] to the land, by a sovereign nation,” something which you contend doesn't exist. To put this in further comic relief, you contend that the absence of international consensus regarding Palestinian sovereignty "justifies the settlements," when in fact the settlements have been condemned as violations of Palestinian international rights by nearly every country in the world.

[Gamblor]

I judge people according to their actions, while you judge them according to their ethnicity, condemning Arab murderers but celebrating Jewish ones.

Almost, not quite. I judge people according to their actions - their entire actions, not just those that make my argument convenient. For example, you issue a blanket condemnation of terror without any understanding of the goals behind the terrorism, or the minimization of innocent casualties of Irgun Tz'vai L'umi (Etzel - The National Military Organization) acts you call "terrorism".

As the political Left has so brilliantly bastardized the word terrorism itself, to include all indiscriminate acts of violence against non-combatants, we must revisit the word terrorism to show why Jewish violence (specifically that of Etzel and Lechi - Lochamei Cherut Yisrael - a radical offshoot of Etzel) against Arab civilians in pre-state British Mandate Palestine was not indeed terror.

Terror is not terror through the act of murder or even violence against civilians, but to evoke fear in the civilian population, influencing public opinion to effect governmental policy change - naturally this only works in nations where the population is able to effect such change. For example, in the case of 9/11, Al-Qaeda wishes the American goverment would withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia and various pure-Arab nations, they knock down a couple towers and voters demand the government pull out troops so as to satisfy the terrorists. Obviously it only worked with half the country (the anti-war crowd) in the US.

The case of Etzel is different: Arab riots began in the late 19th century as a response to Jewish immigration to the region colloquially known as Palestine. It was quite simple - "we don't want too many Jews here". By 1929, the riots reached a culmination with the massacres at Hevron, which I'm sure you can research yourself. By then, demand for a defence against the Arab attackers led to the institution of a Defence Force - the HaGanah (literally, the Defence). Yet, the HaGanah's policy of Havlagah (restraint) allowed Arabs to attack Jews with impunity - most were repelled, but some were successful, most notably the 1929 riots in Jerusalem and Hevron, which showed exactly how weak the defensive posture was. This defensive stance led to various criticisms and a more aggressive approach was required, and members of the Haganah (Stern/Kook/Raziel/etc) seceded and formed the Etzel. Instead of Restraint, retaliation became the method of defence, used to deter the attackers. Why is this not terrorism? Simple: there was no political goal, as the Arabs had virtually zero power under British Rule. So we have discounted the myth that attacks on Arab civilians were "terrorism"

Later actions against British authorities were in response to the White Paper of 1939, which limited the number of Jews allowed to immigrate to Palestine. Naturally, no restrictions were placed on Arab population movement. In any event, most of the efforts that have been interpreted by the anti-Israel camp as "terrorism" were either mistakes or not directed against innocents. For example, the Patria was a ship of Jewish refugees looking to immigrate, that had been held at harbour by the British who refused to allow the Jews into Palestine. It was bombed, hoping that if the ship sank slow enough, the voyagers could be evacuated and settled in the Yishuv. A drastic error was made and the ship sank too fast. The
bombing was intended to be on a much smaller scale, but the poorly designed plan led to a greivous error - not a plan to terrorize the British civilians into changing their government's policy.

By late 1939, the war had started in Europe and Benjamin Zeroni, the Etzel commander, issued a proclamation stating that Etzel must avoid violence against British forces while they were needed in Europe, the Eztel was suspending activities against British forces until the Nazis were defeated. In fact, the Eztel declared their willingness to help British forces fight the Nazis in Germany, but that help was refused. By 1942, the British, despite the truce, had begun to restrict further and further Jewish daily activity, and begun to agree more and more to Muslim demands, such as refusing Jews permission to sound the Shofar (a ceremonial trumpet-like horn reminding us of the same horn blown by Joshua, after conquering Jericho upon the Exodus from Egyptian slavery) on Yom Kippur. As a result, the following Proclamation was issued by the Eztel:

http://www.etzel.org.il/pictures/kruzim/11.gif

Which reads (sort of):

A british officer should not act violently on the road to the Western Wall during Yom Kippur prayers, especially during the shofar blowing and the singing of Hatikva (Israeli national anthem)... Such acts are against the moral law of civilized people, will disturb the worshippers assembled there, and will desecrate the sanctity of prayer and anyone who commits them will be regarded and listed by the Hebrew Youth (Cherut) as a Criminal. Other people, whether visiting or passing by, whether Muslims or Christians, will not be disturbed when coming near or passing by the Western Wall.

The Irgun Z'vai L'umi
In Eretz-Israel.

The point? Violence against British authorities was limited to defence of Jewish rights and not political goals.

Any politically-oriented violence, such as the bombing of the King David Hotel, was designed not to kill or strike fear, but to limit British ability to administrate Jews in Palestine. As the King David Hotel was not a Hotel per se, but the centre of British administration. In 1938, the Mandatory government took control of the hotel, and put it's military command there. The hotel held a military communications center in the basement and a side entrance linking the building to an army camp south of the hotel. Fewer than a third of the rooms were left for civilians. Even then, as the bomb was set up, a warning was issued to the hotel telephone operator and to the editor of the Palestine Post:

URGENT: I am speaking on behalf of the Hebrew underground.
We have placed an explosive device in the hotel.
Evacuate it at once - you have been warned.

They also delivered a telephone warning to the French Consulate, adjacent to the hotel, to open their windows to prevent blast damage.

The Palestine Post telephone operator attested on oath to the police that, immediately after receiving the telephone message, she had telephoned the duty officer at the police station. The French Consulate staff opened their windows as they had been told to by the anonymous woman who telephoned them, and this was further evidence of the warning.

So, no fear was intended to be instilled in British civilians, nor were British civilians targeted.

The Arab violence, on the other hand, as we have already established, is clearly intended to influence Israeli public opinion to the point they demand of their government to make concessions - basically, give up and go back to Europe.

You are not anti-terrorism, you are anti-violence. Quit lying, you'll earn a little respect.

[Chris Alger]

Here's a description of the terrorism you're defending, from the Etzel (http://www.etzel.org.il/english/index.html) website: <ul type="square"> On July 6, 1938, a member of the Irgun, disguised as an Arab porter, went into the Arab market in Haifa, placed a large parcel beside one of the barrows in the center of the market and left. Shortly afterwards there was a heavy explosion, which killed 21 Arabs and injured more than 50. A week later a similar incident took place in Jerusalem. A member of the Irgun concealed an electric mine in the Arab market in the Old City. It exploded shortly after the end of the prayer service in the mosque, when a large crowd had emerged onto the street. Eight Arabs were killed and more than 30 injured. [/list]You argue that actions like these can't be considered "terrorism" because "there was no political goal" but rather amounted to "defence against the Arab attackers."

Your sick idea that the innocent victims of these atrocities weren't victims of "terrorism" is a powerful admission to your racial supremacist thinking and utter complete moral degeneracy.

Admit it. You are a glorifier, apologist and cheerleader for people that plant bombs in public places seeking to murder as many people as possible. If you were Palestinian, you'd be leading the street demonstrations celebrating the latest bombing.

[Gamblor]

You don't get it.

I am not arguing that this event didn't consist of violence against civilians.

This event was not terrorism, as its explicit goal was retaliation against Arab attackers. It was not to influence Arab politics in any way - It was to show that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

That is not terrorism, that's warfare. Words don't mean something just because you want them to.

Quit sputtering your inane catchphrases and read.

[nicky g]

Let's be clear. Do you condone the deliberate killing of civilians in these instances? Yes or no.

"That is not terrorism, that's warfare"

War crimes, I believe, is the correct term. This is no better than Hamas arguing it strikes Israeli civilian targets to make Israel realise the consequences of killing Palestinian civilians. It's no different from the tit for tat murders that plagued Northern Ireland for 25 years. It's exactly the same as arguing that the loyalist paramilitaries were not terrorsists because they had no political goals, other than maintaining the status quo (which was quite obviously being maintained).

[Gamblor]

If you can point out which people are guilty of terrorist activity and which aren't, I suggest you join the IDF.

[nicky g]

Do you condone the deliberate targetting of civilians in the case you mentioned or not?

[Gamblor]

In the pre-state case, I defend it as necessary to the survival of the people of the Yishuv.

In a modern case, I do not defend the deliberate targeting of civilians with lethal weapons in any case.

[ACPlayer]

OK. There is no democracy in the Arab states (I assume you agree that Iran is not Arab). I dont think anybody is arguing with that.

What are you trying to conclude from these facts?
What lesson should our (the US) govt draw from these facts?

Perhaps you agree that one of the causes of the anti-US terrorist acts is our support of these states (even Richard Perle that stalwart left winger agrees with this).

Perhaps you will agree that our support of these states allows extremists to recruit Mohammed Atta and his cohorts to perform despicable acts.

Perhaps you will agree that you cannot ruthlessly suppress a people by ruthless use of force. THat they will find a way to respond, perhaps by hitting below the belt.

Perhaps one day, you will understand why Israel is the target of terrorist acts.

[nicky g]

Well folks, there we have it.

[Gamblor]

Perhaps you agree that one of the causes of the anti-US terrorist acts is our support of these states (even Richard Perle that stalwart left winger agrees with this).

Agreed. See my post on "those lovable Saudis"

Perhaps you will agree that our support of these states allows extremists to recruit Mohammed Atta and his cohorts to perform despicable acts.

Agreed.

Perhaps you will agree that you cannot ruthlessly suppress a people by ruthless use of force. THat they will find a way to respond, perhaps by hitting below the belt.

Nobody is interested in suppressing an entire people, only preventing elements within that "people" from achieving certain goals.

Perhaps one day, you will understand why Israel is the target of terrorist acts.

Um, I don't care why its the target. All I care about is the following:

I have to entrust the Jewish state and the IDF to take the necessary measures to ensure the survival of the Jewish nation in the State of Israel - not of the nation, but of the people who make up that nation.

Ideally, we all get along and there's no need for religion to be an issue.

Take the Jews who bought a building from an Arab man and moved into an Arab neighbourhood in Jerusalem yesterday. On the news, the Yeshiva-bochers were quoted as hoping they could live peacefully, side by side with Arab neighbours. Of course, they needed a police escort to protect them from stone-throwers.

That ain't hatred of government policy. That's hatred of people because of their religion and a refusal to even live near them.

[Gamblor]

Are you telling me that without those actions, there'd be a single Jew left alive in the region today?

[nicky g]

You know, you're right. Blowing up a bunch of innocent people at a market truly saved the Jewish nation. I'm sure it had nothing to do with fomenting anti-Zionist attitudes amongst the locals either.

You'd almost think that such logic would justify Hamas attacks. Oh wait. It would.

[nicky g]

You know what, screw this. I really don't see the need to try to argue with someone who thinks that planting bombs at a civilian market place can ever be justified.

[joeg]

Gamblor,

I'm not going to get drawn into an argument with a racist psycho who supports the blowing up of arab citizens whilst saying that arabs blowing up jews are terrorists, both are terrorists plain and simple, I just wanted to say your a [censored] psycho.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Um, I don't care why its the target.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really mean this?

[Gamblor]

Who said anything about justified?

First of all, the argument was about whether or not those events can properly be called "terrorism", and my argument is that those actions did not fit the definition of the word.

The bombing occured in response to vicious Arab attacks. This is easily proven via the chronology. Not to say that the attack in and of itself is justifiable, but without any sort of response, at an equal degree of the provocation (i.e. eye for an eye), there would have been no reason for the Arabs to ever stop (not that they did anyway).

It should also be noted that in 1939, when the Arab violence against Jews finally stopped, so did Etzel operations against Arab targets.

More importantly, this whole thread and last few months on 2+2 in OT has taught me one thing:

We have a saying in Hebrew: "Az ma la'asot?", which translates as "So what to do?" It's the nihilistic resignation that the world is the way it is, and sometimes there's just nothing that can be done.

There will always be people like you, Cyrus, and Chris (among others) who regardless of their associations and relationships and perceived degree of enlightenment will single out the Jews. They will hold up isolated events as the Jewish Original Sin, and not criticize the provocation or recognize the fact that the Lechi, the true Jewish terrorists, were outcast by nearly all of the Yishuv, including the Etzel and Betar. Even within the Lechi there were elements that demanded only a political struggle, like Yitzchak Shamir and Yisrael Eldad. Ultimately, Zionism was a peaceful enterprise that was met with a constant barrage of Arab terror, breeding terrorist responses.

After all, nobody says a word about "Arab only" cities in the West Bank, but when Jewish only city is built the whole world condemns it.

In any event, continue to blame the Jews for the violence and continue to blame the Jews for the problems in the Middle East. It's nothing we haven't heard before.

Latest Terrorism and Research Information (http://terrorismexperts.org/terrorism_research_roots1.htm)

[ACPlayer]

Um, I don't care why its the target.

So, you rant and rave about the Arabs without even trying to understand the causes of the terrorism. Presumably you attribute this to some "cultural" trait of the Arabs.

As you say -- ideally we all get along and there is no need for religion to be an issue. Israel by its formation made religion THE issue.

The problem is the unneeded creation of a Jewish state by violent and ruthless means, followed by the spread of the Jewish state by relentless encroachments by the settlers and by the unwillingness of the Israeli govt to reach any sort of political solution, followed by more ruthless killings of innocent people.

Perhaps one day you will understand why it is important to understand why Israel is the target of terrorist acts. Without that understanding there are no solutions.

[Gamblor]

Israel by its formation made religion THE issue

And why was Israel created? Perhaps Europe and Russia from 1000AD-1945 might hold part of the answer, as well as Arab riots against Jewish immigration to Palestine (and now the West Bank), and Jewish dhimmitude in Arab lands throughout recorded history. Perhaps the ancient Romans/Greeks/Assyrians/Egyptians might also have something to say. Hitler goes without saying.

But of course, it's the Jews who made religion the issue.

Look at the root causes.

2500 years isn't enough root cause for you?

Just keep blaming the Jews.

[Gamblor]

War crimes, I believe, is the correct term.

Why don't you allow a fair impartial court to decide this? It's not like one would ever exist in judging Israel, but I digress.

This is no better than Hamas arguing it strikes Israeli civilian targets to make Israel realise the consequences of killing Palestinian civilians.

'tis, because Israel does not kill Palestinian civilians except as collateral damage in raids to arrest Hamas members, who hide out among civilians. That Hamas has managed to turn these arrests into "murder missions" and "occupation" is nothing short of PR brilliance.

It's no different from the tit for tat murders that plagued Northern Ireland for 25 years.

Yes it is, because the Irish demanded and end to British occupation of Ireland, not all of Great Britian itself (i.e. England as well).

[Gamblor]

I'm not going to get drawn into an argument

This is your first post of the thread.

racist psycho

No dice, we're all equal, and race is an artificial phenomenon.

who supports the blowing up of arab citizens

No dice on that one either, but I'm smart enough to recognize how it was retaliation as opposed to murderous hatred.

saying that arabs blowing up jews are terrorists

It is the reason they blow up jews that make them terrorists - otherwise they're simply killers.

both are terrorists plain and simple

No, not plain and simple, as the English language would not be what it is if anything could mean anything you wanted it to.

I just wanted to say your a [censored] psycho.

Haven't figured out how to get around that fucking censor eh?

More rantings from a Holier-than-thou type who hasn't seen the end of his neighbourhood block, let alone a weapon, let alone ever had someone stare into his face with such unbridled hatred and contempt that he would murder you if you weren't protected by fellow soldiers.

Yet another ignoramus who would have us at the 1948 Auschwitz Borders

[joeg]

[ QUOTE ]
Yet another ignoramus who would have us at the 1948 Auschwitz Borders

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I think throughout history I think the jews have been one of the most persucuted races on the planet, and that is tragic, and now I have no problem with people who are jewish, I disagree with a lot of Isreal's policies but that is not what I am addressing here. What I am addressing is your individual beliefs that it is acceptable, and not a terrorist act to deliberatly blow up civilians. I'm not critising jews or Isreal, I'm saying your a psycho.

[Gamblor]

The Auschwitz Borders are more commonly known as the Green Line, or the 1967 ceasefire-line between Jordan and Israel.

When Jordan renounced claim to the land in between the Green Line and the Jordan River, Israel claimed it. Unfortunately, around that time, the generic Arabs who inhabited that area suddenly realized they'd be under Jewish government, and began a nationalist movement, calling themselves "Palestinians".

What I am addressing is your individual beliefs that it is acceptable, and not a terrorist act to deliberatly blow up civilians. I'm not critising jews or Isreal, I'm saying your a psycho

Terrorism isn't a black and white issue. I, for one, do not condone nor would I ever personally kill someone who was merely minding their own business. However, when you understand that the civilians involved gave shelter, financed, and supported, the Arab attackers that murdered hundreds of Jewish immigrants from the late 19th century until pretty much today, you'll see that the Jewish defence organizations that formed were essentially retaliating using an "eye for an eye" policy.

There was simply no other way to deter these constant raids throughout the first half of the 19th century. The brand of terrorism employed by the Etzel limited attacks to areas that Arab attackers were based, not random civilians so as to induce territorial or political concessions (as is the tactic used by modern day Arab terrorists).

There's a difference. I don't condone the killing of innocents. But if in order to save my own life, I must kill my attacker in a situation that leads to unfortunate collateral damage, I don't really have a choice.

[nicky g]

Right. Because a bomb in a market place used by thousands is a great way of targetting specifically the perpetrators of massacre.

"Who said anything about justified?"

Usually, when someone condones something, they find it to be justified. Or would you like to change your mind?

[nicky g]

They will hold up isolated events as the Jewish Original Sin, and not criticize the provocation or recognize the fact that the Lechi, the true Jewish terrorists, were outcast by nearly all of the Yishuv, including the Etzel and Betar. Even within the Lechi there were elements that demanded only a political struggle, like Yitzchak Shamir and Yisrael Eldad. "

I was attacking you for condoning the attack, not any one else .