Comments (117)

I have never met a Middle Easterner I didn't like.

It is time for us to admit that the majority of those from the middle east do not trust or like Americans. The hatred for America is deep rooted and unlikely to change regardless of what our policies are or of any efforts we make. Even those who come to America to be educated arrive with a deep mistrust of America and leave with that same mistrust. The US must withdraw from middle eastern affairs and let the nations of the region and the UN work out the problems. American aid, troops and involvement are not the answer.

I am interested by the varying viewpoints presented here. It is critical that readers are aware that this entire site is a series of case studies, which are interesting but rarely, if ever, representative of the whole.

The same is true about the comments coming from Americans about "what America is like." The one that goes into how "America is conflict... you are shark or food" I disagree with blatantly. But, I am a teacher. The world of business may be dog-eat-dog in America and everywhere else, but there are many other aspects.

As an American teaching abroad, I have something of a balanced perspective (I hope). The bottom line is that the issues presented here are challenging and no easy answers exist. I think this is what the professor was trying to show his students. His responses are more than diplomatic, they are reverent of the issues.

Yes, America has spilled blood and has put up many heroic stands seeking to rid the world of oppression and various evils. This very fact raises many questions. Does America have that responsibility? That right? Where is the line drawn? Are we going too far in our "policing" or not far enough?

My personal opinion on these questions matters very little, far more important is the necessity to understand the complexity therein. I love America, I do believe that it is a land of opportunity, but I am not so biased as to think it has everything right. As a Christian man, I do believe in absolute truth, but I am not arrogant enough to believe that all of my beliefs certainly align with what is absolutely true. I am convicted of my beliefs, but I will always seek to listen to and hear others beliefs about even things like faith and democracy. If, indeed, democracy is the best form of government for the world, then we should encourage others to seek the best, and let them discover democracy on their own. If its not, or if it is not "for everyone" (certainly some things are relative), then we should be helping them find what is best for them, not what is best for us.

This applies to all truths. If what I believe about God is true, I should not be afraid to truly listen to the Jew, the Muslim, the Buddhist, for if God is truth, and I am seeking truth, I only stand to gain.

In sum: I love America, I believe in most of what it stands for, but I do believe that the way we come across to the world needs to be humbled down. We have responsibility, surely, but the extent of that responsibility (and right) needs to be constantly reexamined from a global perspective.

Alan:

I have entered the fray on another WaPo blog titled "Don't Expect Much from Annapolis" at:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/hisham_melhem/2007/11/dont_expect_much_from_annapoli/all_comments.html

If you'e interested in a little known outrage Google Noviana Malewa.

It's been a pleasure reading your posts. My best to you and yours.

Sorry for the ommision but the events took place in Sudan. Here's the link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071130/ap_on_re_af/sudan_british_teacher

Newsflash

I’m compelled to write because there is pertinent information in today’s news supporting my past contention that there can’t be a one state solution. Thousands demonstrated to support the execution of an English schoolteacher for allowing her students to name a teddy bear “Muhammed”. In addition to posters, many of these “protestors” carried machetes and screamed “Death by firing squad”.

This school teacher was obviously not trying to insult Muslims. She was living in a third world country trying to educate its children, probably making very little money. She was likely an idealist trying to help out in Sudan. Although the insult is real, it was accidental.

Thousands demonstrating leads me to believe there is a strong possibility that a significant number of Sudanese would support execution in this case. I’m looking at the big picture and not relying on the words of a single cleric in a news quote. Hussein, this is an example of considering a widely held view before coming to a conclusion about the population as a whole. We're not talking about hundreds of people--this is thousands. It's probably mainstream.

The reason I’m bringing this up is that it supports my view that Jews can not accept living in a Muslim country. They wouldn’t be safe. All it takes is naming a teddy bear “Muhammed” for the locals to be whipped up into a frenzy. Imagine if the perpetrator of such a “heinous” action were Jewish, or if there were a Jewish neighborhood for the mob to attack.

William

Thanks for pointing out the article about the al-Duras incident in 2000. I remember reading that the incident has been used to catalyze hatred against Israelis. The surprising aspect of that piece was that the Israelis were using rubber bullets to fight Palestinians using real bullets. It’s obvious that they were not trying to kill the child, who may or may not have been caught in the crossfire. For argument’s sake, let’s consider the highly unlikely possibility of a rogue soldier who actually attempted to kill the child. If this were true, why hate all of the Jews? The overwhelming majority of Israelis do not support attempted murder of children. The government of Israel has never condoned murdering children. Unlike Hamas, who honors the nice folks who blow up buses with school children.

One of the reasons that Jews in Israel should give away the West Bank and make peace is to avoid having to live in a Muslim majority country. Imagine Jews living in a Muslim country. One bad action by a single Jew would probably result in bloodshed because the Muslim community would hold all Jews responsible. Or worse, a rumor could be manufactured to whip up hatred of the Jews. The Jenin “massacre” is an example. If Shiites and Sunnis feel justified killing each other, what chance would Jews have?

Hussein, if he is legitimate, might want to look at the Arab world through Jewish eyes and ponder the apparent double standards in Arabic outrage. In my last blog, I mentioned the Danish cartoon and Abu Graib causing much more outrage than the slaughtering in Iraq or Darfur. A double standard if there ever was one. Consider this double standard as well: Where is the Arab outrage at the Assad regime, which killed 20,000 in Hama in the 1980’s? The old man may have died, but I’m sure the ophthalmologist employs the same generals responsible for that atrocity. The suffering in the West Bank, though real, pales in comparison to Muslim atrocities in Hama, Iraq and Darfur, yet Israel and the Jews are vilified. To repeat a point, the restricted movements in the West Bank only occur because Israel has to check for bombs aimed at its civilians.

Everybody knows that the checkpoints will disappear the minute the bombs disappear. Israelis would rather surf than check trucks for bombs. I’m sure the Palestinian leadership understands this as well. Perhaps they desire economic hardship in order to gain the world’s attention.

Last, I understand about projection but I don’t think you can prove such a theory in this case. Propaganda, yes. Projection, maybe.

Alan:

You mentioned the Jenin “massacre”. In addition to its being propaganda, it’s also an example of psychological projection. Google the Hama massacre.

Propaganda and projection are all part of the Arab array of disinformation. One of the most insidious devices, the blood libel, perfected by medieval Christians is also among them. One of the most recent of which is unraveling. Please see:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=924440&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1

William

I chose to ignore the racist comments of some of the bloggers because one can’t change the mindset of the screaming vocal minority (a majority on a blog, but a minority in the world—most people are apathetic).

Hussein, on the other hand, writes well and is intellectually challenging. He is either misinformed or intentionally propagates what he knows are lies. I can’t be judgmental about him because it is impossible to know with certainty as to which of these two possibilities are correct. I hope it’s the former because he’s smart.

Your comments enlightened me to the paradox inherent in two variations of the truth which seemingly directly contradict one another. This might explain the erroneous conclusion that suicide bombers targeting civilians deserve sympathy even if one condemns their acts. In the words of my father from Brooklyn, “ya gotta know right from wrong”. Too bad there aren’t enough folks in the Muslim world adopting this view. All of them should understand that blowing up buses with school children is wrong. Glorifying the perpetrators and their families is nefarious. Aiming missiles indiscriminately at civilians is more wrong than Israeli retaliation in which civilians non-combants are killed because the attackers choose such neighborhoods from which to launch missiles. The missile launchers need condemnation every time by everyone. I’m not holding my breath waiting for that to happen. It is encouraging that France voted for Sakozy and might be “getting it” when it comes to vilification of the U.S.

Thanks for debunking the quotes in an academic fashion. I do not possess an iota of the historical scholarship that you do. As for Hussein, he needs to try to find out truth as a whole rather than attempt to create truth based on individual quotations or single news articles written immediately after an event. Such writing is often littered with errors, as I noted in my earlier blog where I mentioned the Jenin “massacre”.

I appreciate the effort on your part, will read the texts you have outlined and will continue searching for the truth. Hopefully, someone reading these blogs will understand the viewpoint that the world needs to get Muslims to understand that intentionally targeting civilians is always abhorrent no matter what the grievances are. If they continue to be whipped up into a frenzy over cartoons or photos from Abu Graib, they will never improve their lot. As a side note, the photos from Abu Graib are revolting, but they pale in comparison to heinous acts going on everyday in Iraq. The slaughter is ignored in the Muslim world when compared to the reactions to the cartoon or photos mentioned above. Humiliation and impotence seem to be more horrifying to Arabs than beheadings of people praying in mosques in Iraq.

The Arabs need to realize that they should focus on obliterating the mindset that the end result is worth any means, because they will never achieve the end result through violence toward civilians. Eventually, as the violence escalates, they will be marginalized and ostracized.

Scholars need to stop talking about the minority hijacked by radicalism and start realizing the profoundness of widespread support for suicide bombings of innocents. They need to ask how so many of them view Osama Bin Laden as some sort of Robin Hood. I don’t know what percentage of the Arabic Middle East thinks of Bin Laden as a hero, but the last time I looked, he has a higher acceptability quotient than George Bush does in this country. This is not a minority fringe group that likes Bin Laden or accepts suicide bombings of civilians--- it’s mainstream.

If the Arab and Muslim world ever wholeheartedly repudiates the intentional killing of innocents, they will enjoy their lives much sooner. I’m hoping such enlightenment comes before more evil events occur. But I’m not deluded enough to think this will happen anytime soon.

Alan:

Had you not taken the time to respond to Hussein in such an extraordinary manner, I would have left the field satisfied that I had accomplished what I had intended. Your effort compels me to reenter the fray. I hope very much that you will take a moment to read on.

I am a middle-aged American with a military background; and, despite some of my contentious additions to the blog, I am well educated and well read. I have also spent a considerable amount of time in different parts of the world and have been able to hold my own in several different languages. We hold at least one thing in common: Just as you revealed, I also had posted nothing publically before finding this and several other related PostGlobal blogs.

What led me to invest the effort was a complete revulsion at the tone of the vast majority of comments. There seemed to be such a complete lack of sensibility and such an unreasoned hostility toward Jews that my first inclination was to reach through my modem and start slapping people straight. I’m sure that if you have read some of my hyperbole that the exasperation is obvious. But, there is also some method behind the madness.

First, let me say that there is not a syllable of what I have written that is not accurate. My intention is purely to educate – to be challenging but absolutely factual. There most likely would have been no mention of the Nebi Musa and Yaffa riots had I not injected them into the conversation. In a few moments there will be more of the same.

Second, the unreasoned hostility toward Jews that I alluded to is becoming more and more prevalent not only here but in the broader discourse. That is intolerable. I will not stand by and allow it to go unchallenged – not on my watch. If you lie about Jews, I don’t care who you are or how it’s camouflaged, you’re an anti-Semite. I am old enough to have first-hand memories of many of the momentous events of the last century, and it appears that many of the nightmares of that era refuse to die. It is unfortunately true that most people believe that history began when they were born. Graffiti artists and one-note sambas aside persistent disinformation with complete disregard to verifiable historic records requires a response.

The main purpose of addressing you is to say that you have reaffirmed, despite the rising tide of world-wide journalistic bias, general academic malpractice and woeful public stupidity, the ability of thoughtful people to put it all aside and hold firm to what is right. My hat is off to you.

Hussein:

Many years ago I read that Islamic logic is dualistic. That is, two contradictory things in the same frame of reference can be held to be true; whereas Western logic is based upon the law of contradiction — if two things contradict, then at least one of them is false. I am most certain that this is correct and it is the kindest thing that I can say about your pseudo-eloquence.

The late Edward Said (a most important figure for he is the author of the “Palestinian narrative”) a most urbane, charming and erudite individual, once characterized all Europeans thusly: "Orientalism can say this almost without qualification – Orientalism was such a system of truths, truths in Nietzsche’s sense of the word. It is therefore correct that every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was consequently a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric". Clearly then you are not the first to describe me as a racist. But, at least I am able to offer up quotes in context both immediate and historic.

When you say “He” as in “He clearly and unambiguously admitted…” you are referring to David Ben-Gurion and the inference is that pre-1948, he and his fellows drove hapless Arabs from their villages. The quote you reference, according to Wikipedia and numerous other sources is, however, taken from an address Moshe Dayan gave to Technion University students on March 19, 1969. From Wikipedia:

A transcription of the speech appeared in Ha'aretz on April 4, 1969. In answer to a student's question suggesting that Israel adopt a policy of punishing Arabs who commit crimes in the West Bank by deportation to Jordan, Dayan answers that he is vehemently opposed to this idea, insisting that the answer to the longstanding Arab-Israeli problem is to learn to live together with Arab neighbors. He goes on to say:

“We came to a region that was inhabited by Arabs, and we set up a Jewish state. In many places, we purchased the land from Arabs and set up Jewish villages where there had once been Arab villages. You don't even know the names [of the previous Arab villages] and I don't blame you, because those geography books aren't around anymore. Not only the books, the villages aren't around...”

Dayan's conclusion was that the solution to the Arab-Israeli problem is to learn to coexist with them.

A cursory check of information available on the Internet reveals that there may be deeper problems besides context. The quote becomes problematic because it appears that (referencing the full quote) Dayan grew up virtually across the road from Mahlul at Nahlal and therefore should have known that Nahlal did not arise in the place of Mahlul. It appears that the two villages, the best I am able to discern, co-existed until1948. In fact, look at:

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Nazareth/Ma'lul/index.html#Town%20Statistics%20&%20Facts

This “Palestinian” site appears to confirm my case.

Now to confuse the situation even further, the official Website of Ilan Pappé conjectures that “Dayan was probably quoting Ben Gurion from the 'The Jewish Paradox'”. However, it looks like “The Jewish Paradox” wasn’t written until 1979 and Dayan’s speech was given in 1969. The widespread misuse of this quote recycled again and again through the propaganda mill could, by itself, be the subject of a lengthy article.

It is necessary to restate that the implied purpose of using the quote was to claim that pre-1948 Palestinian Jews copiously expropriated Palestinian Arab lands – something that it clearly does not. If you choose to continue along these lines, we will have to have a lengthy discussion with its centerpiece as the map of Palestine when the San Remo Conference decided on April 24, 1920 to assign the Mandate for Palestine under the League of Nations to Britain. Then we will continue with Britain’s subsequent subdivisions of that mandated area.

Now I want to inspect another Ben-Gurion quote that is misused in an even more sinister way. Also from Wikipedia:

“We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their places. “
Letter to his son Amos (5 October 1937), as quoted in Fabricating Israeli History: The 'New Historians (2000) by Efraim Karsh

This was extensively quoted as "[We] must expel Arabs and take their places" after appearing in this form in The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949 (1987) by Benny Morris, p. 25.

The immediate lesson is that Benny Morris, Ilan Pappé, Avi Shlaim, Tom Segev and Simha Flapan (all Jews, by the way), the so-called New Historians, are highly suspect and widely used for propaganda purposes. The broader lesson is that so-called quotes, as we all should know, are valueless unless broadened by both immediate and historic context.

Another quote that you use:

"If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter"

Is easily understood as deliberate and obvious exaggeration used for effect when completed by:

“for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel.” Attributed to Ben-Gurion by Martin Gilbert in "Israel was everything" in The New York Times (21 June 1987)

Finally, because disentangling all of your unctuous Saidian verbiage is hard work, I want to end, but end with a recommendation. Your efforts are not unappreciated. You serve as a literal “teaching moment” for my “racist” ruminations. Please continue.

Hussein

I’ll address your letter in order of the items that you listed them. First, I’m not comfortable giving my location on this type of blog. Mean people could be reading this. Suffice to say that I’m one of the 10 million people living in the greater LA region.

It is apparent that there are two opinions regarding the initial immigrants in Israel. One states that the Jews bought their properties at first, with help from Jews in wealthy countries. When they were attacked, riots and battles resulted in population shifts. The other states that the Arabs were kicked out of their homes from the beginning. It seems pointless to debate this issue because we’ll never come to agreement on it.

I lived in Israel and I can tell you first hand that the majority of people are not racist. Yes, you’ll find quotes from people who are racist, but this is not true for the majority. I have black friends, however, who believe that everybody is a little racist down deep, so I am open minded to the possibility of subtle racism. The racism on the side of Palestinians is not subtle. It is state sponsored and includes television programs geared to ignite Arabic children to hate Jews.

As far as Israeli hate crimes are concerned, the courts usually do a good job prosecuting these cases. I’m sure you can find several examples suggesting otherwise, but these are the exception and not the rule. But finding an example to support your views is not the same as finding out what goes on most of the time. I remember the first reports of the Israeli “massacre” in Jenin, in which numerous reputable news providers quoted Jenin residents who saw hundreds of dead people. When the UN checked this out, the number was around 13 noncombatant deaths, if I remember correctly. The point is that it might not be advisable to trust newspapers or television broadcasts soon after such an event.

The next point you make concerns Ariel Sharon. He is no more responsible for civilian deaths than are countless other persons around the world who lead in times of war. Armies going through civilian areas can result in dead noncombatants. Israel at least issues regrets when such tragedies occur. Did Nasrallah issue such regrets? If Israel wanted to kill civilians, they could kill a boatload. It would be easy to blow up an entire neighborhood looking for someone with a missile but the Isreali leaders choose not to go this route. I’m not talking about the occasional military bomb gone astray. Israel sends its soldiers on dangerous missions when they could instead send their airforce and kill hundreds. Israel even takes an extra step to avoid civilian casualties. When they bombed Lebanese towns from which numerous missiles were being launched, they preceded such action by dropping leaflets telling the residents (and missile launchers!) when to expect the bombing. Did Putin do this in Grozny? I suggest the Muslim world would be better off complaining about his complete destruction of Grozny before pointing fingers at Israel. How would China or America react to missiles being launched onto their cities? My guess would be with a lot more force and no warnings for residents. Regardless, condemnation should be reserved for Hizballah choosing to launch missiles from civilian regions.

Now to suicide bombings. The “violent” occupation for the most part involves traffic checks that result in time inconveniences to residents and economic hardship for businesses. These checkpoints are established to search for bombs aimed at civilians. For several years in the 1990’s there were very few of these checkpoints, which had to be reestablished once suicide bombings became so popular. I like your clarification that civilian targets are unacceptable. Any government that would encourage targeting civilians intentionally and honor those who kill children should be ostracized by the world community. Until Hamas pulls down the posters honoring those who have killed children, they should be ostracized. The Muslim world needs to repudiate intentional killing of innocents under any circumstances. I mentioned Darfur and Iraq in my last blog as being non-controversial in the Muslim world when compared to that obscure Danish cartoon. This needs to change.

Now for the “radical quote”. “Radical” to me means that it is acceptable to kill civilians to achieve a political or religious goal. Jewish radicals in Israel are a tiny minority. Compare this with the 50-75% of the Palestinians who support suicide bombings against civilian targets in poll after poll. We’re not talking about a people who’ve been hijacked by a few radicals. Targeting civilians is mainstream in the Palestinian collective mindset.

Regarding two states versus one state. You mentioned that there were periods of time that Jews have lived safely among Muslims before Israel was a country. Jews should never be forced to live within a Muslim majority because all it takes is rumor and a crazy cleric to whip the mindset of the locals into attacking Jewish civilians. You and I both know there have been a lot more Arabic mob killings than vice versa. Jewish synagogues have been attacked in Muslim communities and Jews were not allowed to pray in Jerusalem when Jordan was in control. To revisit the “living peacefully side by side in the 1910’s” concept, I believe Shiites and Sunnis lived side by side in Iraq until a few years ago. Israelis seeing the lack of condemnation in the Arab world to such slaughter would be naïve to think that this could never happen to them in the context of a Muslim state.

The solution is two states. The Palestinians should finally be let out of their refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon. They should be allowed to settle in the West Bank and Gaza. All of these regions share the same language and religion. Palestinians already make up a large portion of Jordan. Together, these areas are probably ten times the size of Israel. Unfortunately, the Israelis might not want to negotiate. This might have something to do with the fact that they pulled out of Lebanon completely in 2000 but were still attacked. Until the Muslim world repudiates anti-Semitism and terrorism, I wouldn’t be too optimistic about peace.

Finally, I sincerely hope you stop finding sympathy for would-be suicide bombers. It would be better to find sympathy instead for those suffering economic hardship due to the occupation of the West Bank, which is a result of the Israelis searching for bombs. Would be suicide bombers who would like to target civilians should be condemned on every occasion by everyone around the world. I respectfully request that you clarify your position on this last point.

On a side note, what do you think of the Hamas preamble quotation presented by “anonymous”?

Regards:

PS---

William

Thanks for the subtle warning to take care. Also, I like the Texas line about lies traveling halfway around the world before the truth can get it pants on. I would say that the Jenin "massacre" is a classic example.

RE: Hamas and its founder.

As I have posted in earlier comments, the preamble to the Hamas charter states "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." As for Sheikh Ahmed Yassin (killed by Hellfire missiles on March 22, 2004) he stated that "reconciliation with the Jews is a crime." (Filastin al-Muslimah (London), March 1995.)

Yassin suggested to the New York Times that Hamas had become more violent primarily because they now have more sophisticated and destructive weapons: "The Palestinian people are not the same as they were in 1967. At that time, nobody knew how to make explosives... but now, everybody knows, and Israel will never be the same." (New York Times, April 4, 2002.)

The Boston Globe reported that after a Palestinian attack, which left four Jewish seminary students dead, "Hamas spiritual leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin told 30,000 supporters at a rally... 'Resistance will move forward. Jihad will continue, and martyrdom operations will continue until the full liberation of Palestine.'" (December 28, 2002.)

Alan:

I have been checking Hussein’s “quotes”. They are either highly problematic or ripped violently out of context. I will comment on them later; but, with the sheer volume of garbage that’s being spewed and the time it takes to bust it, I can only say that a lie travels halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to put its pants on. The recent links he posted epitomize the old moral equivalence game – pure taqiyya.

And most importantly, I am compelled to say that Daniel Pearl did not fall into the hands of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed because he (Pearl) was a complete fool, but because he was completely fooled. Please take care.

Alan:

Well, first things first. Which part of LA are you in? I was there in the summer, visiting a relative who had just graduated from UCLA. Not half-bad, just not for me.
This is my 8th year in Lebanon, and you can say that I’m quite religious- just not in the classical sense.

Now back to politics. First of all, I think it’s imperative for us to distinguish between the inherent racism in developed countries against peoples of different races or religions (and of all people, the Jews can attest to this), and the Palestinian reaction to the illegal immigration of the ‘20s. The violent responses were not because of their ‘insecurity’ or anti-Semitism, but because hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants were being forcefully shipped into the territories without their consent, and without having any homes to accommodate them.

The ‘legal purchases’ you are referring to account for less than 5% of the land the Israelis now occupy. It’s like saying that your house is legally mine because I purchased your patio, roughly speaking. You can’t evict the local population and actual owners because of the fact that you’ve been subjected to centuries of oppression- as tempting as that can be; just ‘getting away’ from all that racism and going back to the ‘Promised Land’. The only thing you’re actually doing is compensating for one injustice with another- which is just as unacceptable.

You mention the widespread anti-Semitism among the Arab masses, and I agree: there is quite a lot, and this will require years of healing for it to go away. But saying that this prejudice is one-sided and that most Jews don’t share this racism is an illusion in itself. All you have to do is check Yediot Ahronot, Maariv, WorldNetDaily, Camera.org, DEBKa files, and countless other outlets that represent the opinions of so many Jewish people and just reek of racism.

Now when you talk about ‘unjustifiable’ crimes (when you referred to suicide bombings), I’m sure you’re aware of the several hate crimes and lynches that occurred around the time of the Gaza disengagement two years back, when a half-dozen Palestinians were murdered in cold blood by disgruntled settlers. One 7 year old was stabbed 21 times by an angry Jewish mob, and died simply because he was ‘in the wrong place, at the wrong time’.

You also evoke the event of “(…) a Palestinian mob lynching two Israelis soldiers and dragging their carcasses around the city streets”
Here’s an example of the ‘honorable soldiers’ you were grieving for.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Middle-East-Conflict/Soldiers-regularly-desecrate-bodies-Israeli-paper-says/2004/11/18/1100748141463.html?from=moreStories

And here’s another story about a poor 13-year old girl whose already lifeless body was riddled with 15 bullets by an army officer, who- by the way- walked without charges.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Middle-East-Conflict/Army-wants-to-exhume-body-of-Palestinian-girl/2004/11/18/1100748148068.html?from=moreStories

The Sydney Morning Herald website is just one I stumbled upon, I can find you many others- if, for some reason, you find this one unreliable.

As for Ariel Sharon, he is just as responsible for civilian murders (if not more) than any of the elected Hamas politicians. Haniya- the Palestinian PM- has virtually no blood on his hands, and is much, much more pragmatic than most Palestinian leaders (he is even more reasonable than many Fatah officials). Shunning him is one the West’s- and Israel’s- biggest gaffes and I still think that no peace can be achieved while relying on Abbas alone.

Now regarding the point you made about ‘sympathizing with’ suicide bombings, I have two things to say. First, sympathy for would-be suicide bombers is NOT the same as sympathy for, or acceptance of, the act itself. I feel bad both for those who have been put in such a position, and their Israeli victims. Second, suicide bombings are not an absolute, reprehensible evil that ‘is in no way acceptable’. Suicide bombings are a violent means like any other, and I condemn suicide bombings not for the method employed, but because of the targets often involved.

Saying ‘suicide bombings are wrong’ is just the same as saying that ‘guns’, ‘missiles’, or ‘tanks’ are “wrong” because the latter can cause much, much more indiscriminate damage. Striking Israeli targets is not something I would favor, but I’d be a liar if I were to tell you that I feel even the slightest speck of sympathy for downed Israeli soldiers participating in a violent occupation or incursion. It IS interesting to note, however, that despite Hamas’ terrorism, they have killed less people in total (approx. 400) than Israel has CHILDREN IN THE PAST 6 YEARS (over 2,000). What’s even more ‘surprising’ is that the Israelis have more accurate weapons and more reliable intelligence- go figure!

Note: whoever is going to try to claim that ‘human shields’ are being used by the Palestinians save it, because that is definitely not true, and I can dig up many Israeli Army statements confirming this. Not that the terrorists are good people, just that this isn’t one of the horrible acts that they’ve undertaken. Waiting until the rocket launchers retreat to the city and striking them when they are in populated areas is not ‘collateral damage’; it’s intentional collective punishment.

As for your last point about ‘Jews feeling insecure’, I can absolutely understand where this is coming from. After all, the Jews survived centuries of persecution only to be herded to a land where they weren’t wanted, in one part of the world, and nearly simultaneously subjected to a mass extermination in another. However, this paranoia- although justified- is not reason enough to defend the current status quo. Fact of the matter is that the only thing blocking peace right now is an Israeli refusal of sharing Historic Palestine (I say Historic Palestine not out of affection, but because I’m referring to both the Territories and modern-day Israel). The Jews lived in peace alongside their Palestinian neighbors prior to the tragic chain of events that began in the late 1910’s, and they may do so again- hopefully as soon as both parties are given a chance to heal. An Islamic, Christian, or Jewish state is not an acceptable option. Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, Hamas’ original founder, had even staged talks with a local settler leader in the late 1990’s- early 2000’s. I can’t remember the direct quote, but one of the most memorable things he had said went along the lines of ‘you and I, we can solve this issue in five minutes. But it’s the radicals on both sides that use the banners of religion and nationalism to subjugate our people’. I should definitely find the exact quote, though.

A two-state solution will never work. No matter how you look at it, both sides would be getting a raw deal (although Palestinians will admittedly be worse off than the Israelis in such a settlement). It’s up to the realists on both sides to acknowledge this, and you may just be surprised by the allies Israel would stumble upon. That being said, I am certain that this won’t happen any time soon- especially with both current authorities (the PA and Likud/Kadima/Labor) in place. And with Abbas re-arming and Yisrael Beitenu gaining clout, the prospects of an actual solution are dimming by the minute.

We can only hope that both peoples become aware of the bitter reality they are facing before the only solution they reach is a ‘final solution’.

Rgds

Hussein:

Thank you for posting another well written reply. Since you’ve shared some of your background, I’ll share some of mine. I’m Jewish, not religious, live in Los Angeles, and I’ve never posted comments on a news blog. I lived in Israel for a year to attend a university exchange. I was embarrassed about my lack of understanding of these issues during that year in Jerusalem, especially so when I interacted with the Arab students, who represented about a quarter of my dormitory floor. I have since tried to educate myself about the country, its neighbors, and its history. The reason I’ve continued to post is that your arguments are understandable and not racist or hateful.

I also understand why the typical Palestinian man would have been angry in the early part of the 20th century, when he saw his neighborhood change due to a huge influx of members of another religion. This anger is typical everywhere in the world that immigrants cause change. It happened in the United States as a reaction to Irish immigrants, followed by anger toward Italian and Jewish immigrants. It’s happening in France and Germany right now. I believe that anger caused by large scale immigration stems either from fear of change or from being forced to change one’s lifestyle. In the U.S., we have a giant Hispanic migration going on right now. One hundred years ago, there probably would have been lynchings. Now, most of us look at immigrants as bringing their heritage to enrich our own. We’ve are less racist--same thing with Israelis.

There are a few things you mentioned that I think are erroneous. First, you can’t judge today’s typical Israeli based on the sayings of Ben Gurion 60 years ago. People have progressed and values have changed. Most of the Israelis that I know are not racist and sincerely hope for peace. I never heard racist comments first hand at the Hebrew University. Contrast that to the “Jews are pigs and dogs” Arabic television shows that you can find on youtube.

The Israelis who do not want peace primarily fall into two categories, the religious ones and the right wing non-religious people. The religious people simply believe God gave them their country. Forget about changing that minority—it’s hopeless, but at least it’s a minority. The secular Israelis who do not like the idea of peace usually come to the conclusion that the Arabs hate them so much that they can not be trusted. Or that if Israel offers land for peace, it means that terrorism is effective and that the Arabs will learn that terrorism pays dividends. Or finally, that any peace is not true but would instead be a hudna that will eventually result in another war or genocide.

This second group of Israelis represents the swing vote for peace, and can change their mindset. In fact, this occurred in the late 1990’s. Unfortunately, they won’t change their mindset in the near future. The reason has nothing to do with giving up land. It lies more in their trying to understand their Arab neighbors’ actions. This second group of Israelis are dismayed that Palestinians would vote for Hamas. In the Jewish mind, the fact that Palestinians would replace a corrupt government (the PA) with another that has sponsored suicide bombings of innocent civilians is horrifying. No matter what your grievances are, the response should never include killing six year olds intentionally and celebrating the “martyrs” who took such action. In short, Jews would live with corruption before allowing murderers to take office. (Please do not respond with Ariel Sharon being a murderer. He didn’t aim his weapons with the intent of killing children.)

Please don’t think that I’m implying that only Palestinians would elect murderers. We saw similar actions by Austrian citizens in the 1980’s when they elected Waldheim as their nation’s leader. To clarify, he was a Nazi who personally sent 200 Jewish children to their deaths in concentration camps. This brings us to another problem. Israelis shouldn’t trust Europeans too much. Europe’s anti-Semitism is profound. There is also negligence by Europeans when they see racism or unfairness in the treatment of Jews or Israelis. Examples of such negligence include a Germany that will trade 5.9 billion dollars with Ahmadinejad this year even though he is seeking nuclear weapons and states Israel should be wiped off the planet. Another example would be the Italian news station that apologized to Arafat for airing footage showing a Palestinian mob lynching two Israelis soldiers and dragging their carcasses around the city streets. Isrealis couldn’t believe a European news agency would cave in like that. They also wonder why there was no outrage in Italy.

The point here is that Israel is likely to refuse making major concessions not because of racism toward Arabs but rather because of their justifiable paranoia. The road to peace is therefore in the hands of the Palestinians and other Arabs in the Middle East. Those who are truly interested in peace need to change their mindset. They need to condemn terrorism in English and in Arabic. Sesame Street on PA television should stop broadcasting homages to suicide bombings. Journalists should be allowed to condemn Hamas or PA policies. Anger should be focused on legitimate protests rather than calls for Israel’s destruction. Palestinians should stop voting for anyone who states that intentionally bombing a school bus is honorable.

I have a different version of history when it comes to Israeli immigrants last century. They purchased their land legally at first. Once families were murdered in their own homes, things changed. Battles started and populations shifted. I’m sure there were heinous actions taken by both sides but their aren’t too many examples of Israelis murdering Arabs in their homes, or Israeli mobs rampaging through Arab neighborhoods, killing whoever happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. So forgive their inability to see justification for terrorism or state sponsored racism because they have never experienced that mindset, even after the Holocaust. Jews didn’t murder innocent German families.

You say that you condemn terrorism but understand it. There should be no reason whatsoever for understanding terrorism. It should be no different than pedophilia. I understand that a person who was sexually abused as a child is likely to become a sexual abuser but I condemn it harshly and would never remotely be sympathetic to a pedophile. Your “understanding” of terrorism smacks of sympathy. Blowing up a bus filled with children is unthinkable to Jews, who could have performed such actions in Germany or in Israeli Arabic neighborhoods but would never commit such atrocities. Most Israelis understand that their Arab neighbors don’t feel the same way. They look at the slaughtering going on in Iraq and Darfur and can’t understand the world wide Moslem outrage at an obscure Danish cartoon but no such outrage when their coreligionists are killed in mosques in Iraq. Moreover, they see that if Sunni’s and Shiites have no problems killing children, then what chance would Jews have in a Moslem country?

For these reasons, they are rightfully concerned about their right to live in a Jewish nation. In Israel, Moslems can freely worship, as can Christians, Bahai, and probably scientologists, for all I know. In contrast, Jews were restricted from praying in Jerusalem by Jordan before 1967 and they can’t even visit Saudi Arabia, much less pray there. Israelis would give back most of the land to avoid having to live in a majority Moslem community because of the possibility of being mob killed or being unable to practice their religion. Their actions have nothing to do with racism. This is not to say that there are no racist Jews, it’s just that they are a small minority. Your quotations of racist comments from individual Israelis are misleading because most Israelis are not racist.

So what will happen to the Palestinians? For one thing, the three Palestinian “States” of the West Bank, Jordan, and Gaza will dwarf Israel in size. But the only way they will obtain their own country will be when they reject terrorism. The Palestinians should be absorbed by the countries that they fled to, such as Jordan and Lebanon. Such population shifts have occurred numerous times around the world so this would be nothing new. Palestinians should be free to move to the West Bank and elect leaders who will lead responsibly and stop blaming the Jews for their problems as a means of keeping their power. The checkpoints and barriers are there to prevent terrorism, not to exert racist subjugation. I would suggest that you avoid condemning the humiliating checkpoints in the West Bank and start condemning the terrorism that caused their erection instead.

I hope I’ve given you some insight into the mindset of many Israelis and Jews. I am impressed that you read Haaretz. But when you do read that newspaper, I wish you ask yourself what most Israelis are thinking, rather than looking for individual quotes to support your conclusions. You would understand us a lot better.

Regards

Hussein:

Thank you for posting another well written reply. Since you’ve shared some of your background, I’ll share some of mine. I’m Jewish, not religious, live in Los Angeles, and I’ve never posted comments on a news blog. I lived in Israel for a year to attend a university exchange. I was embarrassed about my lack of understanding of these issues during that year in Jerusalem, especially so when I interacted with the Arab students, who represented about a quarter of my dormitory floor. I have since tried to educate myself about the country, its neighbors, and its history. The reason I’ve continued to post is that your arguments are understandable and not racist or hateful.

I also understand why the typical Palestinian man would have been angry in the early part of the 20th century, when he saw his neighborhood change due to a huge influx of members of another religion. This anger is typical everywhere in the world that immigrants cause change. It happened in the United States as a reaction to Irish immigrants, followed by anger toward Italian and Jewish immigrants. It’s happening in France and Germany right now. I believe that anger caused by large scale immigration stems either from fear of change or from being forced to change one’s lifestyle. In the U.S., we have a giant Hispanic migration going on right now. One hundred years ago, there probably would have been lynchings. Now, most of us look at immigrants as bringing their heritage to enrich our own. We’ve are less racist--same thing with Israelis.

There are a few things you mentioned that I think are erroneous. First, you can’t judge today’s typical Israeli based on the sayings of Ben Gurion 60 years ago. People have progressed and values have changed. Most of the Israelis that I know are not racist and sincerely hope for peace. I never heard racist comments first hand at the Hebrew University. Contrast that to the “Jews are pigs and dogs” Arabic television shows that you can find on youtube.

The Israelis who do not want peace primarily fall into two categories, the religious ones and the right wing non-religious people. The religious people simply believe God gave them their country. Forget about changing that minority—it’s hopeless, but at least it’s a minority. The secular Israelis who do not like the idea of peace usually come to the conclusion that the Arabs hate them so much that they can not be trusted. Or that if Israel offers land for peace, it means that terrorism is effective and that the Arabs will learn that terrorism pays dividends. Or finally, that any peace is not true but would instead be a hudna that will eventually result in another war or genocide.

This second group of Israelis represents the swing vote for peace, and can change their mindset. In fact, this occurred in the late 1990’s. Unfortunately, they won’t change their mindset in the near future. The reason has nothing to do with giving up land. It lies more in their trying to understand their Arab neighbors’ actions. This second group of Israelis are dismayed that Palestinians would vote for Hamas. In the Jewish mind, the fact that Palestinians would replace a corrupt government (the PA) with another that has sponsored suicide bombings of innocent civilians is horrifying. No matter what your grievances are, the response should never include killing six year olds intentionally and celebrating the “martyrs” who took such action. In short, Jews would live with corruption before allowing murderers to take office. (Please do not respond with Ariel Sharon being a murderer. He didn’t aim his weapons with the intent of killing children.)

Please don’t think that I’m implying that only Palestinians would elect murderers. We saw similar actions by Austrian citizens in the 1980’s when they elected Waldheim as their nation’s leader. To clarify, he was a Nazi who personally sent 200 Jewish children to their deaths in concentration camps. This brings us to another problem. Israelis shouldn’t trust Europeans too much. Europe’s anti-Semitism is profound. There is also negligence by Europeans when they see racism or unfairness in the treatment of Jews or Israelis. Examples of such negligence include a Germany that will trade 5.9 billion dollars with Ahmadinejad this year even though he is seeking nuclear weapons and states Israel should be wiped off the planet. Another example would be the Italian news station that apologized to Arafat for airing footage showing a Palestinian mob lynching two Israelis soldiers and dragging their carcasses around the city streets. Isrealis couldn’t believe a European news agency would cave in like that. They also wonder why there was no outrage in Italy.

The point here is that Israel is likely to refuse making major concessions not because of racism toward Arabs but rather because of their justifiable paranoia. The road to peace is therefore in the hands of the Palestinians and other Arabs in the Middle East. Those who are truly interested in peace need to change their mindset. They need to condemn terrorism in English and in Arabic. Sesame Street on PA television should stop broadcasting homages to suicide bombings. Journalists should be allowed to condemn Hamas or PA policies. Anger should be focused on legitimate protests rather than calls for Israel’s destruction. Palestinians should stop voting for anyone who states that intentionally bombing a school bus is honorable.

I have a different version of history when it comes to Israeli immigrants last century. They purchased their land legally at first. Once families were murdered in their own homes, things changed. Battles started and populations shifted. I’m sure there were heinous actions taken by both sides but their aren’t too many examples of Israelis murdering Arabs in their homes, or Israeli mobs rampaging through Arab neighborhoods, killing whoever happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. So forgive their inability to see justification for terrorism or state sponsored racism because they have never experienced that mindset, even after the Holocaust. Jews didn’t murder innocent German families.

You say that you condemn terrorism but understand it. There should be no reason whatsoever for understanding terrorism. It should be no different than pedophilia. I understand that a person who was sexually abused as a child is likely to become a sexual abuser but I condemn it harshly and would never remotely be sympathetic to a pedophile. Your “understanding” of terrorism smacks of sympathy. Blowing up a bus filled with children is unthinkable to Jews, who could have performed such actions in Germany or in Israeli Arabic neighborhoods but would never commit such atrocities. Most Israelis understand that their Arab neighbors don’t feel the same way. They look at the slaughtering going on in Iraq and Darfur and can’t understand the world wide Moslem outrage at an obscure Danish cartoon but no such outrage when their coreligionists are killed in mosques in Iraq. Moreover, they see that if Sunni’s and Shiites have no problems killing children, then what chance would Jews have in a Moslem country?

For these reasons, they are rightfully concerned about their right to live in a Jewish nation. In Israel, Moslems can freely worship, as can Christians, Bahai, and probably scientologists, for all I know. In contrast, Jews were restricted from praying in Jerusalem by Jordan before 1967 and they can’t even visit Saudi Arabia, much less pray there. Israelis would give back most of the land to avoid having to live in a majority Moslem community because of the possibility of being mob killed or being unable to practice their religion. Their actions have nothing to do with racism. This is not to say that there are no racist Jews, it’s just that they are a small minority. Your quotations of racist comments from individual Israelis are misleading because most Israelis are not racist.

So what will happen to the Palestinians? For one thing, the three Palestinian “States” of the West Bank, Jordan, and Gaza will dwarf Israel in size. But the only way they will obtain their own country will be when they reject terrorism. The Palestinians should be absorbed by the countries that they fled to, such as Jordan and Lebanon. Such population shifts have occurred numerous times around the world so this would be nothing new. Palestinians should be free to move to the West Bank and elect leaders who will lead responsibly and stop blaming the Jews for their problems as a means of keeping their power. The checkpoints and barriers are there to prevent terrorism, not to exert racist subjugation. I would suggest that you avoid condemning the humiliating checkpoints in the West Bank and start condemning the terrorism that caused their erection instead.

I hope I’ve given you some insight into the mindset of many Israelis and Jews. I am impressed that you read Haaretz. But when you do read that newspaper, I wish you ask yourself what most Israelis are thinking, rather than looking for individual quotes to support your conclusions. You would understand us a lot better.

First, let's start with William:

I've seriously given up hope on replying to your posts. One racist comment too many. Just for a heads up, though, a lot of the 'facts' in camera.org are verifiably false, so don't get too happy with it. You'd think '.org' would make it more credible, lol.

Alan:

To start off, I just want to go on the record and actually say that I am absolutely against any discrimination (be it murder, recrimination, or even plain old racism) against a certain people, religion or belief. That being said, understanding something and agreeing with it are two completely separate issues. I honestly understand why people choose to become suicide bombers- especially in the territories. I've personally met scores of 'militant officers' who truly believed what they are doing is just. And you can't blame them: their entire life has been molded and disfigured by this entity known to them solely as 'Israel', and all they know is that their parents and forefathers were once living in bliss in a land that was literally robbed from them.

If you want to refer to the original riots in the 1920's, then the least you can do is acknowledge that these acts were out of frustration- not that this makes these criminal acts rational, or justifiable. Looking at it on a personal level: if I am uneducated, and find that, despite my objections and rights, an entire people has decided to move into my country (or 'legally owned territory' for whoever wants to try to lob a 'there is no Palestine' fastball at me), then I would most definitely resort to violence. Peaceful protests and various legal actions took place; all to no avail. Add to that the fact that the Arab leaders were too corrupt, and the British were too indifferent to the local population's demands, and you can certainly see where this frustration was stemming from. Mass illegal immigration was expropriating the actual owners of a territory from their very livelihood, and when faced with a clear-cut choice between a violent survival or a peaceful extermination, I would definitely choose the former- thank you very much. The ultimate losers at the time, though, were the illegal Jewish immigrants; they had just fled the Holocaust- by far one of the worst tragedies in modern History- and were being herded into a land that most of them thought was uninhabited. And there are so many statements, made by early Jewish activist leaders, that this intentional nuance was to play on the Jewish population's fears and ship them to the 'land of salvation'.

"If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter"
- David Ben Gurion, quote taken from 'Ben Gurion' by Shabtai Teveth

David Ben Gurion, for the record, was Israel's first Prime Minister (this isn't for you, Alan, because you obviously know who he is. I'm just clarifying this for anyone else who may be reading this post). He clearly and unambiguously admitted that every now-Jewish piece of land in Israel was, in fact, taken from the local inhabitants- Palestinian Arabs and Jews.

In Nahum Goldmann's "Le Paradoxe Juif"(The Jewish Paradox) he quotes Ben Gurion as saying: "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages.
You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because [the relevant] geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either; Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul, Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta, Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis, and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."

I just thought this would give people a little bit of perspective on the issue. But let's leave the past where it belongs, and discuss the 'peaceful solution' we've been unsuccessfully trying to debate on this forum.

I'm assuming we both agree that laying blame is not going to do us any good at the moment, regardless of me believing that justice has and will never be served to those who were wronged throughout the course of History. What do you suggest is an actual solution to this issue? I mean, I obviously know the minimum requirements to make it work on the Palestinian side, based on personal experience as well as my interaction with both Palestinian intellectuals and refugees. The Annapolis conference might yield results, but neither side is going to be happy. Abbas is going to ignite a civil war very soon, specifically the moment he gives up the Right of Return, and any Israeli relinquishment of Jerusalem will surely be met with a wave of angry riots in Israel. The reason why the Annapolis conference is taking place so soon is that both Israel's and the PA's clocks are ticking, each for a different reason. The beginning of the PA's end has effectively begun, with people finally waking up to its corruption and manipulation of the public. Hamas is not a GOOD solution, I'll give you that, but it's a BETTER one (internally, at least). Israel's years as a predominantly Jewish state are also limited, ceteris paribus, because in the next couple of decades, the Christian, Muslim and Druze populations will account for over 50% of 'Israelis'. Not that this will change life in Israel as they know it, just that the racist establishment that's currently in place will not accept a 'non-Jewish majority' in 'THE Jewish homeland'. I personally don't see why the Israelis are so keen on making more settlements and forcefulling expelling non-Jews in the near future. It's not like the Palestinians were the ones who persecuted them in the past.

As our buddy Ben Gurion once said:

"There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was it their fault?

They see but one thing: that we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"
- also from Goldmann's 'Le Paradoxe Juif'.

What do you think?
Regards.

Hussein, AUB

I read your second to last entry and would like to comment. Your analysis of the Nebi Mussa and Yafa riots illustrates one example of why Jews are concerned about their Arab neighbors. You’re obviously well educated and your writing skills are impressive. If your first language is Arabic, the fact that you can write so well is remarkable. You’re also aware of American life and culture, as evidenced by your references to the Wizard of Oz and Brooklyn. This being the case, it is disappointing to read your letters because of flaws in your reasoning. If you’re incapable of understanding the Jewish viewpoint, then who among your brethren can?

The most glaring example is your reduction of the Nebi Musa and Yaffa riots in the 1920’s to a mere protest. I’d never heard of these events until reading this board. My Wikipedia search showed that these events were not protests. Nobody carried signs and chanted “we shall overcome”. These were not riots against police, which is occasionally defensible. No, the Nebi Musa and Yaffa events were vicious attacks against random Jewish residents carried out by Arab mobs. A mob attacking innocent civilians because of their race or religion is abhorrent. Your justification that such “protests” are legitimate is sad because you are educated and still can’t, or won’t, come to such a conclusion.

I sincerely hope that you realize that most Jews can not understand this mindset. When was the last time Jewish mobs numbering in the thousands attacked random people? I’m not talking about the occasional lunatic acting on his own (Baruch Goldstein) or the miniscule number of Israeli freaks who support such actions.

I have to add that I wonder why you chose to include Nebi Musa and Yaffa in your argument but neglected to mention the third and most heinous of the three events, namely the Hebron massacre in 1929. Was this a deliberate obfuscation?

I am going to save you some time and ask that you do not respond to these points with Deir Yassin. Soldiers allegedly acting in a heinous fashion on a single occasion is not the same as a city populace attacking random individuals on multiple occasions. Moreover, very few Jews would support terrorism against Palestinian women and children as a means of political expression. The converse, unfortunately, is not true, as evidenced by Palestinians treating suicide bombers and their families as national heroes.

I look forward to the day when terrorism is rejected completely by Muslim residents of the Middle East. Not a rejection by a few academics but a sea change in the thought processes of everybody. I’m not deluded enough to think that this will occur in the near future. Even if it were to occur, most Israelis will never be able to conclude that such a change in thought about terrorism would be real. The rejection and suppression of such violence has, to this date, never been more than a temporary phenomenon that can change in an instant. When Jews look at the slaughtering of innocents in Iraq by Sunnis and Shiites, they are skeptical of making peace.

Hussein:

Thanks for the tip about Camera.org. I looked at it for over an hour and it appears to be a worthwhile site.

http://camera.org/index.asp

As a final thought and staying on topic, the article says that Professor McGreevy’s new Center for American Studies is funded by Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal. Alwaleed has McGreevy bought and paid for – something he failed to do with Giuliani. But, wait, I knew that I’d seen Alwaleed’s name somewhere else recently. Please see:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/12/business/air.php

It says in part:
“Putting an end to months of speculation, Airbus announced Monday that the Saudi billionaire had become the first VIP customer for the A380 superjumbo jet, the winged colossus that the European plane maker lists for just over $300 million. Prince Alwaleed, who currently makes do with a customized Boeing 747-400, signed the contract for his new "flying palace" at a ceremony with senior Airbus executives at the Dubai air show.”
And:
“Prince Alwaleed reportedly travels with an average entourage of around 50 people - far less than the nearly 900 seats that can be squeezed into an A380 with an all-economy class configuration.”

My poor old “BS propagada [sic]” mind (also with a BS in mathematics) just couldn’t stay focused. I began to wonder: At 900 “Palestinians” per trip, how long would it take Alwaleed’s Airbus to single-handedly solve the “Palestinian” problem?

Will:

I think it's sad that this debate has stooped to this level, for two reasons mainly:

a) Because the article had nothing to do with the Middle Eastern conflict, and yet the discussion was diverted to this end in order to propagate a certain side's BS propagada.

and b) Because whenever I do try to turn this into an actual debate, all I get in return is recycled, Camera.org-influenced, unsubstantiated babbling.

I guess neither 'Westerner' (who is probably a Brooklyn Jew, lol) nor yourself are willing to actually talk about anything relevant or debatable.

Either way,

All the best.

Logic and reasoning went out a long time ago in this debate.

Props to William for the support. And keep on with the taquiyah busting!

Happy 60th Anniversary Israel!

Hussein:

Thank you for the link that you posted - it is a perfect example of my assertions. Previously I referenced the “Wizard of Oz” and, now, I will use it again. After the link, you say, “Note the entirely unrelated photo”; and, I say that the photo goes directly to the heart of the matter. If there were no deadly hostility aimed at the Jew, there would be no security barrier and no dead “Palestinians”. Effectively, what you are saying is, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.” But, I say that the man behind the curtain, the photo, is everything. It is Islam.

Islam produces an incurable, murderous rage against anything or anyone who humiliates it or denies its tenets. It is that simple.

So, I am just “…as simple-minded…” as my “…posts would suggest...” I am simple enough to know those who value life and the freedom to live it and I am simple enough to know those who would deny that freedom. And, I trust that I will always “disappoint” you because my freedom is not up for debate. In the most simple terms, I am simple enough to know my friends from my enemies.

William, you never fail to disappoint me:

"The Muslim mind's propensity for double-think is a wonder of nature."

"Al-Husayni, Arafat, Ahmedinajad, Abu Abdallah (aka the Lion Sheik, aka Osama), et al. are not alluding to the "Wizard of Oz" when they justify their barbaric behaviors. The basis for their deformed thinking is Islam in toto."

Unil now the only thing that you've helped clarify is your willingness to bark prefabricated stereotypes without backing them with, well, anything concrete whatsoever. Not only do you fail to refute anything I've put up for debate, you seem content on refuting my arguments for the sake of refutation itself, not because you necessarily have a valid point in mind. I am not Shiite, but something the Khalif Ali once said comes to mind. I don't remember the exact quote, only that it went something like: "I've never entered a debate with a wise man and ended up losing- even if I lose the debate itself. And I've never entered a debate with an ignorant man, and expected to win."

Let's just say I'll leave it at that.

I am 100% sure that you're not as simple-minded as your posts would suggest, but then again, I'm sure if you actually had something you could reply with you wouldn't be begging the question so much.

You mention the Nebi Musa and Yafa riots in the 1920's. All I'll say is that protesting the illegal immigration of foreigners (especially non-Middle Easterner Jews who are unable to even claim ever having any ties to the Holy Land) attempting to forcefully impose themselves on a community is not a reprehensible act- by all means, it's self-preservation. Before you even start to think about replying to this point, here is exactly what Israel has done yesterday for people it wrongfully suspected (re-read those last two words) of attempting to enter Israeli territory.

Here's the link: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/927482.html
PS: Note the entirely unrelated photo of the mock Palestinian toy soldier at the beginning of the page. Talk about manipulative propaganda.

One last word:
When I said that 'Jews' would be entitled to Judea and Samaria, I was being diplomatic. If you want to be technical, what I meant was 'would have access'. Why? Because entitlement presupposes ownership of the place in question. I'm curious: pre-illegal immigration, was it 4 or 5 % of all of Historic Palestine that was legally owned by the Jews at the time? Of all people, you should know.

Furthermore, how is a religion entitled to a geographic location? I mean, correct me if I'm mistaken, but the only 'Jews' entitled to the land are the ones who are either originally Middle Eastern, or the ones who resided in Historic Palestine before the illegal immigration period of the early 1900's. PEOPLE own lands, not their religion. Saying that 'Jews, by religion', are entitled to the land of Historic Palestine because of the presence of Western Jerusalem is exactly the same as claiming that 'Muslims are entitled to the land because of the holy site's eastern bloc', or that 'all Christians are entitled to that same spec of territory because of the presence of the Church of Nativity'. God forbid that the world's 3.6 billion Christians and Muslims all suddenly feel the urge to cash in on this claim, and someday all move into Israel and the territories. But due to their small numbers, and because they've been living off the memory of the Holocaust tragedy, Jews have somehow attempted to prove that this makes sense.
Du n'importe quoi (bullsh*t).

PPS: I'm still waiting for that alleged 'Sura' and verse.

Regards

Lebanon strange government was set up by the French when they ruled the country. The various Christian sects were a larger percentage of the total population. To maintain the equality of influence between the different Christian and Muslin groups the French assigned different political offices to different groups. Hence is the situation we see there today.

Now they have the population percentiles of their component groups changed because of immigration, emigration, and birthrates differentials. There are calls for one group or collation of groups to have more power than others. From what I have read the current situation is not so much now a struggle between Christian and Muslim, but a contest for individual influence in that small country.

Maybe their constitution or what ever ruling document they have should have should 1) Not give any one office to any group, 2) Maintain the Official state as a Secular one that has had various influences from different religions and branches of these religions, 3) Laws will not favor any one group or religion over others, 4) Provide a way for individuals and groups to legally contest infringements on the above. Even if this is all done I don't believe the current PLAYERS would support it because it would mean giving up their dreams and maybe power to. America, which I see as a guide, fought the Civil War to keep the country together. Sometimes you must fight, but it takes stronger men and women to talk, to provide solutions, and to finally make them work. Too often in our human history leaders and followers do not come together for the greater good.

As for the Palestinian/Israeli question, I do not feel a one state solution will work due to the history the Jews have gone through. It is hard to trust those who have tried to kill you. The same can be said for the Palestinians on the other side, which see the Jews as trying to take all of the area west of the Jordan. Maybe a federated two state solution will work in the future but not now. It is not really working in Bosnia area either.

Both sides are going to have to give up something. One is the right of return. Two, is the settlements (this the Israelis have done very little). There will probably be a land swap for some but most will go. Three, while there will probably be some sort of joint administrative control of the OLD CITY I would not expect it security and ownership to be given totally to one group. This partly because when Jordan controlled it they did not let the Israelis go there. The regional powers must agree to the peace while disarming the factions and nations involved. Maybe there will need to be international forces on the dividing lines with the ability to stop intrusions.

In addition to these things, the Palestinian and Israeli populations MUST be permitted to vote on what the final peace will be. The armed groups that are now dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish state will have to disarm (this has been the Palestinian greatest failing). Will they if majorities in both countries vote for peace? I have my doubts. Frankly, I would like to see a secular state that gives freedom to all and those whom I do not agree with. I do not see that occurring in either the Palestinian or Jewish areas where many see their guidance, authority, and right coming from GOD.

I can not address you last comment on the percentage of the Arab Israelis being not proportionately represented the Knesset. I would have to know from official sources how the MPs are chosen. Is it based on areas with the number of people roughly evenly divided in the areas? Remember, just because there are an equal number of people, or adults, or potential voters in each group does not mean that they will all vote. I read something that the Israeli Arabs do not vote as much as others. That would give them a smaller proportionately representation than others. I do not have any official date to say that there is high percentage of non-voting Arabs than other groups, or that there is not this disparity.

Last, lets address the causes of the Arab Jewish conflict. From what I have read these troubles stated before WWI, when the land was ruled by the Ottomans. These sources have indicated that the original trouble was not a religious or land based thing but was because of the differences in the way of life, governance, and economic success some of the new Jewish immigrants had. Some of the current rulers and landlords were threatened by this, as their people wondered why they could live the life like the Jews. So they organized attacks and started riots to stop the Jewish immigration. It must be remembered that before the 1930s there was a much smaller Jewish percentage in the land and most of their land was bought or given to them. Later, the Jews had their terror groups and drove the residents off of their lands. Some of them left willingly in '48 but not all. But I really do not care who started it.

Now homes are occupied, land changed from farm land to city, and much more done. The former residents will have to be absorbed mostly into the Palestinian or Arab world. They must be given rights of citizens in the countries that they are in or go to. Some will go to Israel proper, only if they forswear the destruction of Israel.

South Africa is probably the best example of how a nation can heal itself. They gave all on both sides a chance to state for the record what was done. Clemency was granted if they did that. A White South African leader was prosecuted for not joining in the process. Maybe this is what all on both sides should do. There is no reason to kill children in school unless genocide is desired by the other side. May the healing begin, finally.

This is my last post here. I wish Maya & Farah the best of luck where ever they end up at.

Westerner says it all.

But, for the confused, your taqiyya has to be refuted. The Muslim mind's propensity for double-think is a wonder of nature.

RE: "...surprised to hear that Arafat had been saying something similar..."

The tune may change, but the words are always the same.

RE: "…give me the Sura and verse…"

Al-Husayni, Arafat, Ahmedinajad, Abu Abdallah (aka the Lion Sheik, aka Osama), et al. are not alluding to the "Wizard of Oz" when they justify their barbaric behaviors. The basis for their deformed thinking is Islam in toto.

RE: "The Stern, Haganah and Irgun gangs were the first to begin racially and religiously-motivated attacks against the other party."

The simple facts are that riots instigated by Al-Hajj Amin al-Husayni with the tacit approval of the British authorities caused the Jews in very small numbers to take up arms because of:

The Nebi Musa riots in April of 1920.

The Jaffa riots of May of 1921.

The Hebron Massacre in 1929.

The 1936 Arab riots which were the first stage of the "Arab Revolt" lasting until 1939.

The Muslim mind does not recognize cause and effect, only affect.

RE: "…Jews would be entitled to Judea and Samaria…”

That the Jews would be entitled to Judea is a tautology. The very word "Jew" is derived from the word "Judea". But, as for your "solution", it is not at all clear and am I am not optimistic that your "solution" would, in the end, be any different fro