The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Israel is taking all the right steps along the pathway to peace > Comments

Israel is taking all the right steps along the pathway to peace : Comments

By Danny Lamm, published 8/4/2008

Israel may not be perfect, but it is a vibrant democracy surrounded by Arab dictatorships and theocracies

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 19
  7. 20
  8. 21
  9. All
Danny Lamm has been cruelly provocative in this mischievous article of his...or else he weas meant to be addressing the just closed comedy festival in Melbourne where he'd have been laughed off stage.

Indeed,of Israel has taken all the right steps along the path to peace, one must shudder at what the alternative might have been.What other horrors might be in store?

Double talk has been the prime weapon in the armoury of Israeli government deceit.

Coinciding with the publication of Dr Lamm's article in the Melbourne Age, the World Health Organisation (WHO)in its latest report condemned the denial and delay of medical permits to those WHO described as "unfortunate to be ill on Gaza"...citing at least 5 people had died waiting for permits in a territory criss-crossed by Israeli roadblocks.Israel itself is the roadblock to peace in the Middle East. It prefers, instead, to grab land piece by piece.That's the only pieve it's focussed on.

Even today an Israeli government official talked about "destroying the country of Iran" if it attacked Israel..while coupling the remark with the admission that Iran was hardly likely to attack.

Israel casts itself as David while actually performing like Goliath, armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons it's so anxious to deny everyone else.An inconvenient truth?

Dr Lamm needs to take some steps of his own...towards some semblance of reality.
Posted by Sydney, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 7:17:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Guess what Dr Lamm, having one Arab government minister in 60 years is not exactly a great mark of equality. Not many countries would cite such a proportion as an achievement for a minority that composes 20 per cent of the population. To the undersigned Israeli-Australian it actually proves the opposite. But then again it gives an idea of what Dr Lamm would regard as fair and just two-state solution: Israel gets to keep all the settlements, their connecting roads and territorial buffers on the West Bank while the Palestinians get to the keep the crumbs. Many Israelis, however, do not regard Dr Lamm’s view as either just or fair, preferring two states based on the 4 June 1967 pre-war boundaries.



The sad truth is that for Arabs in Israel formal equality does not translate into meaningful and real equality – they cannot even represent Israel in the Eurovision song contest.

Sol Salbe
Posted by Solthechef, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 7:23:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1) The Jewish people do not have a right to state any more than any other religion. A religion has a right to religious self-determination; not the right to mark out an area of land and claim it.

2) Israel is a vibrant, multicultural democracy surrounded by Arab dictatorships and theocracies. On this much we can agree. However it is also, from the perspective of the overwhelming majority of indigenous Semites, a colonial state. Until that problem is resolved, there will always been tension.

3) It is a bit rich to call for the Palestinian leadership to cease all violence and terror, without making the same call for Israel. Especially given that the majority of firepower has come from the Israeli side and the majority of casulties is on the Palestinian and Arab side.

4) The only hope for peace in the region is a single, democratic, secular state. With current boundaries, a Palestinian state is no longer viable. The two-state solution is a proposal that simply won't work.
Posted by Lev, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 9:54:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SYDNEY has not read the Hamas Charter.. because if he had, he would not have embarked on his CRUEL, biased and provocative post above.

SOLTHECHEF apparently has not read what the Arab Knesset members are saying, because if he had, he would realize why there are so few in the Parliament.

LEV does in fact have a glimmer of truth in his post.. recognizing the stark contrast between democratic Israel and Theocratic Arab states.
But then, he shows his naivity or ignorance, or simply his ideological socialist colors or all of the above by suggesting a single state.

LEV.. you would do very well to read the story of King David then Solomon and Absolom.(a junior son of David) When David was on his last gasp, some members of the court tried to stimulate him back to life by placing a gorgeous young virgin in bed with him. Her name was Abishag the Shunamite. After David died, and Solomon was enthroned, Absolom (wanting the throne himself) asked for Abishag as wife. That request cost him his life, as Solomon knew exactly where he was coming from.
(Absolom thought that getting Abishag, would advance his claim on the throne)

Its the same with the idea of 'one state'.. we know EXACTLY where that will lead, and it would be a genocide of Jews if not immediatly, in time, as Arab fertility rates increased and secular Jewish rates decline.

You would do well to read Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Judges, Samuel (1 and II) 1&2 Kings and 1&2 Chronicles... and then...only then, might you have some idea about how life in these parts works.

SHOW me... when Islamic Jihad stops firing rockets for 6 months..and then.. see how many Israeli attacks on Gaza occur during that time...
I think you would find they are virtually zero, but it not, you can blame Part 3 Article II of the Hamas Charter for them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2-B1INyKF8&feature=related

I would not blame America or Israel for sending well aimed cruise missiles into the crowd shown in that vid calling for their death.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 10:51:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am not quite sure about the intention of this article, it started of with the usual propoganda. Then it slid down the abyss of tawdy cheap shots at a Jew opposed to the way his Government is acting in relation to peace with the Arabs in name of the Jewish people.

Having visited Israel many times in the past to visit friends, I was staggered by the brutality of the 19 year old conscripts man handling elderly Arabs, women and children and using there weapons to humilate these people.

My friends who I was visiting had fought two of Israels wars and feel nothing but shame about the way these people are being treated. After seeing this with my own two eyes, I am now not so sure that it is the great democracy we in the west have been led to believe is the case by our media and government.

Like its greatest supporter America it is full of ultra right wing religious nuts who preach their nonsence including the "final solution" to the Arab question quite openly. Like America these same pious religious rabbi's can be found prowling the streets at night outside of Tel Avi looking for illegal slave prostitutes for sex and run by russian and jewish gangsters.

This is the same country under its ultra right wing government that would use nukes against its neighbours in a heartbeat, despite the fact that it is the most modern and well equiped army in the middle east.
Posted by Yindin, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 11:07:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

Thank you for the bible lesson (Kings Chapter I iirc). Perhaps you forget that I regularly give church services myself.

I take the opportunity to remind you also that Muslim and Jew have, in the past, lived together in Palestine without genocide.

I take the opportunity to remind you that fertility rates are irrelevant as long as the freedom to practise a religion is enshrined in law and that laws also protect people from specific religious obligations.

Palestine should not be a Christian state, a Muslim state or a Jewish state. But simply a state where all people who consider it a homeland can co-exist.

I shall also take the opportunity to remind what the real conditions are in Gaza.

Gaza was invaded in 1967 and military rule continued until 2005, with re-invasion occurring in June 2006 with subsequent airstrikes since then.

It is estimated that between 7,000 and 9,000 Israeli artillery shells were fired into Gaza between September 2005 and June 2006 from Israel, killing 80 Palestinians in 6 months.

From the Palestinian side, over 1,300 "home-made" Qassam rockets were fired into Israel from September 2000 to December 21, 2006 (correctly described by the Israeli Ministry of Defense as "more a psychological than physical threat").

Israel controls Gaza's airspace, territorial water, offshore maritime access, population registry, entry of foreigners, imports and exports (reducing the total quantity to 20 different commodities) as well as the tax system - and most recently even the flow of medicines results in scores of deaths.

And you wonder why organisations like Hamas exist?
Posted by Lev, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 11:16:15 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Lev

don't mind me, I usaully take a rather 'colorful' and extreme position on these things, but for the record... as far as I am concerned, from the day that the Arab/muslims of Gaza elected Hamas they become an active enemy of Israel and the only response to that election result they can fairly expect is total war, and exile. I mentioned the Hamas Charter above, and aside from everything else, it should be read by all of us in detail.

That foundation document spells out Islamic theology regarding the status of the land, and no amount of pussy footing around it will alter it.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for Gaza's arabs who voted for Hamas, because they did so in the knowledge of what Hamas stands for re Israel. My only sympathies are for the young children who are quickly and completely brainwashed with hatred from the age they can speak... they are innocent victims.

I have yet to see any image of a Knesset member brandishing a sword from the pulpit and stirring up murderous hate as done by the Palestinian Sheikh/Imam in the video I linked to above.

I didn't know you take services, but I'm wondering in which tradition? Uniting? No matter, if you do have a knowledge of the books I listed, surely..surely you know how 'it works' over there. I cannot seriously imagine anyone knowing this can hold a dream of all Arabs and Jews living happily together. The only condition where they did in the past, was as Dhimmi's to Arab masters.. do you deny this?
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 1:59:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David perhaps you are living on silly pills, I am not sure but Hamas only exists because Israel made them exist because they didn't want to deal with Fatah and the corruption that still exists among many of them today. Hamas was a charity organisation that did not very much at all beside feed people when Fatah would not.

I don't give a toss what you claim their silly charter claims, precisely how could they destroy Israel without murdering 1.4 million Palestinians living in Israel and what precisely could he do it with? Israel has over 200 nukes stored away for future use and in their nice democratic society they jailed the whistleblower for 18 years.

I also don't care too much about biblical nonsense, it is just an old book mate. It is as sensible as believing that Pratchett's diskworld or Rowling's Hogwarts are real things.

The so-called Jewish faith started with arabs and is just another silly god-bothering load of old cobblers used to justify brutal repression and oppression.

Israel does not want peace with anyone. They want Hertzl's dream - all the land from the Litani river in Lebanon, across half of Jordan, part of Syria, all of Palestine and the Sinai and they don't want any arabs anywhere in sight.

That is and always has been their charter so for the head of the zionist council in Australia to say differently makes me want to puke.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 3:26:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And maybe they are surrounded by arabs because they plonked themselves in the middle of arabia because the first so-called jews were arabs.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 3:28:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are lots of things I have been accused over the past 40 years but Boaz David's accusation not being up to date with the Israeli media is definitely a novel one. I find it an entertaining insult to be directed at someone who is a media monitor and has regularly read the Knesset exchanges in Ma'ariv, Ynet and the Hebrew Haaretz. But let me get it straight: the Arabs members of the Knesset are saying something in the Knesset that makes their potential voter choose to vote for someone else. That's why Boaz David thinks there are not enough of them in the Knesset. Pray tell: are they being too radical or too moderate for their target audience?

Sol
Posted by Solthechef, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 3:37:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why Boaz David drags the Bible into this I don,t know,using the bible for anything is about the stupidest thing I have heard.
Its a bunch of Fairy tales David, you believe the world is 6000 odd years old,you should go to the US theres lots on Nutters over there who take the Bible literally go join em.
Posted by j5o6hn, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 4:32:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Israel is the outpost of Western civilization surrounded by myriads of religiously inspired fanatic tribal barbarians whose goal is the destruction of Israel. Anyone who is not a rabid incorrigible anti-semite capable of making an objective assessment of the great dangers Israel is facing before an irreconcilable, malicious, and deadly enemy, would rush to be a "volunteer", if not in the military sense, in this “army” defending this outpost of Western civilization. The great achievements of the latter demand no less.

http://civcontraislam.typepad.com
Posted by Themistocles, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 6:42:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marilyn, a couple of questions which I hope you'll respond to - although I won't hold my breath as you seem to prefer to launch your own tangential rants, rather than answer specific points of disagreement.

1) You wrote: "Israel does not want peace with anyone. They want Hertzl's dream - all the land from the Litani river in Lebanon, across half of Jordan, part of Syria, all of Palestine and the Sinai and they don't want any arabs anywhere in sight."

How does that statement fit with peace treaties Israel has signed with Egypt and Jordan, the return of the Sinai and the evacuation from Gaza? A state which seeks to expand its territory would hardly do these things, would it??

2) You wrote: "And maybe they are surrounded by arabs because they plonked themselves in the middle of arabia because the first so-called jews were arabs."

Do you deny the Jews' historic connnection with the land that is now Israel? If so, on what basis?

Marilyn, your diatribes against Israel are totally unbalanced, regularly based on direct untruths or dubious sources, and are so far removed from reality as to be laughable. If you seek to make a valuable contribution to the debate please respond directly to the criticisms and questions that I've posed. Is that too much to ask?
Posted by spy, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 7:39:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Israel is a democracy like apartheid was a democracy - built on the backs of the majority.

If it is such a great democracy why can't Palestinians return there?

And the point about formal equality for Arab Israelis is valid - formal but not real.

I agree with Lev - a democratic and secular Palestine for all who want to live there is the long term answer. As I have said before if South Africa can build a rainbow nation so can Palestine.
Posted by Passy, Tuesday, 8 April 2008 8:29:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let's be fair.
The Palestinians are the victims but the Israel HAS the right to exist as state, the Israelis have the right to live in peace and security without worries for their future. The question is not if the Palestinians have the right to create their own independent state on their own land, of cause they have the right to create their own state The question is not if the Arabs, if the Palestinians have to recognize the right of Israel to exist, of cause they must do it. The big question is HOW CREDIBLE IS THE ARAB WORLD WITH SO MANY DICTATORSHIPS AND THEOCRACIES AND INSTABILITY IN THE REGION. Who can quarantine to Israel that in the future it would not has problems with them? Anyone in its position would feel very unsafe, insecure. BUT while I understand the worries and militarization of its society I can not understand and agree with many of its acts against the Palestinians, which makes the solution of the problem much more difficult.
WHILE THE PALESTINIANS ARE THE VICTIMS, THE NON SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM PUT IN HIGH RISK THE FUTURE OF THE ISRAEL, THE NON SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM IS MAINLY AGAINST THE ISRAEL.
1. Because there is no guarantee that the USA policy about the Israel will be fixed in long terms, probably not.
2. The fertility of Palestinians is very high and soon they will be the majority in Israel and
3. Soon or later the Arab world will solve its basic problems and become enough strong to press for a better solution for Palestinians.
The Israel lost a big opportunity to solve the problem while HAMAS was government, it could bring permanent peace in the region.
The Israel must stop to follow American extremists.
Both sides must soften their rhetoric and control their acts
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by ASymeonakis, Wednesday, 9 April 2008 3:25:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Lamm, dentist, would do well to read this:

The End of Israel

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18939.htm

No State has the right to exist as a racist state:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18853.htm
Posted by Nini, Wednesday, 9 April 2008 6:40:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
‘This solution, however, has its opponents, particularly those groups led by Iran and its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and terrorist movements such as Hamas and Hezbollah which reject the peace process and maintain a fanatical commitment to destroy the state of Israel.’

I love the way this kind of rhetoric pigeonholes anyone who disagrees with Israel’s inhumane policies towards the Palestinian people within the same category as Hamas, Hezbollah and President Ahmadinejad – thus rounding us all up and throwing us in with those same groups and individuals that the West has worked so long and hard to demonise.

The biggest problem in finding a solution to the Middle East conflict is not deciding what has to be done – that’s the easy part. The hard part is breaking through the impenetrable wall of diplomatic and military protection that Israel has automatically enjoyed from the West since its inception 60 years ago.

Israel has painted itself into a tragic corner and the West is partly – make that mostly – to blame. Instead of urging the State of Israel to compromise and negotiate with the justifiable animosity of the Arab peoples and nations it displaced, the West has repeatedly condoned, censored and indulged its brutal, heavy-handed defensiveness.

I just hope that Israel reaches the same conclusions reached by the Apartheid regime in South Africa and the extremist Paisleyites in Northern Ireland. Force is no substitute for injustice. Sooner or later you have to forgive those you have wronged.
Posted by SJF, Wednesday, 9 April 2008 10:36:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To maybe get slightly off point, this year marks the 65th anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising when a coalition of left groups called the ZOB took up arms against the fascists. What indomitableness of spirit, what courage, what resourcefulness, what humanity, for these left wing groups to rise up against the Nazis and keep them at bay for months, knowing they faced an enemy so overwhelming that they would almost certainly die.

It is the thirst for freedom that drives people around the world to fight against their oppressors no matter how hopeless the situation seems.
Posted by Passy, Wednesday, 9 April 2008 11:10:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Thank you for the bible lesson (Kings Chapter I iirc). Perhaps you forget that I regularly give church services myself.

>>And you wonder why organisations like Hamas exist?

A pastor justifying the genocidal doctrine of Hamas eh? He's got to be from the Uniting Church.
Posted by grn, Wednesday, 9 April 2008 11:41:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Passy,

>> “If it is such a great democracy why can't Palestinians return there?”

What blindingly naïve logic. How much german immigration do you think we had here in Australia during ww2 and ww1? Even that is not a close enough comparison. When the Palestinian people are at war with the Israelis, how can you expect the Israelis to take Palestinians into their country. They have enough trouble with suicide bombers as it is without inviting more in. Do you believe for a second that with the influx of returnees there wouldn’t be huge numbers of militants? What kind of country WOULD accept that kind of SUICIDAL act?

The Apartheid comparison is banal, simplistic and obviously appeals to the really stupid. Apartheid was practiced in South Africa in the one single country. Black South Africans didn’t have the UN mandate to create a state of their own. Nor did white South Africans. Israel and Palestine have UN backed mandates for their existence. Furthermore Israeli Arabs have the same rights as their Israeli counterparts which was not the case in South Africa during the Apartheid years.

Why don’t you extend your “rainbow” nation concept to China-Tibet? Or China-Taiwan. Surely the Chinese are the majority in the combined lands of the two countries? Why don’t you push the North Koreans to roll over and allow the more numerous southerners to rule a combined country? How about East Timor and Indonesia? There are dozens of other situations like this where ownership is hotly disputed. Should we use your simple formula for them all?

If a secular Palestine is to be the long term answer the short term answer has to be the destruction of Hamas and Pan-Islamism.

SJF,

The quote you give doesn’t mention the supporters from the western soft-left (probably because there are so few of you). Your argument, that somehow pointing out who supports the loony idea for a single state pigeonholes you, is funny. If you don’t like the company you are in maybe you should pitch your tent elsewhere. There was certainly nothing factually incorrect in the quote.
Posted by Paul.L, Wednesday, 9 April 2008 1:26:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marilyn,

Silly pills? You’ve got the monopoly.

Your refusal to read the Hamas Charter speaks volumes about your lack of intellectual honesty. You seem to be taking the “Nyah, Nyah. I can’t hear you approach”.

You say Israel made Hamas exist because they “didn't want to deal with Fatah and the corruption ..” WTF gave you the idea that Israel created Hamas. Hamas was created in 1987 by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin of the Gaza wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. I bet you don’t even know who the Muslim Brotherhood are. You might get some insight into the connection between Hamas ( The Islamic resistance Movement ) and the Muslim Brotherhood if you bothered to read Hamas’s charter.

>> “Hamas was a charity organization that did not very much at all beside feed people when Fatah would not.”

If you knew anything about pan Islamic extremism you would know that charity work is one of the first stages of the radicalisation process. It goes hand in hand with proselytizing. See the Islamist by Ed (Mohammed) Hussein and find out about fundamentalist Islamic organizations like Hizb-ut-Tahir and how they go about inciting extremism. Christian groups use this tactic as well, although generally not to recruit murderers.

All democratic states jail people who break secrecy agreements they make with Intelligence and Defence organizations. It’s called treason.

>> “Israel does not want peace with anyone. They want Hertzl's dream - all the land from the Litani river in Lebanon, across half of Jordan, part of Syria, all of Palestine and the Sinai and they don't want any Arabs anywhere in sight.”

Oh? So how do you explain the Israeli pullout from the Gaza strip and four of the settlements in the West Bank? How do you explain the fact that they have signed a peace agreement with Egypt on the fate of the Sinai that has lasted 30 years?

I know you haven’t the guts to respond directly to these points or to Spy’s but at least it shows to the rest of OLO what a fake you are.
Posted by Paul.L, Wednesday, 9 April 2008 1:30:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spy,

1) I will agree with both you and Marilyn here. There are a number of religious fundamentalists who want to see a Jewish state from the Nile to Euphrates, as promised in the Torah. I will also agree that there is a number that earnestly want peace with their neighbours. Generalising "Israel" here, a disparate and changing state, does not help anyone.

2) Again I agree with both yourself and Marilyn. Judiasm was indeed a religion which originated among Semitic people. Whilst no doubt this would mean that for most it is a spiritual homeland, it is difficult to suggest that there is a necessary national tie between many Jews and the Palestinian region. As a trivial example, I cite the Jews of Uganda as a population who have no historic tie.

Themistocles,

As I previously mentioned, I am yet to see any who suggest that Israel itself is not among the most advanced liberal and democratic states in the region; although there are some (and myself included) who consider the comparison between South African apartheid and the bantustans with Israeli hafrada and the occupied territories to have a great deal of accuracy in terms of policing, distribution of wealth, life expectancy and, perhaps most importantly, ideology.

This aside you do reveal a fundamental problem; as you acknowledge it is an "outpost of West civilization". Indeed, one could say it is a colonial state - and that is a serious problem for any who believe that indigenous people are deserving of respect and rights.

David,

Whilst I hardly see why my particular denomination is relevant, if you must know I'm a Unitarian-Univeralist. Next time tho' I do recommend you at least google 'Sol Salbe' before accusing him of being ignorant of Israeli current affairs. You may discover he is recognised as one of Australia's experts in the matter.

Sol,

Didn't realise that you'd have the time to deal with the craziness of Online Opinion. Nice to see you here just the same ;-)
Posted by Lev, Wednesday, 9 April 2008 2:12:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Israel and the Palestinian Authority are working together with great difficulty to establish an Israel and a Palestine living side by side together in peace,...'

Hahahahahahahaha

Not one word about the establiahment and 'thickening' of the illegal Jewish settlements on stolen Palestinian lands. How can this sort stupidity and denialism lead to anything but the eventual destruction of the Israeli apartheid state.
Posted by keith, Wednesday, 9 April 2008 7:16:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have written on other posts that the road to Jerusalem may well run through Cairo.

Does anyone know know what is going on in Egypt right now?

Is it true a strike wave has broken out? That Mubarak has arrested hundreds? That troops now occupy Mahalla, an industrial area where strikes and demonstrations against the dictatorship are under way? That the armed forces have killed at least 4 people?

If true, the repression by the dictatorship and the fight against it appear to be on a scale of that in Tibet.

Socialist Worker in the UK,a small socialist group of five or ten thousand, is describing it in terms of of the Egyptian intifada. But they are given to seeing reality in possibility.

Any other reports people know of? The Australian ran an AAP report which implied Mubarak had succeeded in repressing the movement, but I am not sure.
Posted by Passy, Wednesday, 9 April 2008 8:41:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev,

thank you for responding to my questions - no surprise that Marilyn has failed to answer so far.

Re the first question: Generalizing is dangerous, I agree. Of course there is a minority of religious fundamentalists within Israel who dream of a return to a Greater Israel. But Marilyn has argued that the views of these radicals are the views and official policy of the Israeli state. This is absolute nonsense, as I pointed out. On the contrary, Israel has returned territory that it had captured - see Sinai, see Gaza.

To equate the views of a minority of vocal but largely irrelevant radicals with the official position of a country is intellectually dishonest
Posted by spy, Thursday, 10 April 2008 2:25:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spy, so what if Israel returned the Sinai? They had 8,000 people living illegally in Gaza on one third of the land, using almost all of the water and resources and Sharon only made them move so he could expand the settlements on the West Bank. Get a grip boyo.

They control what goes in and out, what babies can be registered at birth, what can be sold, who goes in and out. For example, Israeli journalists are banned from Gaza so we rarely get to see what is happening to the 1.3 million human beings there.

This week the peaceloving Israel Communications ministry shut down a radio station in Ramallah, run by a South African jew, arrested the staff and all because they talked peace and reconciliation.

Most Israeli's refuse to live next door to "arabs" even though they are Israeli citizens and so on and so forth.

WE all need to just grow up. We don't have these absurd nonsensical debates about any other nations on earth so what the hell are we doing siding always with a non-state living on stolen land which brutalises the citizens of the land they stole and then claims they are the victims.

Almost none of the residents of Israel were born when the holocaust happened, the arabs didn't do the holocaust yet many zionists in Israel mention repeatedly the killing of some jews in Hebron in 1929 and never, ever mention the holocaust.

Only 39% of all the world's jews live in Israel and because of their stupidity and cruelty the jews in Israel have less peace and safety than the other 61% who live in 100 different nations of the world.

Let's get one thing straight. Judaism is nothing more than a cult, a god bothering bunch of ninnies persecuting imaginary friends.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Thursday, 10 April 2008 3:26:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sol The Chef,

In the spirit of fairness, you were talking about the limited number of Arab ministers in the Knesset. Since ministers are appointed by the gov’t and not by the voters it is hardly surprising that an MP siding against his own gov’t isn’t likely to be given a ministership. How many Arab Israeli politicians broadly support Israel’s right to defend itself? I’m not prepared to give numbers but I would imagine it’s a reasonably small pool to start with.

I sympathise with the plight of the Israeli Arabs but when you live in a country at war with your brethren it’s an awful lot to expect absolute and unconditional equality (especially during wartime when the enemy choose to hide amongst the people). Do you know of somewhere that has achieved this feat anywhere near to the Israeli extent? Israel has every right to ensure it’s own security. If only this was the type of conflict where Israel could withdraw within it’s boundaries and pull down the shutters. But it isn’t, (the withdrawal from Gaza shows us this) and it’s either going to be fought in the territories or in Israel itself.

Do you really expect settlements like East Jerusalem, Ma'ale Adummim or Modi'in Illit to be handed over? I agree that some of the settlements, particularly those nowhere near the green line should be handed back. For the others surely a better solution should be a one-for-one land swap. Modi'in Illit was built where before there was only privately owned farmland. Ma'ale Adummim was built on vacant Jordanian owned state land and was only built after Jordan invaded Israel for a second time.

At Camp David in 2000 Barak offered Arafat a Palestinian State initially on 73% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip. In 10 to 25 years the West Bank area would expand to 90-91% (94% excluding greater Jerusalem). As a result, Israel would have withdrawn from 63 settlements. Arafat said no.
Posted by Paul.L, Thursday, 10 April 2008 4:45:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marilyn

One suspects that you have experienced something so terrible in your life as to cause you to be such an embittered woman - perhaps by a Jew. Your statements, along with your others, about population numbers of worldwide Judaism and those in Israel are wrong.

The issue of Gaza evokes the same arguments - rather like "beating a dead horse."

New thinking about Gaza, which once was a proterctorate of Egypt, albeit parlously administrated and rather joyfully abandoned to Israel in 1967, is that this territory be absorbed into Egypt.

Israel reluctantly took control of a densely populated, impoverished and hostile people. The intifada beginning 1987 witnessed Gazans asserting themselves; ultimately resulting in the Gaza-Jericho Agreement of 1994 and Yasir Arafat’s reign with his promise to “build a Singapore.”

The Gazan experiment has proven an unmitigated disaster. Arafat criminally exploited them ... now the Hamas. Gazans have had it undeniably tough.

When Israel departed Gaza, they left extemely viable industries and agricultural centres which the Gazans, or rather the Hamas destroyed.

Many Gazans have fled the area due to the horrors and murders inflicted on them by the Hamas. So bad were the migrations of Gazans - particularly to Europe, the US and Canada - and noteably the well-educated and those with productive industries, that the Palestinian religious authorities issued a fatwa in June 2007, forbidding Palestinian Muslims emigration - unless for educational reasons. In the year 2007, by June in Gaza alone, more than 10,000 had applied to leave that area.

The Gazan relationship to Egypt is both natural and strong. Gazans speak the same colloquial Arabic of Egyptians of the Sinai, are economically tied to Egypt, along with strong famial connections there. David Warren states that calling the Gazans "Palestinian," is less accurate than politically correct. Hamas, itself, is an off-shoot of the Egyptian organization, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Since 1948, US taxpayers have committed US$ 65 billion to Egypt. Many believe that Egypt's absorption of Gaza would justify the cost to the US in continuing to pay them $1.8 billion annually.
Posted by Danielle, Thursday, 10 April 2008 6:05:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DAnielle you live in lala land. I have never been hurt by a jew in my life, but neither have I ever been hurt by an arab. All my hurts were by anglos dear, trust me on that.

I don't believe you are still peddling the nonsense of viable industries left behind by Israel in Gaza - they stopped all the water supply dear. Then they bulldozed the crops and orchards on the way out. Kapeesh? John Pilger has some very graphic film of it and others, including honest Israelis, have made films about it.

Why does Australia and the west obsess so much about Israel? It is a pissant non-state in the middle of arabia which has only plonked itself there 60 years ago. What is the atraction? Much of the population is arabic or north African but we never mention them.

As for Barak, give me a break you stupid twit. Barak offered nothing, nada and zip and then humiliated both Clinton and Arafat and walked out to fight an election.

But here is the real issue. If you own 95% of a piece of land and a few guilty mass murdering nations offer 56% of it to someone that the guilty mass murderers have tried to eliminate and you have not would you accept it?

Do you want the UN to halve Australia and give it to Indonesia or China because they are running out of room or give half to the Tibetans? WE don't even want to share the country with the owners.

Now enough already. NO more propoganda about the thug non-state Israel until she learns to behave like a civilized place.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Friday, 11 April 2008 12:09:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marilyn, thank you for responding to my questions.

It's a shame, however, that you can't manage a more intelligent response than asking "so what" and then promptly dodging the issue.

So, I'll ask again - how can you seriously say that Israel wants "Hertzl's dream - all the land from the Litani river in Lebanon, across half of Jordan, part of Syria, all of Palestine and the Sinai and they don't want any arabs anywhere in sight", when Israel has signed peace treaties and withdrawn from territories it previously controlled?

A couple of other points.
First, if you cared to read a bit more deeply about the closure of the radio station you'd know that it was operating without a permit and had the potential to interfere with radio transmissions at Ben Gurion airport. You'd also know that other radio stations have been shut down for similar reasons. But once again, you ignore any facts which don't fit your position.

Second, you take great pleasure in telling us that "Judaism is nothing more than a cult, a god bothering bunch of ninnies persecuting imaginary friends." If you have a problem with religion per se, then fair enough but at least take the time to also mention the role that radical Islam is playing in conflicts all over the world.

Third, Arafat WAS offered a great deal by Barak in 2000. He turned it down. Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia remarked that Arafat's rejection of the offer was a "tragic mistake, a crime really".
Posted by spy, Friday, 11 April 2008 1:05:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spy,

I don't think that the "greater Israel" policy is promoted heavily in Israeli politics, but this is a relatively recent phenomenon. Extremist antisemtic racism ran deep in Israeli policy for a very long time. The following is a Hansard quote from a British Conservative cabinet minister from 1973.

'After lunch, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee spoke with great intemperance about the Arabs. When he drew a breath, I was constrained to say, 'Dr Hacohen, I am profoundly shocked that you should preach of other human beings in terms similar to those in which (Nazi) Julius Streicher spoke of the Jews. Have you learned nothing?' I shall remember his reply to my dying day. He smote the table with both hands and said, 'But they are not human beings, they are not people, they are Arabs.'

Spy, Paul,

With regards to Barak's Camp David talks in 2000, the actual content, as you would know, has been secret for a long time. However late last year a dossier of the negotions were published in Haaretz. The disconnected state of Palestine would be less than 20% of their historic homeland and would lose virtually the entire Jordan Valley, the only seriously fertile area in the region. Huge sections of Jerusalem would be annexed to Israel. Israel would have continued with 400,000 illegal settlers in the West Bank, with linked security roads turning the Palestinian towns into isolated enclaves.

Under this 'offer' it is hardly surprising that Arafat rejected the proposal.

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/printer9181.shtml
Posted by Lev, Friday, 11 April 2008 7:36:07 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul,
In the same spirit of fairness I will ignore Boaz David’s inarticulate diversion that referred to the number of MPs . Let’s concentrate on the issue of ministers.

Let’s start then by agreeing then to compare apples with apples. Israel aspires to be a democracy so we will compare it with other democracies. We won’t compare it with New Zealand or Canada which have significant minorities because, as you have pointed out, Israel has some unique features that don’t apply to these countries. No, let’s compare it to the world’s greatest democracy, which is of course India.

Israel and India have a lot in common. They are almost the same age. The proportion of Muslims in India is of the same order of magnitude as that of Arabs in Israel. India suffers from terrorism (including Islamic terrorism). Both countries have been through several wars with countries with whom their minorities tend to identify. Both countries lost prime ministers to terrorists etc. On every score that you want to measure Israel against, India is similar.

So now that we have eliminated all the variables that you listed we can look at the numbers. How do you think Israel rates next to India? Would an India supporter hail such a tiny proportion of ministers as Israel’s? Hint: India has even had a Muslim president.

I think this is a key question that you raised but I will do you the courtesy of answering your other question viz “Do you really expect settlements like East Jerusalem, Ma'ale Adumim or Modi'in Illit to be handed over?” The answer is “bloody oath”.

All the arguments about the land are irrelevant. Stolen property must be returned. A few weeks back a huge amount of 100 tonnes of chocolate spread was stolen in Israel. A grocer was caught with 1-tonne of it. The police concluded that he was telling the truth and he did pay good money for it, But he had to give his entire stock back…

I may not be the prophet Natan or even Aesop but I think you get my drift.

Sol
Posted by Solthechef, Friday, 11 April 2008 6:52:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev, I accept your comments about the racist element in Israeli politics. However, as you acknowledge, this racist element is not at the forefront of official Israeli policy today.

My comments were mainly a response to Marilyn's ridiculous, unsubstantiated claims about Israel following a "Greater Israel" policy. While one may have been able to mount that argument with some credibility immediately after the 1967 occupation, events since then - peace treaties, return of the Sinai and Gaza - destroy any argument that Israel is seeking to expand its territory. That was my point and I stand by it.

Re the 20% statistic you quoted in relation to Camp David: while this may be correct in terms of historical Palestine it's irrelevant in the context of negotiations for a future Palestinian state. The relevant marker is the Green Line (1949 Armistice Line), not what may have been Palestine during the British Mandate. Against that measure, Barak offered what would eventually become 91% of the West Bank
Posted by spy, Saturday, 12 April 2008 1:01:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sol,

1) India is not strategically at risk, as Israel has always been, to an invading force cutting the country in half by driving the 100 odd kilometers to the sea. The settlements were emplaced strategically to make it more difficult for an invading army.

2) India is a huge country with a history of self ruling states and principalities. Israel doesn’t have this tradition at all.

3) Whilst India and Pakistan have fought a number of wars, most were over peripheral issues, like Kashmir or Bangladesh. None have been wars of annihilation as the Israelis experienced three times. Whilst violence flares between Hindus and Muslims on a regular basis, the Muslims, in general, aren’t looking to take over the country. In any case the Indians have no problem with retaliating with terror acts of their own which tends to keep the status quo.

4) Whilst India now has a growing middle class in its cities, in the rural areas India is best described as a third world country. Israel is the only democratic, first world country in its region. If you want to go back to the ways things were 60 years ago we could dramatically redraw a map of the world.

5) Indian Muslims don’t claim India as their own land to the exclusion of the Hindus, Sikhs. There is no chance of India being deprived of its Hindu character, nor being forced to live under sharia law. Muslims—mostly Sunnis—make up 13.4 percent of India’s population, yet hold fewer than 5 percent of government posts and make up only 4 percent. Currently there are 12 Muslim members of the Knesset out of a total of 120 which is 10%. Out of a population of 7,184,000 there are 1,144,000 Arab Israelis or roughly 15%. The Israelis are doing basically twice as well as the Indians at ensuring adequate representation.

6) The role of President in India is titular and relies upon the advice of the Prime Minister. I don’t know of any Muslim PM’s.
Posted by Paul.L, Saturday, 12 April 2008 4:38:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul,

Curiosity killed the cat. 12 Muslim members of the Knesset? I'm not saying you are wrong. It is just I have never seen it before. (Granted that there's the first time for everything.)

Just to give you an incentive to do you your homework and deal with my scepticism, I will make/bake an extra passover cake for you if you can come up with 12 Muslim members of the current Knesset. [I'm assuming you are in Melbourne or you have friends here who can enjoy the cake]

Of course I may not have to make the cake...

Sol the chef

Sol
Posted by Solthechef, Saturday, 12 April 2008 5:08:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I must beg your pardon, I meant Arab members. Here they are.

Mohammad Barakeh, Taleb el-Sana, Nadia Hilou, Raleb Majadele, Said Nafa, Ibrahim Sarsur, Hana Sweid, Wasil Taha, Ahmad Tibi, Majalli Wahabi, Jamal Zahalka, Abbas Zakour

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_members_of_the_Knesset
Posted by Paul.L, Saturday, 12 April 2008 5:17:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Solthechef,

You compare India with Israel - the fact that India has had a Muslim president. But of what significance is this - what is the reality - what does India experience ...

Whilst levels of tensions and violence vary from state to state, religious riots and killing still occur in India. In May last year, J. S Bandukwala, a campaigner against religious extremism, admitted this could not be controlled, even by police. Others also have addressed religious violence in India.

In an address to the Carnegie Council in 2002, highly respected and internationally acclaimed academic Professor Ashutoch Varshney, previously a consultant to Human Rights Watch, and the World Bank, and writer for “World Politics,” “The Journal of Democracy”, “The Encyclopedia of Democracy” and prestigous newspapers, stated:

“... powerful politicians who polarize Hindus and Muslims along religious lines, must be restrained” ... “such politicians polarize communities by provoking and engineering communal violence”.

Varshney continued:

“ ...the possibilities of ethnic violence are quite high, given a spark. That spark can emerge in the form of an attack on a train, the rumor of a rape, defeat of ethnic political parties in elections, desecration of a mosque or a temple, or something as apparently trivial as a Hindu boy going out with a Muslim girl, or vice-versa. Sparks can emerge at any time and in any town. The real issue is whether there are networks that can manage or extinguish those sparks. If they are not there, these sparks can become fires.”

Varshney found Hindu/Muslim riots and deaths were concentrated in urban areas; state and national politics often providing the sparks, but it was the local, city-level mechanisms being activated. People were moving from different areas for the sake of physical safety.

Varsheny unequivocally stated that India’s government cannot resolve these serious issues. These can only be resolved by civil society or civic life - the non-political arena of life.

cont ...
Posted by Danielle, Saturday, 12 April 2008 6:17:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whilst Varsheny did not address caste violence, he sees this also a grave issue, which other researchers are currently investigating:

“Caste violence is different from Hindu-Muslim violence. In the hierarchy of the caste system, the upper castes were indisputably upper, and have been so, ritually and otherwise, for centuries. This kind of hierarchy did not apply to Hindu-Muslim relations. Violence takes place in a vertical structure, and violence in Hindu-Muslim relations is more horizontal than vertical.”

Varsheny addresses the issue of religious violence, democracy, and possible resolution in “Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life: Hindus and Muslims in India” (Yale University Press, 2003)
Posted by Danielle, Saturday, 12 April 2008 6:19:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.avnery-news.co.il/english/index.html

Perhaps Lamm and others should read Avnery a bit more often and get some facts straight.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Sunday, 13 April 2008 3:10:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul,
I resume you realise that there’s no cigar and no cake either in terms of Muslim members of Knesset. [Not all Muslims in Israel are Arabs and not all Arabs in Israel are Muslims].While I’m happy to accept the designation of Arab to the Druze minority, they probably won’t agree.

I’m curious to where you get your 15 per cent figures for the percentage of Arabs in Israel. Israel’s Central Bureau of statistics gives 19.7 per cent http://www1.cbs.gov.il/publications/isr_in_n07e.pdf (page 10). Somehow I trust them over you.

At any rate there is no point comparing apples with pomegranates. If you wish to use government posts in India used that for Israel as well. I frankly don’t care which one you want to compare: Government ministers (Lamm’s original point), MPs, judges, government employees or any other criterion you care to choose so long as it is the same for both countries. Apples with Apples please. If the Israelis are twice as good as the Indians at ensuring adequate representation if any of the four criteria that I enumerated above you get a cake. If you don’t, you may end up with a crucial cake ingredient on your face

Sol
Posted by Solthechef, Sunday, 13 April 2008 3:18:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marilyn, I see you're still lurking. How about responding to the questions I asked you?

Or shall I take your silence as an admission that your original claims were incorrect?

The difference between you and people like Lev is that he's prepared to debate the issues but you're simply intent on posting unsubstantiated, unbalanced nonsense and then disappearing when someone challenges your position. Hardly a way to conduct a civilised discussion, is it?
Posted by spy, Sunday, 13 April 2008 3:48:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marilyn,

If I had been a person living in the Middle East, I would have deeply resented the fact that colonialist countries not only treated me as a third class - indeed a non-citizen, but also had carved the territory up into artificial states forcing disparate peoples, often with long hatreds and enmities, to live together. Even part of Iran has been incorporated into Iraq - indeed, look at the horrors which have emerged in Iraq. More bloodshed has occurred between and within Arab states, than there has been with Israel.

On the other hand, when Emir Faisal ibn Hussein, the Hashemite son of Hussein, Sherif of Mecca, Keeper of the Holy Places, considered by many to be a direct descendent of the Islamic Prophet Mohammad, who became King of Syria and later King of Iraq, and who headed the delegation of Arab representatives of Paris Peace Talks where the League of Nations was established, and who deeply welcomed and signed the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, January 3, 1919, I would have applauded and supported him.

In a letter to Felix Frankfurter, Harvard Law School Dean and later US Supreme Court Justice, Emir Faisal ibn Hussein, confirming his vision of two states - a Jewish state alongside an Arab state, wrote:

“We feel that the Arabs and Jews are cousins in race, having suffered similar oppressions at the hands of powers stronger than themselves, and by a happy coincidence have been able to take the first step towards the attainment of their national ideals together.

We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference and we regard them as moderate and proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through: we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home.

cont ...
Posted by Danielle, Sunday, 13 April 2008 8:23:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We are working together for a reformed and revived Near East, and our two movements complete one another. The Jewish movement is national and not imperialist. Our movement is national and not imperialist, and there is room in Syria for us both. Indeed, I think that neither can be a real success without the other.”

Colonial powers sunk this agreement ... an utter tragedy. The UN’s legitimate mandate for the Jewish State, Israel, was but a shadow, a small gesture compared with the vision of this enlightened and great man.

None can deny that Uri Avnery is an idealist, a fine man. However, his judgement must be called into question - such as his close friendship, albeit one-sided, with Yassir Arafat who played him like a fiddle ...

Before you cite certain Israeli historians, read Efraim Karsh’s analytical review of their works. Karsh, director of the Mediterranean Studies Programme at King's College, University of London, editor of the quarterly journal Israel Affairs, has impeccably referenced documents supporting his findings.
http://www.meforum.org/article/302

Sol,

Muslim Arabs have seats in the Knesset.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta'al
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_List
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Knesset_members

However, Wikipedia has proven incorrect on a number of issues ... being an open site, any odd bod can alter facts. So confirm with Israel’s Knesset site:
http://knesset.gov.il/

When you cook Paul’s cake, presumably it will be chametz-free.
Posted by Danielle, Sunday, 13 April 2008 8:27:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Danielle,

The issue had to do with the NUMBER of Muslim members of the Knesset, not their existence. This was something Paul had obviously understood and corrected himself, and of course that is greatly appreciated.

Unlike Paul I didn't use Wikipedia but checked the Knesset site in Hebrew before making the offer knowing fully well that the number was less than 12.

The notion of making a non chametz-free cake for Pesach makes as much sense as some of the arguments I have encountered on OLO.

Chag sameach

Sol
Posted by Solthechef, Sunday, 13 April 2008 8:41:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sol,

I don't have to prove Israel is better at representing it's minorities than India. It was your contention that Israel significantly lagged India. I think I have done enough to dispel this suggestion. You are most welcome to prove to me I am wrong if you wish.

I admit I got a little hasty and substituted Muslim for Arab by mistake. According to wikipedia only 83% of Arab Israelis are Muslims. It is interesting to note that in the Palestinian territories Muslim Arabs make up 98.7%. This says to me that Palestine is less of an Arab homeland than a Muslim one.

Perhaps you could let me know of the religious persuasions of the Arab members of the Knesset, since I can't read Hebrew.

BTW, I wonder why it is you think I live in Melbourne. I am not jewish or christian. I don't mind the idea of free cake though.

Also I don't get my information from wikipedia. I merely use it for statistics. I do however note that it is not always authoritative and that there are better sources available.
Posted by Paul.L, Monday, 14 April 2008 1:47:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pity with so many solutions being bandied regarding peace between Arabs and Israelies there is not one suggestion similar to what one would find in academia, not the need for a Condy Rice or a Tony Blair to begin the arrangements, but better a tried and tested lawmaking institution, with no published personalities - no nsmes no pack drill - meetings to be held in Belgium or Switzerland where the proven simple commonsense of true democracy can become the foundation of the agenda.
Posted by bushbred, Monday, 14 April 2008 2:21:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peace agreements only work if both sides want it.

Just look at the mockery the Viet Cong made of the the Paris negotiations for a peace in South Vietnam. They so completely used and abused the process that it must rank alongside the worst acts of 'bad faith' ever.

Only when both sides have had enough will peace agreements work. If only that was the case now, but I sincerely doubt it.

In the absence of good faith by one party, peace talks can have significantly deleterious effects on the party of good faith.

Read the Hamas charter to see what their position on peace treaties is.
Posted by Paul.L, Monday, 14 April 2008 3:09:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul

And look at the actions of Israel in land stealing, occupations and invasions ' to see what their position on peace treaties is.'
Posted by keith, Monday, 14 April 2008 5:19:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith,

How about considering Israel's peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, the return of the Sinai and the evacuation from Gaza? Don't they count when assessing Israel's willingness to make peace?

For those who want to reduce the Israeli-Palestinian issue to something simple it's easy to say "Israel occupies territory belonging to others, therefore it's not interested in peace". The problem is that this approach fails to consider all the relevant facts, and is therefore either very ignorant or intellectually dishonest.

I'm not saying Israel's always acted properly. But I am asking for a balanced assessment of what has and hasn't happened in this conflict.
Posted by spy, Monday, 14 April 2008 7:19:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PaulL, you need to be reminded that any peace arranged by Israel, has its great comforter, Pax Americana behind it, the threat similar to what Tacitus the Roman writer writer gave voice to:

To us Romans peace is the quiet that comes after the final battle, with what is left of the enemy put to the sword.

In all truth with Rome it was either that or enslavement, wondering what would be the end with a possible attack on Iran?

Twice America has come off second best with Iran, making one wonder whether the former indomitable Persians might enjoy fighting to the last soul, still leaving a strong mark on history
Posted by bushbred, Monday, 14 April 2008 7:26:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Spy

Why doesn't Israel do the same with Palestine? You know, like give back the occupied land? And negotiate and sign a peace treaty?

Doh!
Posted by keith, Tuesday, 15 April 2008 7:02:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah spy and why don't they give but the Golan Heights to Syria and the gardens to Lebanon and why don't most of the nazi settlers go home to Russia.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Tuesday, 15 April 2008 2:36:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marilyn says >> “Yeah spy and why don't they give but the Golan Heights to Syria and the gardens to Lebanon.”

Because the Syrians used the Golan heights to shell Israeli villages. The Golan is a strategic piece of land which Syria regularly used to threaten Israel. When the Syrians recognize the Israelis are here to stay and stop supporting extremist organizations, as have the Egyptians and Jordanians, they will get their land back. Same goes for the Lebanese. It’s only been a year since Hezbollah infiltrated into Israel kidnapping Israeli soldiers and shelling Israeli towns. In fact it would seem to me that they did this deliberately to provoke the kind of response the Israelis made.

Do you know how the Golan game to be in the possession of the Israelis? It was only after a second invasion by a coalition of Arab armies. In fact Syria is claiming land it conquered itself during the 1948 war of independence. How many times should a country suffer this type of aggression from its neighbours? Especially when those neighbours still support organizations which refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist. During US-brokered peace talks in 1999-2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to return most of the Golan to Syria for a comprehensive peace structure and security arrangements.

In 2003, Syrian President al-Assad said he was ready to revive peace talks with Israel. Israel demanded Syria first disarm Hezbollah, who launched many attacks on northern Israeli towns and army posts from Lebanese territory; and cease to host militant Palestinian groups and their headquarters. Peace talks were not initiated.

Obviously you are a simpleton if you think that Russian Jewish immigrants are Nazis. And a bigot. You talk about Israel being a thug state. Read the Hamas charter you moron. See what their plans for Palestine are. Then you will understand why Israel is unwilling to deal with them until they renounce violence and accept Israel’s right to exist.

The Jews have every right to have a homeland. Every other major religion has one.
Posted by Paul.L, Tuesday, 15 April 2008 4:04:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith,

You wrote: "Why doesn't Israel do the same with Palestine? You know, like give back the occupied land?"

So withdrawing from Gaza doesn't count as giving back occupied land? (Of course, critics of Israel will claim that Gaza is still occupied - ignoring the reality that military incursions and controls on Gaza are a necessary and legitimate response to almost daily rocket attacks from Gaza).

Marilyn,

You wrote: "why don't they give but the Golan Heights to Syria and the gardens to Lebanon"

Your approach is hopelessly naive given the current reality.
Israel will make a peace deal (incluing the return of land) when it has a partner. This happened with Egypt and Jordan in the past. However, there is absolutely no point in handing back land if the other party will simply use that land to attack you - see Gaza for an example on point.

Is Syria ready to make a deal with Israel? If it's support for Hezbollah is any indication of its attitude towards Israel then why should the Israelis deal with Syria at present?

If your reference to "gardens" means the Sheba Farms region, then this issue is currently being addressed. There are disputes as to who this belongs to - Syria or Lebanon - and UN cartographers are working on this.

It's very easy to sit back in Australia and say "Israel should just hand back the land and everything will be fine". I used to have a similarly naive view on the issue.

However, more recent events - eg. Gaza - have shown that militant groups will not accept only the return of land occupied in 1967. They want the complete removal of Israel from the map. Until these militant groups accept the basic right of Israel to exist as a state there is little hope for an end to the conflict.
Posted by spy, Tuesday, 15 April 2008 4:26:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spy,

No, withdrawing from Gaza doesn't count. Especially when Israel controls its airspace, waterways, imports, population registry, entry of foreigners, imports and exports (reducing the total quantity to 20 different commodities) as well as the tax system. That's not a withdrawl, that's building a prison. Complete withdrawl from Gaza and the West Bank and recognising Palestinian statehood might be a beginning. But I don't see Israel being in any hurry whatsoever to do that. You talk about rocket attacks from Gaza? How about in the other direction? What's the number, tonnage, number of civilians killed from the direction from Israel into Gaza?

Worst of all, you know all this. I'm not sure what you expect the Palestinians to do. Endure another fifty years of colonial occupation of their lands? More military invasions, more apartheid, more deaths?

Every single Arab nation in the region and the PNA have all accepted Israel's "right to exist" (as dubious as it may be). When will Israel accept Palestine's right to exist? How much longer is the world going to have to wait? Because we've waiting for fifty years and frankly, an increasingly number of people are beginning to believe there is neither the intent and desire.

Paul,

You claim "The Jews have every right to have a homeland. Every other major religion has one." Sure, that's what Hannah Arendt said too. Nobody here is saying that Jews (and Christians and Muslims) are not entitled to a homeland in Palestine. But she seemed to be aware of the difference between a homeland and s a State.

"A federated state, finally could be the natural stepping stone for any later, greater federated structure in the Near East and the Mediterranean area...The real goal of the Jews in Palestine is the building up of a Jewish homeland. This goal must never be sacrificed to the pseudo-sovereignty of a Jewish state."
Posted by Lev, Tuesday, 15 April 2008 6:03:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sol,

As you know, not all Jews are religious - some creeping in of chamez is not unheard of.

You haven't responded to Paul's question as to whether the Arabs in the Knesset are Muslim or not. Indeed, does it really matter what religion they are?

However, just a couple to note: Raleb Majadele, an Arab-Muslim, is Minister of Science, Culture & Sport. Salim Joubran, also an Arab Muslim, sits on Israel's Supreme Court.

Seemingly, voting is not compulsory in Israel. Am I correct? This slews party politics awry.
I once heard an English person state that his family and friends never voted, as it was pointless - then bitterly complained about the party which was elected.

Are you aware of the Policy Papers put out by The Israel Democracy Institute?

Chag sameach, Sol

No person of normal intellect can equate the terrorsim of Hamas with freedom fighters.
Freedom fighters don't target their own. No poster has addressed the issue of Hamas murdering their own people, the ensuing fatwa, nor teaching small tots the joys of martrydom; even forcing them to kiss the blooded bodies of the dead. Would it be correct to state that those here are so pro-Hamas that they find these horrors acceptable. If so, then such people are morally bereft.

Not once have those supporting Israel's right to exist have suggested that Israel should keep the territories beyond the green line acquired for defence - and ... despite the fact that the green line is not an internationally recognised border, but an armistice line between Israel and Jordan.

As one, we agree that for the ideal, two-state solution, Israel must move behind the green line. But this can only happen when Israel is secure - and for those who have forgotten - Israelis are not all Jews. Israel's duty is to its peoples. International law admits that land can be taken for security measures.

cont ...
Posted by Danielle, Tuesday, 15 April 2008 7:06:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Indeed it was at Arab insistence that the armistice line not be considered a political or territorial border. However, the Israel-Egypt peace treaty and the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty supposedly demarcated the territory.

Everyone knows "treaties are made to be broken." In these cases by murderous incursions initiated by Jordan, Egypt and Syria. The Golan Heights remain a prime position for picking off agricultural workers, fishing vessels and, better still, shelling Israeli settlements. An interfering UN observer was duly picked off by Jordian fire from Issawiya.

Yes, indeed, India in action is the ideal secular democratic state ... Those living there don’t agree, admitting of grave problems ... but from the safe distance of Australia, we see things differently, don't we ..
Posted by Danielle, Tuesday, 15 April 2008 7:10:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dannielle,

"As you know, not all Jews are religious"

In which case they are not Jews, but rather people with Jewish heritage. Judiasm is a religion, not a nationality.

"Raleb Majadele, an Arab-Muslim, is Minister of Science, Culture & Sport."

You neglected to mention he is the first and only Muslim Minister in the country and that the Cabinet voted against his appointment. That's not a good track record

"Indeed, does it really matter what religion they are?"

It of interest in a State definied by its religion.

"Freedom fighters don't target their own. No poster has addressed the issue of Hamas murdering their own people"

The ANC, SWAPO and FRETILIN most certainly did. The French resistance, the Greek resistance, the Yugoslav resistance, the Italian resistance, and I believe even the Dutch resistance did. The American revolutionaries most certainly did. Indeed there hasn't been freedom fighters in history who haven't targetted their own people because there are always local collaborators with oppressors. That is a simple, albeit unpleasant, reality.

Please avail yourself of a more careful and accurate study of history.

"Not once have those supporting Israel's right to exist have suggested that Israel should keep the territories beyond the green line acquired for defence"

No, but the all seem to think they have the right to ignore international law and invade any country whenever they supposedly feel threatened. Like Lebanon in 2006?

Actually it would be an interesting test to see who in this thread seriously thinks that Israel, under any circumstances, will give up the 400,000 settlers it has in the West Bank.
Posted by Lev, Tuesday, 15 April 2008 10:00:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev, a few points.

1) Many of the controls Israel is exercising in relation to Gaza are security related. If there were no rockets, they'd be fewer controls.

2) Rockets: yes, Israel responds in self-defence to rockets from Gaza and yes, there have been more Palestinian casualties. As I said above, if there were no rockets coming from Gaza Israel wouldn't need to defend itself.

3) You wrote: "I'm not sure what you expect the Palestinians to do. Endure another fifty years of colonial occupation of their lands? More military invasions, more apartheid, more deaths?"

If the Palestinians had made a genuine attempt at building a functioning state in Gaza they would've done themselves a great favour. Remember that at the last Israeli election Ariel Sharon's newly formed Kadima party was elected on a platform of drawing final borders in the West Bank as a follow up to the withdrawal from Gaza. Had the Gaza withdrawal gone well there would've been great prospects for progress on the West Bank. Unfortunately, by using Gaza as a launching pad for rocket attacks militant groups sent a message that they weren't interested in peace but wanted to continue fighting.

4) Your comments about Israel not recognising the Palestinians' right to exist are ridiculous. Check any number of statements and speeches from Israeli leaders for acceptance of the Palestinians' right to exist. Failure to agree on the final borders of a future Palestinian state does not mean Israel doesn't recognise their right to a state.

5) Arab states' acceptance of Israel: you wrote: "Every single Arab nation in the region and the PNA have all accepted Israel's "right to exist". How many have diplomatic relations with Israel, how many are still officially in a state of "war"? What about Hamas? You make it sound like they're all lining up to make peace with Israel. Totally inaccurate.

6) Lebanon in 2006: would you accept a hostile force like Hezbollah on your doorstep carrying out sporadic attacks on the north of your country? No, and why should you have to?
Posted by spy, Wednesday, 16 April 2008 6:30:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev,

>> ” Nobody here is saying that Jews (and Christians and Muslims) are not entitled to a homeland in Palestine… [there is a] difference between a homeland and a State.”

What good is a homeland if you can’t live without persecution? To avoid persecution in a region absolutely awash in it, you need sovereignty. Where does a nation without sovereignty have a homeland in the middle east that doesn’t suffer major persecution? If the Israelis were to give up sovereignty there would be no Israelis in the middle east within a decade, probably less. What about their homeland then?

Wikipedia recognizes that a nation is a form of SELF-DEFINED cultural and social community. Although ethnicity is now one of the most important aspects of cultural or social identity, people with the same ethnic origin may live in different nation-states and be treated as members of separate nations for that reason. Ethnicity does not determine nationhood. So do you deny that the Israelis are a NATION. The fact that Israel has had the institutions for sovereignty over their own country for 60 years surely makes Israel a STATE.

I don’t really see how you can suggest that Palestine is a nation or a state It never was either so on what basis do you make the claim to sovereignty by Palestinians. In fact the term ‘Palestinian’ itself is only 60 odd years old. And the Palestine the COUNTRY, ie area of land it described, has been partially subsumed by not only Israel but Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. Are you suggesting hiving off parts of those countries to form a new Palestine?

Considering the land has had numerous owners over the millennia surely the 1947 UN resolution should be the fallback position
Posted by Paul.L, Wednesday, 16 April 2008 4:48:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sol,

Please explain to Lev “what is a Jew”.

Lev,

I understand what you say about freedom fighters and the targetted killing of collaborators. However, there is a vast distinction between freedom fighters and terrorists. We have gone over this ground before, but I will continue to repeat myself until you can really define the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists.

You are aware I lived in Malaya for seven years during the communist emergency. Terrorists - as distinct from freedom fighters - imposed their will on the innocent. They needed money, harbouring, information, and compliance. They used the carrot and the stick, but found the stick much more effective to achieve their aims of intimidation and fear. The stick was indiscriminate bashings and killings. Among their methods, they ambushed and shot up buses, and other vehicles, overturned cars, dousing them with petrol, setting them on fire with people inside. We lost friends. However, we were colonialists and this was not unexpected. At fourteen, I knew how to use arms and hand-grenades.

At fifteen, I stood amid the immediate aftermath of hand-grenades lobbed into a packed cinema. No Europeans, no foreigners, but local families with children and toddlers, and babies. The dead were fortunate, very fortunate. The cries from the dying and injured were not human; the stench from vomit, blood, open body cavities and cordite was overpowering. Amid the dirt, chaos and panic, the few medics available imposed triage; those they by-passed knew they were to die; pain-killing drugs were in short supply. I held the hand of a tiny tot - her shining black hair tied in a single sprig with a red bow on the top her head - dying in so much agony she couldn’t utter a sound, her tiny face a distorted mask. Although her eyes seemingly looked at me, she wouldn’t have known I was there. I held her hand more for my benefit, than for hers. I presumed that the remains beside her had been her mother.

cont ...
Posted by Danielle, Thursday, 17 April 2008 12:01:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To remove my jeans and top, caked to my body by blood and human detritus, I stood under a shower fully dressed. All these clothes were destroyed, as were my sandles - blood and body fluids had seeped through them. The stench stayed with me for days.

Lev, I cannot express the anger and hatred I had for those who had done this, indeed, I also felt guilt, helplessness. I also knew quite clearly the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters. I was told that I must never forget this experience. If I were to forget, ignore what I had witnessed, not speak up when necessary, then it is a betrayal.

The fact that the Hamas indiscriminately use their own as shields, have exploited and let their people suffer so much because of their actions, have murdered and victimised so many of their own so that many Gazans have fled, establishes them as terrorists. Then there is the terrible abuse of children - the situations and propaganda to which no child should be exposed.

Hamas are terrorists. They meet every criteria of being terrorists. The tragedy is that none will state this. It appears that what the Gazans are suffering at their hands is OK as long as they are euphemistically called “freedom fighters”.

Whatever you might feel about the Israelis and the Palestinians at least be honest and with unclouded vision look at the Hamas, see them for what they are, and state it. Hamas are terrorists.
Posted by Danielle, Thursday, 17 April 2008 12:07:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul,

Numerous times I have pointed out to you that a secular and democratic homeland does not require sovereignity for any particular religion. Do Jews live in Australia without systematic persecution? No. Is Australia a Jewish state? No. Could Palestine be a Jewish homeland without persecution and without needing to be a Jewish state? Most certainly. That is the project of secular Jews, Christians, and Muslims and non-religious individuals behind the one state (http://www.onestate.org) project.

As I have already explained to you a nation does not depend on self-definition, regardless of what Wikipedia used to say. As for ethnicity, that is a vague definition as much use to cultural anthropologists as 'genre' is to literary studies. It has no place in formal social science. As Max Weber remarked; "the whole conception of ethnic groups is so complex and so vague that it might be good to abandon it altogether".

You are totally incorrect to say that the terms Palestinian is only 60 years old. As a trivial example I can cite the ancient Egyptian Peleset and the ancient Hebrew Peleshet (both rendered in English as Philistia), the works of Herodatus from 2500 years ago (Palaestina), all of which were deemed a distinct people from the Phoenicians, the Arabic (al-filasTinniyyin) from at least the 800s and so onwards even unto the 20th century.

Danielle,

The definition of a terrorist is really quite simple: The systematic use of force against non-combatants for political purposes (see: Schmid and Longman's classic study on the definition, "Political Terrorism", 1988). Apply this definition without prejudice or excuse and you'll see a lot clearer. Actions by both the IDF and various Islamic extremists both constitute terrorism.
Posted by Lev, Thursday, 17 April 2008 11:04:12 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spy,

1) Why is it that Israel's "security related" behaviour appears to be an exercise in collective punishment and humiliation of the Palestinian people?

2) Self defense? Then why such disproportionate responses? Why the use of Palestinians as human shields? etc And most importantly, why the collective punishment? Engaging in military collective punishment is an act of terrorism.

3) A functioning state in Gaza?! Where they can police their own oppression? It is impossible for Gaza to do be a functioning state with the controls that Israel has on it.

4) I can cite numerous statements from Israeli leaders that say exactly the opposite. "Not one village must be left" etc. I do not see any statements that recognise a Palestinian state.

5) Would you care to list the Arab states still at war with Israel? Syrian technically I suppose. There is a UN sponsored ceasefire with Lebanon in 2007, Jordan and Israel have had a peace agreement since 1994, with Egypt since 1979. Of course, Israel bombed Syria in September 2006 without provocation. Still, it did increase Olmert's approval ratings from 25% to 35%.

6) You take it to United Nations to expand the role of operations of UNIFIL, the legitimate peace keeping force in the region, as per international law. Of course, the UN did have observers in South Lebanon. But we know what happened to them; they were targetted and killed by the Israeli invaders (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5215366.stm).
Posted by Lev, Thursday, 17 April 2008 11:36:21 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev,

1. Just because you believe that a Jewish homeland doesn’t need sovereignty doesn’t actually make it true. It’s called an opinion; and the evidence you have provided to support this opinion has been rather sparse.

2. You didn’t bother to reply as to why you believe Palestine (biblical or otherwise) deserves sovereignty. I don’t see how you can make a case for a state based upon what you have already posted. But please attempt to do so. It would be good to know which Palestine you believe should have sovereignty, as well.

3. Ancient history isn’t my strong suit and I won’t argue with you about the term ‘Palestinian’ having ancient origins. What we do know is two things. 1 Israel has a similar claim from ancient history. Both are irrelevant. 2. Prior to 1947 it had been thousands of years since there had been Palestinians or Israelites. There is no case to make for either side to claim ownership based upon ancient historical precedent.

4. Wasn’t it Weber who also said that a group is defined by who they exclude? I would like to see your argument for suggesting that a nation is not self defined. And if you can do that I wonder if you could explain to the rest of us why Australia is not really a nation. How you can reconcile yourself with multiculturalism and this idea that nationality is not self defined simply escapes me. The point I was making about ethnicity was that it did NOT define a nation. My point is that nations are self defined.

TBC
Posted by Paul.L, Thursday, 17 April 2008 12:15:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Power Plus for PaulL

PaulL, regarding your view that neither Israelis nor Palestinians have claim to any historical attachments.
So for you it’s all about power, PaulL?
Now I know why you fully back the Bush - Cheney style Americana to command the 21st century which not only has the power right now to do so, but apparently holds the say for little Israel to remain the only militarily nuclear power in the Middle East also for the 21st century
Posted by bushbred, Thursday, 17 April 2008 2:32:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev, a response to your questions:

1) & 2) You wrote: "Why is it that Israel's "security related" behaviour appears to be an exercise in collective punishment and humiliation of the Palestinian people?"

A tragic but unavoidable consequence of military action is that innocent civilians will suffer. If there were no rockets, they're be less need for Israeli controls.

Please tell me how else Israel is expected to defend itself. Are you saying it should simply tolerate rocket fire? What country would not defend itself in such circumstances?

3) You wrote: "A functioning state in Gaza?!" "It is impossible for Gaza to do be a functioning state with the controls that Israel has on it."

Yes, NOW it's very difficult I agree. But almost 3 years ago billions of dollars of international investment flowed into Gaza and there was great potential for creating a functioning state. Israeli controls were far less strict then. But sadly militant groups chose to use their newly controlled territory as a launching pad for attacking Israel. No surprise that Israel was forced to defend itself.

4) You wrote: "Not one village must be left" etc. I do not see any statements that recognise a Palestinian state."

Let's put this issue to bed. The official Israeli position is that: "The final peace settlement will establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people just as Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people." - this was the text agreed to by both the PA and Israel at the Annapolis summit on 27/11/2007

Olmert said after the summit: "I believe that there is no just solution other than the solution of two national states for two peoples"

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/928637.html

(to be continued)
Posted by spy, Thursday, 17 April 2008 4:22:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(continued from above)

5) You wrote: "Would you care to list the Arab states still at war with Israel?"

Syria. Lebanon technically not at war, but there have been sporadic incidents near the border between the IDF and both Hezbollah or Lebanese army since the ceasefire.

Diplomatic relations? You didn't respond to that one.

6) "You take it to United Nations to expand the role of operations of UNIFIL"

In an ideal world, yes. But the reality is that UNIFIL is incapable of controlling Hezbollah. It failed to do so prior to the 2006 war and since then it's failed again with Hezbollah now re-arming and re-building. It's naive to expect Israel to rely on others to defend itself.

I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree on some things but I appreciate your willingness to debate these issues. I wish others on this forum (not naming names of course!) would do the same.
Posted by spy, Thursday, 17 April 2008 4:24:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev,

A few lines in a dictionary ... ? Hardly a indepth definition, let alone a philosophical treatise.

Read Bellum Iustum in its entirety.. preferably in the original language, and with subsequent glosses. Indeed read later philosophical works addressing this sole issue.

Don’t cite the UN - deliberate naivity; and the use of sophistry is neither legitimate nor appeals to logic.

One simple point - legitimate warriors wear uniforms to distinguish themselves from innocent non-combatants. Hamas not only conceal themselves as non-combatants, but use the innocent as shields. Their aim is to ensure that the innocent suffer as much misery, indeed deaths, as possible in the hope to gain their support.

Indeed, patent to all, the more the Gazans suffer as a consequence of Hamas’ activities, the more Hamas rejoice.

Islam also has its own Bellum Iustum treatise. Hamas diverge sharply away from all points of this Islamic work.

Explain the brutality of Hamas against the Gazans. Have Hamas contributed in any meaningful sense to the well-being of the Gazan people; created a life of security, of optimism for them ...

Is it better to avert one’s eyes from the brutalities and horrors wrought by Hamas on the Gazans, ignore them, even pretend they are not occurring? Does it make your arguments against Israel better. Hardly. By ignoring Hamas’ activites, it weakens any argument you have about Israel.

OLO posters, by not condemning these attrocities, support Hamas’ actions. Are posters so anti-Israel, that they prefer to condone Hamas’ activities? The only conclusion - tthese posters support terrorism and brutality of a peoply by their own ... a case of the end justifies the means ...

Posters are utter cowards by not condemning terrorism - Hamas - in the harshest possible way. If Australia were ever in such a situation ... then g-d help us ...

cont ...
Posted by Danielle, Friday, 18 April 2008 1:11:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev, you do not know the definition of a “Jew”.

Sol has yet to explain this to you.

Also, Sol, ... Why so coy about explaining the platforms of the United Arab List and the Arab Movement for Renewal who ran together as a united list and won seats in the Knesset? ... and Arab speakers in the Knesset ...
Posted by Danielle, Friday, 18 April 2008 1:12:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You say >> “Could Palestine be a Jewish homeland without persecution and without needing to be a Jewish state? Most certainly.

5. It seems that you either believe that radical Islamo-facism is not a strong and rapidly growing force in Palestine (and elsewhere) or that some group has the influence or power to overcome this extremism. Where is the evidence for this? Every day the Islamists are getting stronger yet you believe they can be banished altogether. Your comparison with Australia is facile. How many Middle Eastern states could be considered to be as receptive to minorities as Australia? None

6. By merely handing Palestine and Israel over to so-called democracy you won’t achieve anything except ethnic cleansing on a previously unseen scale. If you said that after 50 years of a two state solution, a single state would be an option I could understand. Not today or next week or even next decade however.

7. I don’t agree with your definition for ‘terrorist’. I believe that a terrorist is a person who deliberately uses force against civilians to create a climate of terror for political purposes. I don’t accept, and I pretty sure Danielle doesn’t either, that Israel is deliberately targeting civilians. In fact I hold Hamas and the other terror groups responsible for using civilians as shields. A study by the US Army counted 109 different definitions of terrorism. Laqueur "the only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.

For Spy’s questions although he has answered them more thoroughly than me.
1 Israel’s security behaviour is aimed squarely at achieving security for its people.
2 Proportionate response is a soft liberal idea that only prolongs violence.
3 Gaza would not have been as tightly controlled if they weren’t using it as a forward base to attack Israel.
5 I would include Iran, which virtually controls Hezbollah. If you believe Syria was attacked without provocation then why did the Syrians keep it so quiet?
6 Peacekeepers have been attacked by all sides in the conflict. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/26/africa/web.0426egypt.php
Posted by Paul.L, Friday, 18 April 2008 10:26:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For pete's sake a jew is just another cult member, they have no race. Will you people grow up. It is a cult where some men made up a god thousands of years ago and then rammed that god down everyone else's throats in the name of being superior to the plebs.

That is what all the stupid cults are. As for this delusional debate about when Palestinians existed - the Australian and British armies fought alongside the PALESTINIANS IN WW1 AND WW11, it was PALESTINE that was immorally and illegally partitioned by the west with the exclusion of the PALESTINIANS in 1947 and it was 800,00 PALESTINIANS ethnically cleansed in 1948 by the Irgun, Stern and Hagadah terrorist gangs.

Judaism is a cult, now get over it.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Friday, 18 April 2008 2:48:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marilyn,

I’m not in the habit of bowing to the demands of semi literate, pseudo-leftist BIGOTS. I’m afraid that the only one DELUSIONAL here is YOU! Your astoundingly simplistic analysis and your inability to grasp even the most basic facts mark you out as a REACTIONARY of the highest order. Your limited ability to regurgitate Pilger or the more extreme of Israel’s New Historians doesn’t make you right, let alone any kind of expert. It’s hard enough to deal with educated people like Bushbred claiming they have all the answers. Coming from an hysterical grievance monger like yourself, it is intolerable. There is a good reason why most of my questions are aimed at Lev and not at you. Generally I refuse to debate the stupid and the incompetent. Why don’t you go and have your tanty elsewhere and let the adults sort all this out. There’s a dear
Posted by Paul.L, Friday, 18 April 2008 5:45:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul and Spy,

Judiasm doesn't deserve a state anymore than the Catholics or Muslims. The sooner we have completely secular states the better. Evidence? The evidence is the body count. As a people who have largely been on the receiving end of the use of religion to abuse human beings, I would expect the Israeli state to behave better. The rise of religious fundamentalism among the Palestinians can be directly linked by the failure for a state to be provided over the past forty years. Nobody here condones their actions, but I certainly the conditions that give rise to them.

Israel's use of collective punishment, and the deliberate and indiscriminate targeting of civilians has been reported by Israeli media (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/901620.html), Amnesty International (http://ngo-monitor.org/article/amnesty_international_assert_that_israel_targets_civilians_), the International Herald Tribune (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/03/opinion/edbouck.php), and Human Rights Watch (http://hrw.org/reports/2007/lebanon0907/3.htm#_Toc175028479) among numerous others.

What I find troubling in this debate is whilst everyone is prepared to condemn terrorism from Hamas etc., there are defenders of Israeli state-sponsored terrorism and even denial of it.

If you want peace in a region invite and expand the role of UN-sponsored international peacekeepers, and not merely observers either. People who can shoot back when the situation arises. I have been in areas under UN military command and when given the right scope of operations they are very effective. You want to end the war and see two states? Fine, let's draw the map and have massive international military occupation; and let's see who objects the most to this suggestion.

Danielle,

I already know there is multiple definitions for Mihu Yehudi, and I am well aware of its history. I am not interested in how religions themselves define it, nor am I interested in a State defines it, except where it becomes a means of exclusion from political and civil rights (such as Teudat Zehut or the Nuremberg Laws and Mischling).
Posted by Lev, Friday, 18 April 2008 6:40:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev,

Sol would have explained “Mihu Yehudi” - also party politics.

Israel’s Supreme Court does and often, over-rule decisions made along any religious grounds. If you really understood the political and civil rights of all inhabitants of Israel, you would be aware of this.

You can’t ignore Hamas’ treatment if its people. Israel never deliberately attacks civilians. Last year Hamas, imbedded in a civilian neighbourhood, televised a program from where it was shelling Israel. Israel immediately aborted its defensive operation.

Re-read the articles you provided, analyse the context, and what is being stated, what is not being stated, nor asked, nor addressed; indeed interrogate the comments of both the interviewer and person/s interviewed; and read the sub-text. For goodness sake, Lev, read them in hindsight of what you now know.

Logically, if Israel acted as you state it does, then it would have brought all its problems to and end once and for all.

Israel is effectively under a constant state of emergency. You disregard Hamas’ shells as crude. But they are not inconsequential and are targetted at vulnerable areas such as schools. Children in these areas carry flak-jackets and helmets. Warning signals are about 5-15 seconds - inadequate time to reach shelters - so they have metal school desks to get under.

Any day Israel could be attacked in a full scale war. No country, no state, functions as normal in day-to-day activities under such circumstances. There has to be constant checks - and for everyone. Whatever those outside such situations think, this becomes as normal as breathing. Remember that Israel does not initiate attacks, unless absolutely vital, but Israel is certainly duty bound to respond.

The last time UN peacekeepers where in the area, the Egyptians asked them to leave ... which they did, doffing their caps. Egypt then attacked Israel. UN peace-keepers are only effective when both sides want peace.

Read Bellum Iustum, preferably in the original language, and with subsequent glosses. Indeed read later philosophical treatises on the same subject. Islam’s Bellum Iustum is “Qann-i Jihad” - a good translation is by Shehzad Saleem.

cont ...
Posted by Danielle, Saturday, 19 April 2008 2:40:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Israel, like other countries, has “rules of engagement” which are strictly enforced. All evidence shows that Hamas don’t.

Terrorist run Gaza attacked Nahal Oz fuel terminal on 9th April, the only channel used by Israel to deliver fuel to the Gaza Strip. Apart from killing Israelis operating this terminal, the terminal necessarily shut down for a week during which Hamas did their song-and-dance propaganda routine accusing Israel of deliberating cutting off fuel to Gaza. The terminal now functional, has resumed delivery of diesel fuel and crude oil in quantities sufficient to operate the Gaza Strip power station, and of cooking gas and gasoline for emergency vehicles.

Regarding electricity, a Gaza power station supplies only 30% of resident’s consumption , Israel supplies 60%, and Egypt 10%. None of this has been affected by the blockade. Nevertheless, Hamas is now waging a propaganda campaign against both Israel and Egypt.

Al-Ahram, the Egyptian daily (15 April, 2008). A front page coverage by Tari Hassan states that Hamas plans to breach the Egyptian-Palestinian border, shelling posts and killing Egyptian soldiers; also detonating tunnels packed with explosives between Gaza and Egypt. Hassan reports that on April 12 Hamas’ sheikh Abd al-Rahman al-Qlab a preacher in a Khan Yunis mosque issued a fatwa authorising the killing of Egyptian soldiers. Osama Saraya , Al-Ahram's editor in chief, confirmed that this information and Hamas’ collaboration with the Muslim Brotherhood had come from sources in the Gaza Strip and Egypt (Al-Arabiya TV, April 15). Iran and Syria are also implicated. Hassan claims that Hamas’ intention is to force Gazans into Egypt.

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri denied this, in turn accusing Al-Ahram (the establishment run newspaper) of inciting Egyptian soliders to kill Palestinians.
Posted by Danielle, Saturday, 19 April 2008 2:47:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marilyn's got a point Paul L, albeit put a little too bluntly for the semantics among us. Judaism is no more exceptional than the church of the flying spaghetti monster, though it's much better organised. Israel's not the Promised Land, nor is it home of the Chosen Ones. It's a chunk of land nicked from someone else & they want it back.

A large amount of what has occurred over the last 50-odd years can be summed up in two words - "occupied terrritories". The article was defensive from start to end. It wasn't mentioned once.
Posted by bennie, Saturday, 19 April 2008 1:17:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Danielle et al, you say Israel has every right to have a homeland, but what right has Israel to hold the balance of power in the Middle East with its array of loaded nuclear rockets?

Along with other mature age academic philosophers and historians do say that we were all so grateful that those left of the horrid Nazi exterminant camps were able to return to their own true homeland.

But to have so quickly allowed even those who suffered such hideous sufferings under the Nazis, to begin building the means to create atomic torture and havoc to their natural Arab cousins - even though we also are not in love with those cousins - has sadly made many of us veterans change our historical tunes?
Posted by bushbred, Saturday, 19 April 2008 1:36:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Danielle,

Please do at least some preliminary research. You should not make the ridiculous claim that the Supreme Court "often" over-rules the decisions of the Ministry of the Interior definition of Mihu Yehudi as advised by the Orthodox Chief Rabbinate. I can think of only a handful of cases; Oswald Rufeisen in 1950, Benjamin Shalit in 1970 and Shoshanna Miller in 1980. No sane individual would consider 3 individuals in approximately sixty years to constitute "often".

Further, the last time there was UN peackeeping mission between Israel and Egypt was the Second United Nations Emergency Force after the Yom Kippur War. The mission lasted from 1973-1979. This was completed with the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty of March 26, 1979 following agreements at the 1978 Camp David meeting and the establishment of the Multinational Force and Observers which is still in operations.

It would appear that your claim about the last UN peacekeeping mission between Egypt and Israel is demonstrably false.

You may, as always, be as factually incorrect as often as you want.

Bennie,

You succinct summary explains exactly what the problem is. Thank you.

Hmm... My bread looks a little flat tonight....
Posted by Lev, Saturday, 19 April 2008 4:38:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev,

I had moved well on from Mihu Yehudi when mentioning Israel’s Supreme Court over-ruling on religious matters. I had hoped Solthechef would have explained Mihu Yehudi, along with the Arab party (and their platform) in the Knesset .

Incidentally, those examples you provided greatly suprised me. In the matter of Mihu Yehudi and Orthodoxy, it would be rather akin to a ruling on “virginity”. However, converts from overseas, of whatever Jewish “persuasion”, are accepted in Israel. Indeed their non-converted, non-Jewish partners and non-Jewish children are also accepted, whatever their race, nationality, their religion or non-religion.

Israel’s Supreme Court. A simple, but significant example - the Sabbath and the conduct of business. Until 1990, Municipalities’ by-laws regulated opening/closing times of the Sabbath. The Israel’s Supreme Court reviewed this by-law declaring it void, as it limited the freedom of religion, which also includes the freedom NOT to believe.
[61 Cr. P (Jerusalem) 3471,3472/87 State of Israel v. Kaplan, 1988(2) P.M. 265.]

The Knesset overturned this decision. However, under the Municipalities Order Amendment Law (No. 40), of 1990, municipalities now not only rarely enforce such laws, but also allow the opening of cinemas, entertainment and restaurants on Saturday.
[S. Shetreet, Between The Three Branches of Government- The Balance of Rights in Matters of Religion in Israel, (The Floersheimer Institute For Policy Studies, Jerusalem, 1998) at pages 25-26 (Hebrew)]

Whilst this example is convoluted, other examples are more straight forward, and demonstrate the authority and/or influence of Israel’s Supreme Court.

About 50% of Israeli-Jews define themselves as secular. Nearly 40% of all Israeli-Jews identify themselves as agnostic even atheist. Only some 10% of Israeli Jews are Haredim. Considering the numbers of non-religious Jews in Israel, they would be rioting in the streets if they were forced to submit to religious policy/programs. Israeli-Jews are called Sabras for good reason ...

UN peace-keepers. I was referring to the Six-Day War. But, indeed your comments reinforce the observation by many that UN peace-keepers are only effective when both sides want peace.

cont ...
Posted by Danielle, Sunday, 20 April 2008 3:57:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
UN peace-keepers in confrontation with Hamas ...?! Be realistic, Lev. Would you volunteer to be a UN peace-keeper under such conditions?

Gazans thought with their feet when Hamas took over. If Israel’s Muslim population are living in such dire conditions, they would do the same. Christians, Druze, Baha’i, Bedouins, Gypsies and others regard Israel as their homeland. They identify Israel as a democracy, and willingly tender their allegiance to this state. We don’t hear Christians, Druze, Baha’i, Bedouins, Gypsies, etc. complaining; indeed comparatively few Israeli Muslims themselves do. However, when people do have something to say, they are assured of freedom of speech and very large woofers and tweeters.

Lev, you still haven’t addressed the issue of Hamas’ treatment of its own and of its policies. A case of any other diversionary discussion, but avoid this at all costs ...? This is a central issue in any discussion of the Palestinians.

So your bread is also flat, Lev? Guess it must be that time of the year.

bushbred,

When has Israel ever threatened to use atomic weapons - or even admitted to having them?

Indeed reports state: “believe”, “regard,” “estimate,” “or according to” .. all supposition, but never confirmation of an Israeli nuclear arsenal. I may be quite wrong, but I suspect Israel has atomic weapons.

However, Israel has never “sabre rattled” them as a deterrent nor threat. And Israel would never be the first to employ them. In fact, if nuclear war broke out in the ME many areas would be uninhabitable waste-lands - homeland to none; ... and let’s not forget the oil ... vested interests ... an’ all that ...
Posted by Danielle, Sunday, 20 April 2008 4:01:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I had moved well on from Mihu Yehudi when mentioning Israel’s Supreme Court over-ruling on religious matters."

Nevertheless you were incorrect in your assertion. It would do you well to acknowledge it.

"UN peace-keepers. I was referring to the Six-Day War."

Which was not, as you claimed, the last time that UN peacekeepers were used between Egypt and Palestine. Again, please acknowledge your errors.

"But, indeed your comments reinforce the observation by many that UN peace-keepers are only effective when both sides want peace."

That is clearly incorrect. As a most recent example, in Timor Leste the pro-integration militia did not want peace with the pro-independence militia. But the UN peacekeepers were effective nonetheless.

"UN peace-keepers in confrontation with Hamas ...?! Be realistic, Lev. Would you volunteer to be a UN peace-keeper under such conditions?"

Most certainly.

"Lev, you still haven’t addressed the issue of Hamas’ treatment of its own and of its policies."

This is also incorrect. On numerous occassions I have addressed the Hamas charter, practises and its polices.

"So your bread is also flat, Lev? Guess it must be that time of the year."

Whilst I abhor the patriarchial nonsense and violence implicit in the story of Makot Mitzrayim, I do participate in Maggid and especially prefer the Ma Nishtana.
Posted by Lev, Sunday, 20 April 2008 8:52:32 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Danielle, please remember that Israel has already got those nuclear weapons, and incidently is the reason Iran wants to go nuclear, and as far as can be the focus of balance of power strategy, as happened between India and Pakistan, a near nation has the right to build up its defence or power accordingly.

The point is, Danielle, Israel gained enough power when built up by America to challenge the fresh lot of arms coming from the Soviets early in the Yom Kippur War - without Israel being allowed to carry on with a nuclear programme.

As I explained previously, Danielle, lefty philosophers, as PaulL calls them, have no love for Islam, but are just looking for a fair deal in the Middle East, where ever since WW1, with the end of the Ottomans, first Britain and later the US after WW2 carried on enterprises too much for oil and Western hegemonic gain rather than the roles of true libertinian deliverers.
Posted by bushbred, Sunday, 20 April 2008 12:04:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bennie,

>> “Judaism is no more exceptional than the church of the flying spaghetti monster, though it's much better organised.”

I wonder if you take the same view with respect to Muslims. I know that Marilyn certainly does not.

It’s interesting that you should suggest that Judaism is irrelevant, because Hitler decided it was so relevant that he killed 6 million jews. The Arabs decided it was so relevant that after 1948 there were basically no Jews left in the middle east outside of Israel. An exodus similar in size to that which the Palestinians consider to be Al Naqba. During the 1970’s terrorists considered it so important that they murdered as many as Jews as they could lay hands upon.

>> “Israel's not the Promised Land, nor is it home of the Chosen Ones’

If you bothered to read any of my posts on this issue you would know that I agree with you in this respect. Israel is a formation of the United Nations. A homeland for the Jews was presaged as early as 1917.

In 1922, the League of Nations granted Great Britain a mandate over Palestine for the express purpose of "placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the ESTABLISHMENT OF THE JEWISH NATIONAL HOME". Before that Palestine was a part of the Ottoman Empire. In 1947, the newly-created United Nations approved the UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181) dividing the country into two states, one Arab and one Jewish. The Jewish community accepted the plan, but the Arab League and the Arab Higher Committee rejected it. That is why there is a country called Israel but no Palestine.

Lev,

Why should Palestine be the sovereign state? What special characteristic that Israel lacks does Palestine have that it should be granted sovereignty over the land?

Do we Australians deserve sovereignty over our country? And if not who does?

BTW it seems as though the League of Nations felt that the Jews were a nation of people. See article 2 and others http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1922mandate.html
Posted by Paul.L, Sunday, 20 April 2008 12:33:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbred

Holding the balance of power has never been something which has been decided internationally by consensus. Historically countries have had the balance of power in their favour because they take it.

You seem almost obsessed with Israel’s nuclear weapons, Yet Israel has never even acknowledged that they have them. They certainly have never threatened anyone with them publicly, as have the Iranians. Israel defeated the Arab armies single handedly three times without resort to nukes. Even in their darkest hours, when things were going badly during the Yom Kippur war and Israel’s very existence was threatened, they didn’t use nukes.

Just look at the President of Iran. Ahmedinejhad believes that the Mehdi is hiding down a well waiting for judgement day. Indeed during Ahmedinejhad’s time as mayor of Tehran, he widened the streets for a more befitting parade when the Mehdi returned. This is also the man who said Israel needs to be wiped off the map.

Tell me why I don’t hear you deploring the Indian nuclear program or the Pakistani nuclear program? Why are you silent on the North Korean lunatics and their weapons program? The North Koreans regularly use the nukes for political gain. And how about the Soviet nuclear program which splintered along with the evil empire in 1989? Surely they are a hundred times more dangerous.

Israel has held no-one to ransom with its nuclear program. Israel poses no threat to Iran or any of its neighbours for that matter. Whilst the Israelis are not shy about pre emptive defence, they aren’t interested in chasing Iranians out of their homeland, or Syrians etc. Yet the Iranians are very interested in destroying Israel. Indeed they have said as much a number of times.

>> “Israel gained enough power when built up by America to challenge the fresh lot of arms coming from the Soviets early in the Yom Kippur War “

What absolute nonsense. The Israelis very nearly lost the war in 1973. And they had nukes at that time.

And which philosophers do you think you speak for?
Posted by Paul.L, Sunday, 20 April 2008 12:42:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Islam is no more exceptional than Judaism either, Paul. Once we start claiming one faith is better or more valid than another there's no possibility of resolving any dispute. Your post leaves me with the impression Israel has a better case, and specific references contradicting yours are met with derision.

You "don’t really see how you can suggest that Palestine is a nation or a state', and ask "on what basis do you make the claim to sovereignty by Palestinians?" Well gee Paul, what are you suggesting take its place? Subservience to geopolitics? Palestinians have been saying it for years. Simply " leave us alone". Last week another illegal Israeli settlement was approved. And so it goes...

I don't have to be an expert on M.E. history to know something stinks. Not everything can be laid at the feet of Hamas. It's an extremist organisation borne of extreme conditions. Anyone can train an attack dog if they've a mind to do so. Israel owns Hamas as much as it owns the occupied lands.
Posted by bennie, Sunday, 20 April 2008 3:20:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good on you, Bennie for looking fairly at both sides. Can't understand PaulL when he says that it is okay now for Israel to have nuclear weapons, because previously no-one was supposed to know.

Certainly don't know what political science school would agree with that philosophy?
Posted by bushbred, Sunday, 20 April 2008 4:06:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Why should Palestine be the sovereign state? What special characteristic that Israel lacks does Palestine have that it should be granted sovereignty over the land?"

The region is a land whose sovereignity should be determined by the indigenous Semites. Whether it is called Palestine or Israel or both is irrelevant.

"Do we Australians deserve sovereignty over our country? And if not who does?"

As I have already stated several times, a more strict definition would grant the determination of sovereignity to the indigenous people who were murdered and colonised. Until that is resolved there will always be "an aboriginal problem". Rather like the "aboriginal problem" in the levant.

"BTW it seems as though the League of Nations felt that the Jews were a nation of people."

I am well aware of the intellectual confusion which continues to this day. Of course as you must surely be aware by now a homeland does not justify a state.
Posted by Lev, Sunday, 20 April 2008 8:49:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
According to Wikipedia the term Semite means a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Arabs, and Ethiopian Semites. I would be happy for you to post a link if you have a different meaning.

I’ll run with this one for the moment. So indigenous Semites in the middle eastern region should have their own sovereign state, is that what you are saying?

So what borders will you be drawing for this sovereign state? Will they be defined by where indigenous semites live? What proportion of the population must indigenous semites be to include the land they live on within your new state?

I mean if 60% of the population of a particular area are indigenous semites should this area be excised from its existing country, like Jordan or Iraq or Turkey, for example, and incorporated into your new state? Or should all semites live in the one sovereign country bounded by the geographical distribution of these people, removing all borders in between?

Or are you just suggesting the borders the UN agreed upon?

Btw I wonder why you are not pushing for a Kurdish State?

>> “I am well aware of the intellectual confusion which continues to this day. Of course as you must surely be aware by now a homeland does not justify a state.

I had never before realized that you were such an arrogant bugger. I mean, you’re ridiculous point scoring against Danielle over a very minor matter was an indicator. I didn’t realize that the rules with regard to statehood were written down in stone anywhere. Perhaps you were given them by someone on a mountain somewhere. To suggest that the League of Nations was confused because they weren’t following your guidelines is enormously arrogant. Am I doing you a disservice and there actually is a hard and fast rule somewhere about the role homelands play in the formation of a state? Or is it just from gods lips to your ears?
Posted by Paul.L, Monday, 21 April 2008 2:07:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul,

I am glad you are prepared to consider that Semitic people are the people who can determine, for themselves, what the borders of the semitic lands should be. This is an excellent improvement on your part.

Although I am confused on why you suggest that I do not support a Kurdish state. I have expressed support for a Kurdish state here and elsewhere for over twenty five years. The Kurds are deserving the right of self-determination as much as any other nationality.

What you see as minor point scoring with is actually a significant matter; the capacity of individuals to acknowledge error. What you claim to be arrogance is actually humility - because I immediately acknowledge error when I am shown to be factually incorrect.

As previously cited - in this very thread no less - a more precise definition of nationality concurs with the etymology of the word. The theory of the self-determination of nations has been well studied for over one hundred years. Whilst the Soviet Union was hardly a case study in supporting this, the words of Lenin in the book "The Right of Nations to Self-Determination" makes an explicit summary:

"[T]he tendency of every national movement is towards the formation of national states, under which these requirements of modern capitalism are best satisfied. ... [T]he national state is typical and normal for the capitalist period. Consequently, if we want to grasp the meaning of self-determination of nations ... by examining the historico-economic conditions of the national movements, we must inevitably reach the conclusion that the self-determination of nations means the political separation of these nations from alien national bodies, and the formation of an independent national state. ...[It] would be wrong to interpret the right to self-determination as meaning anything but the right to existence as a separate state."
Posted by Lev, Monday, 21 April 2008 2:23:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev

Isn’t the concept of a “Semitic” people actually derived from the same good book which gives orthodox Jews the idea that Israel was promised to them by god? Surely it makes just as much sense (or just as little) for all Celts to have a single national territory with sovereignty.

You shouldn’t be confused that I didn’t know you supported Kurdish nationalism. You spend all of you time on OLO trying to push your bizarre case for a single state solution. You cannot pretend that you disseminate your views regarding self determination in equal measure.

It’s interesting that you think that Semitic people should be able to draw their own borders. There is a long history of imperialist nations doing exactly that despite the wishes of the previous inhabitants.

In all honesty Lev, how many borders could be redrawn based upon your theoretical framework? Is it all of them or just most? Would you break apart all the countries which have “Semitic” inhabitants so that they could be incorporated in this new “Semitic” super state?

The idea that Lenin is authoritative on questions of self determination is patently ridiculous. He didn’t believe in nation states. The quote comes from a polemic. The League of Nations is confused but Lenin wasn’t? How convenient. Can you not accept that there are valid definitions of nationality which are diametrically opposed to the one which you are pushing?

What you are actually doing is dressing opinion up as fact, like Bushbred does, and in that case you can’t ever be wrong. The very idea that the concept of nationality is set in stone is a perfect example.
Posted by Paul.L, Monday, 21 April 2008 5:23:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev,

Regarding Israel’s Supreme Court and Mihu Yehudi ... I made it clear that I was stunned that it was actually “successful” three times in the past 60 yrs ...

You have stated your opinion of my attributes, (and ... you rabbit on about “ad hominem”) so perhaps I should get down on bended knees and thank g-d that you metaphorically, at least, flagitate yourself by reading my posts. However, when you do, please read them word by word - even if this puts the imposition on you of moving you lips. I submit material , to which you do not, or are unable to respond. A specious way of avoiding your: .. “I immediately acknowledge error when I am shown to be factually incorrect.”

You talk glibly about “exclusion from political and civil rights”. Utter tosh, Lev. What about these for Druze, Bedoin, Baha’is, Gypsies, Christians ... even Israeli Arabs, indeed Palestinians, in other Arab states. These groups enjoy common political and civil rights alongside Jews in Israel. Groups, although do, may not appear in numbers in politics, suitable to your thinking, but perhaps this is by choice ... Gypsies are not noticeable in British parliament ...

I recall you argument about lack of civil rights in Israel being based on “civil marriage” ... “civil marriage” ! ... No civil marriages performed in Israel. For g-d’s sake Lev ... ! As Marilyn would state: ‘get a grip.” However, there is right of civil divorce in Israel for all ... which IS important.

I stand corrected about the last time UN peacekeepers were used there. The deployment of peacekeepers prior to the Six-Day War stuck with me - it embodied the elements of Theatre of the Absurd.

I agree, Lev, UN peacekeepers should be employed - to protect Gazan citizens from Hamas. But, Hamas wouldn’t accept UN peacekeepers - not even you - albeit, your PC comments about Hamas would be seen by them to be praise.

cont ...
Posted by Danielle, Monday, 21 April 2008 5:56:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In all honesty, Lev, you would not make an effecient EO UN peacekeeper; and if you were truly honest, you would agree with this observation.

“Mr Hamas, please acknowledge your error ...”

A gift from a beautiful Gazan child, then touchingly unwrapping it back at the UN post. Immediate participation of the entire UN post in a miracle play. All transported to heaven. Quite biblical really ...

I know I shouldn’t state such things, even if obviously true. I doubt if you have any sense of humour, Lev, which is the provence of those with a sense of proportion.

Recall the words by President Gusmão back in May 2003

... The people of Timor-Leste will never forget the grief and the pain felt by the loss of life of the brave peacekeepers on our soil, including some of our own people ...

Read Asia Report N°143 of 17 January 2008

As I stated: UN Peacekeepers are only successful when both sides want peace.

“Semitic people are the people who can determine, for themselves, what the borders of the semitic lands should be” .

A return to the pre-colonial period and devoid of their artificially imposed borders. Indeed, implementation, at least legal intent of, the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, signed January 3, 1919. A still-legal Arab-Jewish agreement. The agreement identified two separate states, an Arab state and a Jewish state living in harmony and in mutual support. Two separate and distinct states, Lev, which colonial interests sank.

bushbred,

“... please remember that Israel has already got those nuclear weapons ... “

Evidence ... ? Please don’t tell us that you are clairvoyant ... What with Marilyn and her imaginary friends (a classic case of transference).

Also, like Paul, I would like to know the names of “your” philosophers; indeed historians ..
Posted by Danielle, Monday, 21 April 2008 6:03:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cold admire the courage of the Israelis at one time, PaulL, but have never felt the same since they illegally joined the nuclear rocket brigade.

Israel should have been satisfied enough with most of the Western world behind her.

It is so sad that such is not now the case, because after all, Israel may have been better without her own nuclear defence, relying just on the help of the UN, one of the main reasons the UN was formed, to protect small nations without nuclear protection.
Posted by bushbred, Monday, 21 April 2008 6:10:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul,

A common first language is the best definition of a nationality. Religions, for example, can be chosen or left in a person's lifetime, but it is only the rarest of instances that one's first language changes. That is why the definition has changed; as time has gone on, it has become more precise.

It is almost unavoidable for states to have nationalistic tensions. Sometimes they regrettably turn into shooting wars. The best and easiest method to avoid this is to provide the people of each common first language determine their own future, including whether they have their own state. Let the Basque have their own state if they wish. Let the Kosovars have their own, or unite with Albania (except for the northern provinces, which wish to become part of Serbia). Let the Bretons have their own state, if they so wish. Let the Yorta Yorta and the Hebrews have their own state if they desire, although I'm not sure what regions the latter two groups are a majority of the population. Once such states are formed, an internationalist perspective recommends a gradual federation of such states based on common rights.

It is not for the first time you have claimed that I "spend all of [my] time on OLO trying to push your bizarre case for a single state solution." That is a repeated lie of epic proportions and does not say much for your character. I don't even spend the majority of my posts on OLO on this subject, although I heartily encourage you to engage in a post count if you wish.

It would do you better that you actually judged the content of Lenin's comments on national self-determination rather that condemning it out of hand
Posted by Lev, Tuesday, 22 April 2008 11:32:52 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Danielle,

I overlooked your expression of surprise concerning the Supreme Court decision. Perhaps, according to your own statement, you can finally recognise that I do actually understand the political and civil rights of the inhabitants of Israel.

My opinions of the exclusion from political and civil rights in the other Arab states is of a magnitude of greater criticism those of Israel. On numerous occassions I have noted that Israel is certainly the most secular and most democratic state in the region. The fact that I criticise Israel in some instances in no way means I condone the practises of other states nearby. I'd probably write a lot more on those states except there seems to be very few people who seem prepared to debate the issue!

Your quote from Xanana does absolutely nothing to affirm you assertion indeed it points out the contrary. The fact that UN peacekeepers died should be the clearest indication that the pro-integration militia did not want peace. You also seem to forget that I was a regular visitor to the Palace of Ashes when the speech was made. I may have even been present when he made said speech. I used to see him at least twice a week in that period.

Faisal signed the agreement on behalf of the short-lived Arab Kingdom of Hedjaz, which was a strip of land adjacent to the Red Sea which survived for nine years and which barely touched open the Palestinian region. Not surprisingly, the the United Nations Special Committee On Palestine did not regard the Faisal-Weizmann agreement as EVER being valid. Citing it simply suggests a poverty of supporting arguments.

As bennie succinctly pointed out, Israel is a colonial creation. Sixty years ago some people had their land taken off them. They would like it back. That is the root cause of the problems that continue today. Resolve that to the satisfaction of all parties involved is only path to a dignified peace.
Posted by Lev, Tuesday, 22 April 2008 4:34:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Danielle and PaulL, you both seem inflicted with the same historical forgetfulness or - thoughtlessness.

I had already stated that Israel had in the early stages gone into nuclear rocketry illegally.

Otherwise it seems you both truly believe that time can actually heal crimes of the past, such as the manufacturing plus possession of illegal weaponry?

Was not the above what Mordecai’s so-called crime was all about, an honest opinion that his fellow Israelies had truly broken a law vouchased by the World Court as well as the United Nations?

As a political historian would certainly also like the above cleared up.

Regards – BB, WA
Posted by bushbred, Tuesday, 22 April 2008 5:00:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev,

I have already provided evidence of land purchased by Jews - and at exhorbitant prices. Indeed all land sale and movement was meticulously documented. You should find copies of the Reports in your university library, certainly on film. Jews effectively bought the land of Israel, which incidentally was hardly a bargain. Israel's land has a fertility of 17% compared with that in the Palestinian territory of 27%.

You underestimate the importance of the Faisal-Weizmann agreement. Faisal was not only King of Syria but also later of Iraq. As Keeper of the Holy Places he was of significant importance to the Arab peoples. The agreement was both recognised and had great support. Surely you don't approve of colonial deviance in sinking this agreement; or is it as commonly expressed, "treaties are made to be broken"?

Also, few Arabs lived in the Palestinian area. King Faisal, himself, despaired of the lack of Arabs living there; one of his letters stated that with the Jewish presence and the opportunities this presented, that Palestinians would return to their place of birth.
Britain had to bring in many, many 1,000s of Arabs from from elsewhere. Reports of the time described the territory as a wasteland.

Regarding Israel's Supreme Court and religious matters, you again, obviously did not read the issue of the Sabbath. Also, Israel's Supreme Court has over-ruled the Knesset on a many issues

"A common first language is the best definition of a nationality"

For someone who purportedly studied linguistics, let alone socio-linguistics, this is an extraordinary statement to make. Even for those without such a background would find this fatally flawed. However, are you aware that both Hebrew and Arabic are Israel's official state languages.

Re: Timor-Leste - you didn't access Asia Report N°143 of 17 January 2008, did you?

"I'd probably write a lot more on those states except there seems to be very few people who seem prepared to debate the issue!"

Absolutely correct, Lev. Unfortunately, anti-semitism in the classic meaning of the term is alive and well.

Bushbred,

PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR CAPABILITY.
Posted by Danielle, Tuesday, 22 April 2008 9:15:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry to have been lurking on this discussion for so long without contributing. However I am a bit suspicious now. Danielle, are you really claiming that Israel does not have nuclear weapons?

This is a pretty well established fact, even the Prime Minister has mentioned it:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/12/uisrael112.xml

This kind of denial does the rest of your arguments no credit.
Posted by Mickey K, Wednesday, 23 April 2008 8:11:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Danielle,

The fact that Jews purchased land in Palestine is well known, but irrelevant. People can buy land title wherever they want.

Perhaps you trying to distract from the the actions of paramilitary groups who, between November 1947 (when the United Nations partitioned Palestine), and May 1948 (when the State was formally proclaimed), had seized 75% of Palestine, and forced 780,000 Palestinians out of the country?

Until 1947, Jewish land ownership in Palestine was some 6%. By the time the state was formally established, it had sequestered 90% of the land.

The fact that Faisal was King of Syria (in 1920) and also later King of Iraq (from 1921 to 1933) is also well known, but also irrelevant. He signed the document as King of Hejaz. That document has no legal standing and never did.

In 1922 there was over 750,000 inhabitants of Palestine. A figure which had declined from 790,000 in 1914, but increased to over 1,000,000 by 1931. But of course, this too is irrelevant.

To reiterate, the use of a common first language is the best definition of nationality for purposes of determining statehood from self determination. It is not the only definition of nationality, but it is the best and most precise for this purpose. The fact that Hebrew and Arabic are official languages in Israel is great, but again irrelevant to the fact that Israel is explicitly a Jewish and colonial state.

I read the "Timor-Leste: Security Sector Reform" report in both English and Tetum. It has nothing to do with your profoundly ignorant and grossly offensive claim that the pro-Indonesia militia wanted peace and it was only through this desire that the UN peacekeepers were effective.

Mickie K,

The faux agnosticism of Israel's nuclear capabilities has only convinced the most gullible and partisan (boolean 'and' in this case) that they were not in breach of international law on this matter. Olmert's slip confirms what heroic individuals like Vanunu have been saying for decades.
Posted by Lev, Wednesday, 23 April 2008 1:10:38 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbred,

I admitted to my suspicion that Israel had nuclear weapons. I’d be distinctly surprised if Israel didn’t. Why should Israel not ...? Other countries have them such as Britain and France ... it would appear that old enmities die hard.

One can only state that Israel's security, even conduct, of Dimona in the mid-80's rivalled the Keystone Cops.

Security measures are stringent in such facilities, access to different areas is granted only to those specific to those areas. How Mordechai Vanuna managed to sneak in a camera, let alone take photographs without security officers being aware beggars belief. From what I have been told, and I am not an expert, is that different components of nuclear weapons are kept separate until necessary. Nuclear bombs are not stacked up like bales of hay ... Also, the idea of bringing in nuclear scientists from the USA? What about Israel’s experts ...

Vanuna first showed his photographs to church group in Sydney apparently during a sing-a-long. What did he expect them to see? Even experts would not be able to identify for certainty a nuclear weapons unit from a photograph.

Vanuna would have been better to have presented copies of blueprints, flow-sheets, data and documentation of movement of materials ... Surely this material would be littering desks and in waste-paper baskets.

However, Vanuna was brave - unnecessarily so, but brave.

Dimona is reported to be an unregulated and aging nuclear installation, with Israel’s failure to monitor safety. One can only assume that if Dimona is a nuclear installation, then the Israelis have a very efficient plant/s secreted elsewhere. Perhaps Israel wants others to belive that Dimona is its nuclear installation. O'h, the deception ...!

Australia has weapons systems suitable to deliver nuclear weapons to its neighbours. Discussion has taken place about an enrichment plant, producing highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapons program; an Australian company is developing a unique process for uranium enrichment. Also, if necessary, I am sure that Australia would be sent lots of “brown paper packages tied up with string.”
Posted by Danielle, Wednesday, 23 April 2008 3:49:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev,

The very reasons that you give for Israel not being a real nation actually negate your contention that a single state is the correct solution.

You say >> “the use of a common first language is the best definition of nationality for purposes of determining statehood from self determination”

Well then how can you possibly see any legitimacy for a single state in Palestine, or for that matter any other state where more than one language is spoken. In any case Israel is already a nation.

You say “Religions, for example, can be chosen or left in a person's lifetime, but it is only the rarest of instances that one's first language changes. That is why the definition has changed; as time has gone on, it has become more precise.

Yet this ignores the fact that many people who have never been to temple consider themselves Jewish. Whether that is linguistically entirely accurate is irrelevant. To be Jewish is much more than just being a devout follower of Judaism.

Generally, in modern secular usage, Jews include three groups: people who were born to a Jewish family regardless of whether or not they follow the religion, those who have some Jewish ancestral background or lineage (sometimes including those who do not have strictly matrilineal descent), and people without any Jewish ancestral background or lineage who have formally converted to Judaism and therefore are followers of the religion. Fowler, Jeaneane D. (1997).

In any case, without a doubt the League of Nations meant to create a national home for the Jewish people. The UN voted on this proposition and it was overwhelmingly accepted 33 to 13.

You say >> Until 1947, Jewish land ownership in Palestine was some 6%. By the time the state was formally established, it had sequestered 90% of the land.

I’d like to see the map showing Israeli control over 90% of the mandate of Palestine in 1949. If you would be so kind.
Posted by Paul.L, Wednesday, 23 April 2008 4:38:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul,

As stated people with a common first language have the right of national self-determination for the purpose of determining whether they can form their own state. They don't HAVE to form independent states, but rather they can form whatever states they like or in union with whomever they like.

People who call themselves Jewish but do not practise the Judiac faith have, in reality, a Jewish heritage. After all, there is no common factor between all Jews except their religion. Whilst a particular religious interpretations may count Mihu Yehudi quite differently most of that has as much veracity as Roman Catholics who count all the baptised among their number, or the baptism of the dead by Mormons.

The 90% figure is from the Jewish National Fund itself. It refers to the land within the 1949 armistance lines (the exact figure is actually 88%) It is simply cited in response to those who engage in the seriously misguided belief that Jews simply bought up the land of Israel and moved in.

(cf., W. Lehn and U. Davis, The Jewish National Fund, Kegan and Paul, 1988, p.xxi)
Posted by Lev, Thursday, 24 April 2008 3:27:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev,

“the use of a common first language is the best definition of nationality for purposes of determining statehood from self determination”

You have your dictator's hat on again. Even in totalitarian countries ...

China has over eight languages and a myriad of dialects; Russia has different languages and dialects. In both countries, many language groups speak only their own.

Your proposal of a common first language identifying a person's nationality would be the first available line to abuse ...

In some countries various indigenous groups have different languages, they have never learnt, nor wish to learn, the first language of the majority of peoples.

It is bad enough that people condemn others by the way they speak. The English particularly so. Admittedly, some dialects are incomprehensible - the locals don’t speak standard English; indeed any identifiable “English.”

Surely not back to the abuses inherent in language tests during the White Australia Policy.

However, it will no doubt warm the cockles of your dear little Leninist heart that the Russians had plans, which they admitted would take time to implement, not being accelerated by artificial means, for an official common world language. And first proposed by the old boy Lenin himself.

The Soviet Design for a World Language
Elliot R. Goodman
Russian Review, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Apr., 1956), pp. 85-99

You really want the Leninist dream don't you Lev. We all sound the same, act the same, all apparently secular, doff our collective caps to the same policies, indeed all grey and "neutral" - nothing that might upset a totalitarian apple-cart. Sorry, Lev. I like individualism.

When residing in another country for any length of time, I support the need to learn the language - both for speaking and reading - indeed fluently. Language provides insight into another people. From the numbers of Aussies learning languages before travelling abroad, this is not a unique idea.

cont ...
Posted by Danielle, Thursday, 24 April 2008 3:45:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I know elderly Greeks and Italians who migrated here - have contributed enormously to this country - became naturalised - but have never become close to mastering English. They certainly could not read a newspaper in English, nor carry on anything but the most general of conversations without lots of "sign" language and gesturing - and even then ...

They are Australian in every sense of the word.

but... to continue with your latest line of reasoning:

“ ...people with a common first language have the right of national self-determination for the purpose of determining whether they can form their own state.”

In Australia we could have a miriad of nations of those speaking the same native tongue - indeed micronations of just twenty people ...

It would work well for our indigenous peoples, groups of whom are distinct from others, having their own language, and racially. But many whites would be loathe to give up their backyards and barbies ...

Indeed a proven example ...

The Principality of Hutt River’s resident population is twenty. This includes His Royal Highness Prince Leonard, Her Serene Highness Princess Shirley and Crown Prince Ian; worldwide, however, there are some 13,000 passport holders.

This Principality is a micronation, 18,500 acres. His Royal Highness Prince Leonard, the sovereign, is hermetic, presumably hermeticism is the state religion. Hutt River Principality, a benevolent absolute monarchy, has a draft constitution, anthem, currency ‘n’ all; even permanent representation overseas, such as in Berlin - (I guess Berlin is anxious to be friends with everyone).

The National Museum of Australia acknowledges that tthe Principality of Hutt River has successfully seceded from the Commonwealth of Australia, and is an independent state.

The Australian Commonwealth do not.

... civil war ... just over the horizon ...

Incidentally I totally support the program to preserve ancient languages, indigenous languages, even proto-languages, where-ever possible. Indeed reintroduce languages as has been seen in Wales and Ireland.

I apologise, Lev, for not keeping up with events in Timor-Leste. I was unaware that peacekeepers having brought the area to a haven of peace, had left.
Posted by Danielle, Thursday, 24 April 2008 5:01:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Danielle,

China has eight languages? Really? I could name 223 at least, not dialects, but mutually independent languages with first languages status among their speakers. And every single one of those nationalities has the right to to self-determination.

A common world language in itself is not a bad thing. It would certainly aid in understanding between nationalities. However that is not the same as a common first language.

It was hardly Lenin that first thought of such a thing. You may have heard of other international auxiliary language, such as Esperento, much favoured by European anarchists. Others include Solresol (1827), Communicationssprache (1839), Universalglot (1868), Volapük (1879), Spokil (1887), Mundolinco (1888), Idiom Neutral (1902), Latino sine Flexione (1903), Ido (1907), Adjuvilo (1908), Interlingue (1922) and so forth.

Of course, this was all part of a vast international Lenninist-communist conspiracy. :p

I also note that you confusing the right to nationality with the right of citizenship through naturalisation. I also note that you reject the right of aboriginal self-determination in Australia on the grounds that civil war would result.

This does not surprise me in the least.
Posted by Lev, Thursday, 24 April 2008 9:37:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev

You say “people with a common first language have the right of national self-determination for the purpose of determining whether they can form their own state”

Please tell me how this fits in with your plan to deny speakers of Hebrew, the Israelis, their own state by annexing their territory and handing it over to the Arabs. You have consistently avoided my questions as to why you feel a single Palestinian state deserves sovereignty. According to YOUR many rules regarding such things, a single Palestinian state incorporating all of the Jews would surely not qualify.

I can’t get access to Lehn and Davis book about the Jewish National Fund. It is really quite disingenuous of you to suggest your information came from the JNF itself, yet in reality it comes from a book about the JNF. Walter Lehn in his article on The Jewish National Fund in the Journal of Palestine Studies suggested that the JNF owned 3,396,000 durums of a total of 26,323,000 durums in 1950. This is around 12% which is double the amount held in 1947.
http://www.caiaweb.org/files/Lehn-JNF.pdf

Then there is the matter of the actual 1949 armistice lines which clearly show that the Israelis did not hold 90% of the land within the armistice borders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Armistice_Agreements

If you can find a better or more accurate map you are welcome to try. I cannot believe you will find one which shows the Israelis occupying 90% of the land.

You say “ Perhaps you trying to distract from the the actions of paramilitary groups who, seized 75% of Palestine, and forced 780,000 Palestinians out of the country?

And are you ignoring the 1947 Arab League plan to drive all Jews out of Arab lands, leading to an exodus of 800,000 people who will ever be allowed to go back.

As regards East Timor it is abundantly clear that without the Indonesians permission the peacekeepers would never have gone in. And the Militias weren’t much more than a deniable arm of the TNI.
Posted by Paul.L, Friday, 25 April 2008 12:37:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul,

I am not sure how many individuals in Israel have Hebrew as their first language. In any case if they did indeed want to have their own state of course they would be entitled to it.

It was not at all disingenous for me to cite Lehn and Davis, indeed it was very accurate of me. Rather than cite an original source from the JNF I cited the book and the page number which referred to the JNF itself. To quote directly:

"Of the entire area of the state of Israel only about 300,000 to 400,000 dunums ...are state domain which the Israeli government took over from the [British] Mandatory regime. The J.N.F. (Jewish National Fund) and private Jewish owners possess under two million dunums. Almost all the rest [i.e., 88%] belongs in law to Arab owners, many of whom have left the country." (Jewish National Fund, Jewish Villages in Israel). Which was sequested by the Absentee Property Law of 1950.

I am not ignoring the 1947 Arab League plan either. As far as I'm concerned those expelled from the Arab lands are well within their rights to demand a "Right of Return" as well. Surely however a secular and democratic Israel with a desire for justice would not allow itself to sink to the same policies as the despotic Arabic regimes?

WRT Timor Leste, I can state with absolute certainty that you are largely incorrect. People often overlook that the pro-integration militia were Timorese. Whilst the TNI clearly provided support, it is totally incorrect to describe any of them (Aitarak, Besi Merah Putih, Laksaur, or Mahidi) just as an arm of the TNI.

As for the Indonesian government's acceptance under duress of UN peacekeepers, it is worth noting that just days prior to the decision of the 19th of October 1999 decision they were completely rejecting the possibility. There is a rather good book by Dr. Clinton Fernandes (Reluctant Saviour, Scribe, 2004) which I recommend for a insightful summary of the events.
Posted by Lev, Friday, 25 April 2008 4:47:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev,

Deliberately devious and precious as always.

I wrote ...

“China has OVER eight languages ...”

I apologise for not adding up each and every language. I thought of those that
came immediately to mind.

Lenin’s design for a world language was less benign than the other groups you mention.

I did not disparage the idea of indigenous people having their own micronations.

I stated my support of preservation of languages, even reintroduction of these where possible- and that includes languages of our own indigenous peoples.

You read into my comments regarding the conflict of opinion between the National Museum of Australia and the Australian Commonwealth about the status of the micronation of the Principality of the Hutt River ... and my throw-away comment about “civil war” ... as condemnation of the right of aboriginal self-determination.

Ye gads Lev, you have some mighty problems with comprehension.

Your education is lacking if you are unaware of the issue of language tests imposed by the Australian government in the past in determining citizenship ( ... or was it just entry to this country). And Lev, some of the language tests candidates were supposed to “pass” were not even in English. A not very subtle way of keeping certain peoples out.

And you don’t believe your ideas are an open invitation to abuse ...

Different Arabic languages and dialects are spoken in Gaza and the West Bank, both within and distinct from each terroritory. Far be it, that the majority speak standard Arabic.

Some indigenous women and I had a conversation not very long ago, just as women do. They blamed the plight of their peoples on the emasculation of their menfolk - their men had lost their traditional positions and roles within their communities. These had been taken away from them by interfering whites, whom had no concept of tribal lores, nor practices, nor religious mores - indeed individuality; whites who believed themselves to “know better”.

Lev, take a bow, you are a prime example of their damnation.

cont ...
Posted by Danielle, Friday, 25 April 2008 6:32:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Regarding Jews, Palestinians, and “dispossession” ...

During the British Mandatory period , Brits ignored the unrestricted illegal Arab immigration from Egypt, Transjordan and Syria. So bad was it that in 1930, the Hope Simpson Commission condemned this practice.

Illegal Arab immigrations from elsewhere, witnessed the Arab population increase 120% between 1922 and 1947

... yet Arabs complained they were being displaced - an excuse to continually attack Jewish settlers. Not nationalism. They didn’t attack the Brits. In fact, spokesman for Palestinian Arabs, Haj Amin, never asked Britain grant them independence. Instead demanded in a letter to Churchill, 1921, the territory be reunited with Syria and Transjordan.

Hope Simpson himself stated that Jews were being badly exploited by wealthy Arab landlords in land purchases. The Lewis French survey of 1931 found that only 600 Arabs were landless, yet only 100 accepted Government land offered them.

Transjordan’s King Abdullah wrote in his memoirs:

“It is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping”
(King Abdullah, My Memoirs Completed (London, 1978), pp.88-89.

By 1947, Jewish land holdings in Palestine amounted to some 463,000 acres - 45,000 acres acquired from the Mandatory Government, 30,000 acres purchased from various churches, and 387,500 acres purchased from Arabs.

References:

Land Ownership in Palestine 1880-1948 (Academic Committee on the Middle East, 1976)
Michael Curtis et al, The Palestinians (NJ, 1975)
Shabtai Teventh, Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs: From Peace to War (OUP, 1985)
Palestine Royal Commission Report (the Peel Report) (London, 1937)
Yehoshua Porath, The Emergence of the Palestinian-Arab National Movement 1918-1929 (London, 1974)
John Hope Simpson, Palestine: Report on Immigration, Land Settlement and Development (London, 1930)
Lewis French, Report on Agricultural Development and Land Settlement in Palestine (1931) Supplementary Report, April 1932)
Abraham Granott, The Land System in Palestine (London, 1952)

I intended to include page numbers (chapter and verse), however, why should I make it any easier than providing the references themselves
Posted by Danielle, Friday, 25 April 2008 6:38:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Danielle,

The test you refer to was introduced as clause 3(a) of the Immigrantion Act of 1901. It stated that visitors to Australia could be subject to a dictation test in a unspecified European language.

It was rarely used, but was against the Egon Kisch (German nationality, Czech citizenship, Jewish heritage, communist politics). Skilled in a number of languages, the test was conducted in Scots Gaelic which, at the time, was spoken by 1 in 600 Scots. The High Court subsequently ruled that Scots Gaelic, was not a European language.

The Jewish Museaum in St Kilda held a symposium on Kisch in 2004. Dr. Heid Zogbaum's book "Kisch In Australia: The Untold Story" will provide you the necessary education on the matter.

Let me return to the topic and reiterate - for Paul and yourself - the principle of the rights of national state determination.

If a group of people who are indigenous to a region who are a nation, as defined as having shared first language status, wish to form a their own state or states, they should be allowed to do so.

You have provided me the possibility of more reading on land sales prior to the formation of the Israeli state, but I do note your strange attempt to avoid of the extent of the Absentee Property Law of 1950. Indeed only one of the numerous texts you reference even deals with that period.

For a matter of interest, I was the President of the Aboriginal Affairs Policy Committee for a number of years for the Victorian branch of the ALP. We approached our task with humility and with dedication. We involved indigenous leaders in our policy development because we thought that indigenous people themselves knew their own issues best. We acted entirely against the "white man knows better" approach of assimilation in favour of self-determination and independence.

Your comments are grossly offensive and incredibly ignorant, albeit quite consistent with your immature character.

I see no further need to discuss any matters with you.
Posted by Lev, Friday, 25 April 2008 10:12:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev,

You said >>"I am not sure how many individuals in Israel have Hebrew as their first language. In any case if they did indeed want to have their own state of course they would be entitled to it."

Yep. That’s where I thought your dogmatic approach would have to lead you. It also makes a mockery of your one state solution doesn’t it?

I think a pragmatic approach, in issues as complicated as this, is demanded. I feel for the Palestinians but unfortunately for them they don’t seem to throw up too many pragmatists.

Regards the land situation in Israel, this is very different to what you were saying before. You suggested that the Israelis controlled 90% of the land. When I clarified by asking if you meant 90% of the mandate of Palestine, you said yes. And you provided a reference. Now you are trying to suggest that you meant within the borders of Israel proper. You might like to own up to that whopper.

In 1947/1948 Israel was fighting for its very existence. It does not surprise me in the least that PC notions of fairness were thrown out the window. The holocaust was barely two years in the past and they were fighting for their families, their future and their very existence. I don’t think you should be standing in judgement.

After all, as Benny Morris said, ethnic cleansing should be preferred to ethnic slaughter.

I was never suggesting that the pro integration militias were TNI units. What I was pointing out is that they were largely a creature of the TNI, in much the same manner that the Taliban were a creature of the Pakistani ISI. They used them for their own purposes and had important influence in their activities.

If the Indonesians had said “no”, there would have been no peace-keeping mission. Agreed?

Interesting that Israel have recently said they are prepared to give back the Golan in return for peace with Syria. This just further demonstrates the fact that Israel will return Palestinian lands when the Palestinians stop trying to kill them.
Posted by Paul.L, Saturday, 26 April 2008 10:07:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev,

Thank you for the interesting information regarding clause 3(a) of the Immigration Act of 1901.

“ ...no further need to discuss ...”

... and ... I was going to ask your permission to use your description of me:

“ ... a lying, immoral troll, and a parody of a human being ...”

I’d have liked to use this as dialogue for a work I am writing. The character speaking is a sympathetic one ... and I did so think that this vivid imagery would be appropriate ... In all honesty, I couldn’t come up with anything quite so compelling.

One must acknowledge your hard work for our indigenous peoples as President of the Aboriginal Affairs Policy Committee for the Victorian branch of the ALP. .. What happened ...?!

Whilst both Hebrew and Arabic are both official state languages in Israel, Hebrew is the language spoken by most, and most often.

From a one-state Palestinian solution, Lev, have you now gone to atomised multi-nation-states solutions? Back to original tribal units, even nomadic?

Is statehood then applied to the people themselves or some physical territory? Bedouin are Israeli citizens and enjoy full rights. However, use the Bedouin as an example. They have no truck with Palestinians, nor Arab states; nor would Arab states permit them entry.

Indigenous peoples? What about the massive illegal immigration of Arabs from elsewhere? Many Palestinians would not know their origins.

Admittedly, Palestinians have been exploited by such as Arafat; but they have had $billions poured into them. Where is the demand for accountability from donor states.

The West Bank, at least, could have a decent infrastructure, and viable economy. The issue of the illegal settlements, with which we don't agree, could be put aside temporarily. Rather cutting off one's nose ... Serious efforts by Palestinians to establish a progressive independent state would see Israel's support - and address of the settlements.

One can only assume that Palestinian leadership is diverting attention to the "sins" of Israel, whilst diverting capital to itself.
Posted by Danielle, Saturday, 26 April 2008 7:45:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(cont ... from above)

Even being under constant seige, and threat of war, Israel’s laws are not fosilised in stone. Israeli Jews, particularly, are vocal and active, indeed strident on a whole range of issues.Then there is the saying: “Two Jews, three opinions.” All Israeli’s enjoy freedom of speech.

Regarding: Absentee Property Law of 1950

Read: Israel’s "Constitutional Revolution" of 1992.

The Israeli Supreme Court (1992):.

“Equality is a fundamental value of the State of Israel. Each [public] agency in Israel - and above all the State of Israel, its agencies and employees - must act equally between the different individuals in the State. … The State's duty to act equally extends to all its actions. It applies therefore also to the allocation of State land. (Par. 21, 23).”

A couple more works:

David Kretzmer, “The Legal Status of the Arabs in Israel” (Westview Press, 1990)

Kretzmer is founding director of the Centre for Human Rights, Hebrew University,Director of the Minerva Centre for Human Rights, Member of the UN Human Rights Committee from 1995-2002, vice-chairperson 2001 and 2002

Kretzmer provides an historical overview of rules of land possession in the Ottoman and British Mandate periods, including that preceding the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. He makes historical examination of ideological and legal aspects of the Jewish-Arab conflict over land in Palestine; also analysing Property rights in other countries.

Professsor Yifat Holzman-Gazit, “Land Expropriation in Israel: Law. Culture and Society” (Ashgate, 2007)

Holzman-Gazit examines the undemocratic, land expropriation, legal philosophy which was applied by the Supreme Court to Arabs and Jews alike from the creation of the state in 1948 and until the 1980s.

Holzman-Gazit analyses the constitutional change of 1992 and its impact on the legal treatment of property rights under Israeli law. She demonstates the application, with recommendations as part of successful management of any global project.
Posted by Danielle, Saturday, 26 April 2008 7:55:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So whilst debating the issue, the IDF itself deliberately targetted and killed civilians in Gaza, an act of state-sponsored terrorism.

This is Israel, "taking all the right steps along the pathway to peace"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk9_5OUWy3M

It is pointless debating people who defend a state that engages in such actions. They have long given up any pretence of supporting all human beings equally. Or rather, like the former Israeli government's Foreign Affairs chairman Dr. Hacohen

'..they are not human beings, they are not people, they are Arabs.'

Cue... 1... 2... 3.. for the clarions of "but what about Hamas' terrorism?"

Nobody here supports Hamas' terrorism. But we read in disgust when people defend terrorism from a State - or deny it exists - just because they have irrational and inhumane prejudices.
Posted by Lev, Sunday, 27 April 2008 9:47:20 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev

Lucky you were there to see for yourself. No investigation needed. Couldn’t be any of a half-dozen things like, - they were accidently identified as insurgents, a missile went astray, there actually were some insurgents in the area etc. They don’t even know if it was the tank round which did the damage or whether it was a missile. Who in their right mind actually films on the front line of a battle against the Israeli army anyway?

Your suggestion rests upon a hypothesis that battlefield intelligence is perfect. That everyone always knows what is going on, who is where etc. But in real life that is not the case. You don't have the ability to sit back and analyse with the benefit of 20-20. You have to make decisions, often without all the information, and you have to do it NOW. The front line of a war is a very dangerous place to be, between the lines even more so.

It could actually be what you suggest it is; that soldiers or airmen deliberately targeted the Reuters journo and his car; in which case I find it as abhorrent as you. I expect if it is true then Israel will punish the transgressors. But to suggest that it is the policy of the IDF to intentionally target and kill civilians is absolutely not true. And you know this.

No one here defends state terrorism. We don’t accept that Israel or the IDF are terrorists. I won’t deny that there may be incidents which are not acceptable. But to attempt to taint a whole country with the acts of individuals during wartime is unfair and unrealistic.

During WW2 many civilians died when the allies attacked German held towns. They shelled anywhere that the Germans were fighting from. If you want to call the Allies terrorists then find a new word to describe the deliberate attacks on civilians which is HAMAS’s only method of war.

I see you have realised that your one-state solution won’t stand the scrutiny to which you subject Israel. Took a while.
Posted by Paul.L, Sunday, 27 April 2008 12:00:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Strict codes of practice apply to Professional Journalists and photographers in any combat zone, and these codes implement strict protocols to ensure that preservation of safety of jounalists is maintained ... and also of persons nearby.

It would seem that this journalist had not been trained. Indeed one suspects that he was a freelancer who submitted photographs and information to Reuters. Even then he would have had - indeed, should have been grounded in protocols for Professional Journalism.

According to such protocols.

Fatal Mistakes:

1. Fronting a tank in open territory; not from a concealed place where he could not be spotted.

2. He had stopped the vehicle.

3. He and his companions were not wearing flak jackets.

4. From those on bikes killed, he disregarded the possibility of others being killed or injured.

Unfortunately, in the territory from where he took the photographs, press stickers on cars mean zilch. The Hizbolah used press stickers, ambulance emblems, UN insignia and other devices as cover.

However, this is pragmatic; sadly journalists do get killed and maimed in combat zones.

As Paul ably pointed out there could have well been a number of additional factors contributing to this tragedy.

One very obvious problem is in the "idea" of Israel knowingly and deliberately taking out a press vehicle. It would achieve nothing - only worldwide condemnation. The anti-Israel frenzy has already started and the Hamas will ensure that it reaches a crescendo.

Propoganda: Israel -0

Propoganda: Hamas 100+

Lev is already leading the charge. Lev never applies forensic knowledge ... indeed, does not know what this is ... nor does he wait for the findings of expert analysis supported by evidence.

For full information about ethics and protocols of journalists in combat zones:

Society of Professional Journalists
http://www.spj.org/war.asp
Posted by Danielle, Sunday, 27 April 2008 9:21:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As totally expected the grovelling apologists crawled out on their bellies with a new round of excuses. Imagine complaining that a Reuters reporter was apparently not using the standards of a journalism society based in Indianapolis. It was all the reporters fault!

Maybe we should blame the five Palestinian children who died in the same week as not following the standards set by others on where and how to stand around.

Denial, excuses and yet more denial. Anything but actually admit that Israel ever deliberately targets civilians.

Ignore the reports from Amnesty International. Ignore the reports from Human Rights Watch. Ignore the reports from B'Tselem. Ignore the reports from the International Herald Tribune, from Haraatz, from the BBC, from Reuters, from Le Monde, from the Guardian.

Just keep on ignoring it, excusing it and denying it. After all, they're only Arabs.

Even the self-admission of terrorism by Israeli civilians? Will that be defended as well?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=f5s9hHycmiQ

It is no wonder with such prejudice they keep on losing the public relations war over and over again. Most people just aren't that stupid or that prejudiced.

The evidence of the systematic violence, from the state and individuals, keeps pouring out. The new media is killing the lies and the pretence. People can see for themselves what is happening and how it happens.

The greatest tragedy is that what is good about Israel may indeed be lost because of those who can never bring themselves to acknowledge its worst features. After sixty years of attempted colonialism, it comes down to this..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/20/israelandthepalestinians

"I didn't kill anyone, thank God. But when you're kicking down doors and shooting live rounds over the heads of young children in their own homes, you have to question what you're doing."

What they're doing is called the deliberate targetting of civilians. It's called collective punishment. It's called state-sponsored terrorism.

Now let's see a new round of denials.
Posted by Lev, Monday, 28 April 2008 11:52:30 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As expected Lev has become Judge, jury and executioner. It’s not yet even been confirmed what exactly killed the Reuters stringer. You just don’t know and neither do we.

But if you stand in front of a tank during a firefight then you have definitely contributed to your own misadventure.

There has been much blood spilt on both sides. Whilst ever Hamas continue to fight a war from behind the protection of their civilians, civilian casualties are inevitable. I blame Hamas for these casualties as surely as if they had gunned the children down themselves. I mean just look at the article you posted.

>> “Yesterday Hamas militants rammed a bomb-laden car into an Israeli border crossing, killing three of the militants and wounding 13 Israeli soldiers.”

Do you honestly think they had TERRORIST written on their doors? No, they were pretending to be ordinary Arab citizens.

>> “These were the latest attacks in a conflict which has been fed by Arab nationalism, Islamist hostility to Israel and its allies, and the threat of a nuclear Iran.”

>> “The 'Zionist entity', as its enemies call it, remains an object of awe and envy. 'Israel makes us Arabs feel bad. It has no oil, no resources, no nothing, but it wins wars and, if we're honest, looks like a nice place to live. It exposes our own failings and that's why so many of us hate it,”' says Ibrahim Rajoub, who was visiting relatives on the West Bank from his home in Jordan.

>> “But above all the self-analysis and self-criticism of Israel, within what is the closest thing to democracy in the region, have given the Jewish state its greatest strength.”

Of what relevance is winning the PR war. Does it extinguish the need for Israeli children to hide under their school desks during indiscriminate rocket attacks? Does it make civilians at bus stops safer?

The new media is a vehicle for all sorts of voices, many of whom have axes to grind. But heck, the reputable press just aren’t towing the right line to your satisfaction.
Posted by Paul.L, Monday, 28 April 2008 4:01:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The new media is what's gonna help save Israel from itself. "Reputable" sources such as Fox & CNN only confuse people.
Posted by bennie, Monday, 28 April 2008 4:34:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The protocols provided for Professional Journalists, in the site provided, are common for all European media.

As usual, Lev's ethics are questionable. I will not refer to the story in question. Paul has, as always, more than ably addressed this.

However ...

If you deliberately and irresponsibly place yourself in a dangerous situation, it is your responsibility alone if you are killed. This becomes an ethical situation if you have others, such as family reliant upon you.

If you knowingly and unnecessarily place yourself, and with disregard for others, in a dangerous situation, it is completely unethical; especially if there are innocent bystanders.

Israel never deliberately targets civilians. Hamas imbed themselves within civilian groups. When Israelis have been aware of Hamas doing so, they have aborted defensive operations. Tragically, there have been failures due to chain of command. Those who know what "chain of command" means, will understand.

Israel has never targetted schools or hospitals. Hamas have, and celebrate it.

If Lev bothers to read my comments, I have rarely mentioned Hamas' hideous charter against Israel. It speaks for itself.

But ... I have constantly and frequently damned Hamas for their treatment of their own people. The exploitation, terrorism and murders. Hamas use innocent deaths - those killed because Hamas have used them as shields - as propoganda. The more innocents killed this way, the more Hamas rejoice.

One can only assume, due to Lev's total silence on Hamas' abuse of their own people, that he sees this as both ethically and morally sound. Others see this as unconscienceable.
Posted by Danielle, Monday, 28 April 2008 10:46:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For a race of people that has suffered so much over the years, modern Israeli leaders show an unfortunate lack of humility - almost as if such is not needed because they have so much rightness on their sides?

Such is so possibly that despite being pushed down for hundreds of years, the Jewish race has produced individuals such as Einstein et al, proving that it is a religion that has been beneficial especially to Western thought.

Also the historical proof that the bulk of the students attending the Great Library of Alexandria in Egypt were Jews, not only shows that progressive-minded Jews did benefit from Hellenistic culture, but also that the Jewish boy Jesus could also have been influenced by such culture.

There was a saying in the bush about Jewish traders or woolbuyers that though they were friendly enough doing deals in the woolsheds, it was hard to get them to come into the homestead for a cuppa, either that most of them have a chip on their shoulder, or it wa s part of their religion not to do so.

Even so, it was far different mixing with them in the Australian military during WW2, often establishing mateships which found them in action willing to die with and for those of different religions. Such has also happened in sport, which has always been a good medium for getting people to mix better.

One could also question how many Jews hold high positions in our universities when only last night on Foxtel we had the Sky political commentator discussing the Afghanistan problem with who looked as severe as one of our ASIO officials and an Islamic professor from one of our universities, the academic appearing much more eager to discuss sharing the blame in Afghanistan than the other, who continually harped on terrorism

Cheers – BB, WA
Posted by bushbred, Tuesday, 29 April 2008 6:15:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 19
  7. 20
  8. 21
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy