Scribbler,

Hypocrisy? Hardly. The contributions offered by the the usual anti-Israel crowd here are slogans.

On the very, very rare occasion, a 'fact' is dropped into the discussion. This has resulted in the 'fact' being demolished with solid evidence. This shoddy scholarship hardly does the Palestinian cause any good.

If you had bothered to look at the MEF articles you would see that these are rigorously referenced. Readers can verify the facts and also see them in context. This is correct scholarship.

You made no comments about the articles. Do you agree, or not with the observations? If not, why not? Now you have the opportunity to refute them providing your own evidence.

“ … dizzying heights of literary appreciation ...”

The articles were not intended to be literature. Am I correct in thinking that their length was too much for you?

“ ...Palestinian acceptance of Israel”

Where have you been? This is the problem. If the Palestinians had accepted Israel, there would now be two states living in harmony along side each other. All the loss of life on both sides would have been avoided. How can there be peace when, particularly, Hamas is entrenched in seeing the destruction of Israel? For those lobbying the Palestinian cause - wouldn't it have been better for them to accept Israel?

Do read the article by Abdulateef Al-Mulhim,
http://www.arabnews.com/arab-spring-and-israeli-enemy

Dear Prompete,

FYI

September 9, 1993

Yitzhak Rabin

Prime Minister of Israel

Mr. Prime Minister,

The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:

The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.

The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.

The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators.

In view of the promise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.

Sincerely,

Yasser Arafat
Chairman
The Palestine Liberation Organization

September 9, 1993

Yasser Arafat
Chairman
The Palestinian Liberation Organization

Mr. Chairman,

In response to your letter of September 9, 1993, I wish to confirm to you that, in light of the PLO commitments included in your letter, the Government of Israel has decided to recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and commence negotiations with the PLO within the Middle East peace process.

Yitzhak Rabin
Prime Minister of Israel

Dear Yuyutsu,

We are simply at odds. Can you give an example of a state which is neither a nation or part of a nation such as Queensland or Ohio? In my post state and nation were synonymous.

Queensland is subject to the laws of Australia, and Ohio is subject to the laws of the US.

I used the example of the Amish and the Ortodox Jews in the United States where a group has different standards from the mainstream and has the freedom to live according to those standards.

Both the Amish and Orthodox Jews have their own schools. The United States has social security for almost all workers. The Amish are an exception. They do not wish to get involved with US Social Security. Their community takes care of their own, and the US government allows them to stay out of the Social Security system. They not need a nation or a state of their own. As pacifists they are exempt from military service when the US has conscription.

In the case of the Orthodox Jews they are free to live their life style in the United States. In Israel they force their life style on other people. It is better that they don't have a state. They can live the way they want to live but cannot force it on others.

Danielle,

Thank you for your concern about my ability to concentrate long enough to absorb the articles on the MEF. It's nice to know there are people out there with my best interests at heart.

Thankfully, I had only yesterday upped my dose of fish oil tablets, purchased a new pair of coke-bottle spectacles and, armed with a six-pack of Red Bull, managed to stay the course. Unfortunately, sitting for so long in my un-ergonomic chair has played havoc with my hemorrhoids, but I consider this to be a small sacrifice.

As for your inquiry as to my opinion of the articles, I thought I’d already given it.

‘Rigorously referenced’? Well, to be fair, articles on Wikipedia do that too, but I don’t rely on them solely for brain fodder. I’m sorry you didn’t get my reference about ‘literature’ – I admit it was a little glib. And yes, I did read the article by Abdulateef Al-Mulhim.

Danielle, we see things differently. You read the articles on MEF and see reasoned arguments bemoaning the UNRWA and its over-reaching mandate; arguments that contest the right of return of Palestinians to Israel so many generations after they were expelled; arguments that insist Jordan should be the new Palestine as so many Palestinians are already there, so why bother to relocate the poor sods again.

I read them and see no admission of responsibility by Israel for the Palestinian refugee problem – even though every article admits there is one; I see no viable solution offered, except to dismantle (or at least disempower) the UNRWA- which would play so nicely into Zionist plans - or heap the responsibility on Jordan.

Now I happily admit that deconstruction underpins both sides of the argument. Zionists argue that they have done nothing wrong, that Jerusalem is theirs to build on and manage however they wish, that the Palestinians and Arab nations have no-one to blame but themselves, that Israel acts the way it does because it is a lone paranoid state beset by enemies. They deconstruct facts, dates and intentions to promote their view.

(cont’)

Pro-Palestinians argue that Israel has, still is, and will continue to thwart international opinion and law in its push for Zionism; that its treatment of Palestinians within Israel is unjust; that its continued resettlement program in the West Bank is (under current circumstances) illegal; that Zionism promotes apartheid. Again, and to be fair, deconstruction plays an important part.

Deconstruction is a dangerous thing. Why, just the other week I went out to dinner with a couple of friends to one of those fancy foodie restaurants people go to just so they can tell less-fortunate people that they’ve been; the sort of place where the amount of food on the plate is inversely proportional to the price of the meal. At the end of the evening, having already spent a fortune and been left very hungry, I ordered one of my favourite desserts – tiramisu.

When it arrived, I peered down at my plate, squinting so as to be able to focus on the minute offering. The waiter, clearly trained to spot customer dismay, hurried to explain that the few crumbs, wisps of cream and delicate tendrils of coffee liqueur were indeed what I had ordered. “It’s been deconstructed,” he explained.

When I pointed out that I would have liked to have been given the opportunity to deconstruct it myself, he just shrugged. Needless to say, I didn’t eat the tiramisu. Instead, I took it home in a miniscule container and gave it to my dog, who fancies himself a bit of a connoisseur. He gave it a sniff and looked at me, as if to say, ‘Didn’t I eat this already?’

The point is, if you deconstruct something enough so that it bears little resemblance to the original (no matter your POV), cherry-picking the very best ingredients to create a masterpiece, arranging them artfully on a plate and tossing in a few minute details to enhance the flavour, you end up with a dog’s breakfast. If it doesn’t appeal to the customer, if it isn’t what they expected, they’re not going to like it.

Nor, it seems, will their dog.

Dear David F.,

The less the state interferes in people's lives, the more it is possible to accommodate very-different groups within that state without oppressing any of them, but look at the people of the Middle-East: do you consider them mature enough to not interfere in each others' affairs? You yourself just gave the example of Orthodox Jews in Israel and Islamic pressure on ordinary Palestinians is no less harsh, so how can you expect from them such a leap straight from where they are now to the ideal perfect state, from 10th century into the 22nd, this while sadly, even Australia today is unable (or unwilling) to accommodate people like the Amish (the USA slightly more accommodates them, but even there the Amish, while exempt from high-schools, are in trouble being forced to attend state primary-schools)?

The answer to hot-headed Middle-Easterners can be summarized by Genesis [13,8-9]:

{So Abram said to Lot, “Please let there be no strife between you and me, and between my herdsmen and your herdsmen; for we are brethren. Is not the whole land before you? Please separate from me. If you take the left, then I will go to the right; or, if you go to the right, then I will go to the left."}

Not forcing one's ways on others is essential, elementary, but is only the beginning of the road.

Sadly it is difficult to find nowadays states with no nation, though easier to find nations without state: the Jews until 1948, Palestinians, Kurds, Tibetans, Aboriginal tribes, etc.

Nationhood is comprised of common ambitions. I find it wrong and oppressive to impose nationhood (in other words, supposedly-common-ambitions) on people merely because they happen to live in a particular geographical region. The larger that region, the more wrong it is, as less choices are available!

I am indeed deeply shocked by the current Australian government's talk of "nation building".