Thanks for a very nice starting point for discussion and for the interesting comparison to India. The "Jewish state" phrasing has always troubled me, and has obviously troubled many others, too, although for a variety of reasons.
One has been hearing again recently people wondering out loud how Israel can move ahead being both democratic and Jewish. It's noteworthy that this question was brought up years ago by the late troublemaker Rabbi Meir Kahane, who advocated vigorously for expelling all Arabs from Israel. Kahana essentially said, look, Israel cannot be both democratic and Jewish, and as I opt for it being Jewish, the Arabs have got to go. Modern figures on the Israeli far-right, representing political parties that garner something like 10% of the vote, are saying much the same thing.
Posted by joel dan walls at January 14, 2009 10:32 AM See links
for additional information.
I, like many of those reading and responding on this website, did not even exist during the events leading up to the creation of the state of Israel. So we must rely on information obtained from the past (or history) to obtain an idea of what was and was not being done at the time.
So there was an UN resolution 181, which basically was created to “resolve” the Arab-Jewish conflict by partitioning Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. Neither the Jews nor the Arabs were particular fond of this division, and shortly conflict arose between the two again and this conflict came to a Head when Israel declared independence May 1948. Thus starting the 1948 Arab-Israeli War… which Israel emerged the victor and thus established it’s independence.
As near as I can tell, and since I was not even alive then all I can base my opinion on is what I read… The groups were divided into Arabs and Jews … each a “class of people”,
Not a particular religion. It is kind of confusing since a “Jewish person” can be taken as a person who is descended in a Jewish family or someone who practices the Jewish Faith or even someone who falls into either category. Therefore, we first need to establish that when the UN Resolution was “resolved” – were they talking about a group of people or a “religious people”. I believe it was simply a group of people, since their counter-parts were simply referred as Arabs.
The declaration of establishment of the State of Israel does have a lot of “religious based” language … but it does not (as far as I can see) state Israel is “Jewish nation” meaning Jewish religion.
So not sure what the “original” comment is all about.
Since as far as I can tell, it was a “Jewish State” as in a class of people and not a “Jewish State” – a religious state.
While reading up on all this information, and by all means disagree if you wish….
I developed this opinion of the whole scenario….
You got the UN making a resolution for two states to be created, which satisfied neither group. When Israel declared it “State Hood” – it ticked off a large group of people, mainly Arabs, and this group tried to eliminate the “newly recognized” Country.
So the “buddies of the Arab side” attacked and attempted to destroy the New Country.
Israel and it’s buddies became the victors and thereby establishing their independence.
They (Israel) attempted to co-exist with their neighbors (Arabs), and with minor conflicts – did so for awhile – Then in 1967 – everything “hit the wall” again and once again Israel and it’s buddies – took on a wide-group of Arabs…. Whose may goal seemed to be simply to destroy Israel… (it all started with water poaching from Jordon) but basically, Israel won again and actual increased their own territory significantly.
So basically you have two groups of people, which neither group caring for the UN Resolution, but one group accepting it and declaring their independence based upon that resolution…. Entered into a “Country” state…. This group was immediately attacked and became victorious and did in fact become a Country. While the other group, “licked it’s wounds and complained”…. Approximately twenty years later, the second group with buddies attacked and attempted to destroy the new country again, Once again the new country was victorious and increased it land-size to “ better protect it’s borders” ….
The second group whined and complained that they wanted the “land” back because it was theirs – from the resolution…. The same resolution which they had refused to accept in the first place…..
This all quite fascinating …. Recommend y’all reading up on it…. It definitely helps explain what is going on now….
Posted by KJS at January 14, 2009 10:46 AMKJS, you are right about one thing. The conflict was not about religion. It is still not about religion, although some groups on both sides have tried to make it appear that way. The impetus for Zionism was not religion, and the resistance to Zionism was not religious. The Zionists, Israel's founders, were overwhelmingly secular European Jewish elites, many of whom were atheists, and they envisioned Israel as a European Jewish state (there was and still is lots of racism toward non-European Jews).
In fact, the Zionists had some difficulty figuring out how to define the Jewish people for the purpose of their movement. You don't have to be religious to be a Jew, but neither ethnicity nor culture works either given that there are Jews from a variety of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. They ultimately agreed, for a variety of reasons, including external political ones, to define "the Jews" as a "nation", which is rather a stretch of the term, but is as good as anything really under the circumstances.
Strictly, a Jew is considered someone who practices Judaism, or whose maternal line is Jewish, but realistically it is broader than that. Some people hold that if you genuinely self-identify as a Jew, then you are a Jew. That makes sense to me, yet there are cases....well, it just isn't that clear cut. I would suggest that a good test would be that if Hitler would have considered you a Jew, then you are a Jew, although that is really too broad.
The bottom line, it is not accurate to call Israel a theocracy. It is closer to an ethnocracy, but not quite that either.
It is inaccurate to think of the division as Jews on one side and Arabs on the other since by no means were or are all the Palestinians Arabs. It is more accurate to think of it as Jews on one side non-Jewish Palestinians on the other, although there were plenty of Jewish Palestinians who did not agree or go along with the Zionist agenda (and some were killed for opposing it). So, maybe it is more accurate to say Jewish Zionists on one side, non-Jews, and Jewish non-Zionists on the other, although that's not really accurate either, because the Jewish non-Zionists had and have rights and privileges regarding Israel that non-Jews do not have because - well, because they are not Jews.
The rest of your summary is overly simplistic and is clearly heavily influenced by the Israel Creation Myths that have permeated western beliefs about Israel and the conflict for decades. There are significant inaccuracies and oversights there, and absolutely no attempt to explain or understand the indigenous Palestinians' position or point of view then or now. Your summary also ignores the latest historical research by mainly Israeli historians, which explodes much of the "received truth" about the history of Zionism and Israel.
May I recommend this fairly brief article, which spells out in very clear and simple terms why it was a problem for a group of Europeans to establish a Jewish state in a land that had a pre-existing population that was overwhelmingly not Jewish? That should get you started on a broader, deeper understanding of the origins of and reasons for the conflict. There's a lot more reading after that, but that will get you started.
Posted by Shirin at January 14, 2009 02:46 PMOT
1,000 Palestinians dead
Of those 300 are children
15 Israelis
Posted by Judith at January 14, 2009 04:50 PM
Shirin:
I've been amused by your "overly simplistic" views which have been shaped by the "Palestinian Creation Myths" to which you espouse. I've followed your follow up posts to Eriposte's musings since this latest flare-up by "those Jews", who are once again pickin' on the poor, innocent, misunderstood Palestinians. And how about those Hamas fellas ladies and germs - talk about misunderstood?! The just don't get no respect!
I can only conclude, if you are not anti-Semitic (I know, I know - anyone who brings up the obvious is a right wing troll), your worldview has been shaped by reading and interpreting only the propaganda which is served up by the Palestinian apologists and history revisionists.
Now, before you call me a right Wing troll (not), your writings shine a light on why the State of Israel has to continue to defend itself from historical revisionists like yourself who feel that the Jews are bad, bad folks.
I can only hope that you will soon share with Eriposte's audience your extensive research on the Holocaust. I'm sure that you have links 'o plenty to a vast archive of articles which will prove that this historical dust up was vastly overstated, and probably promulgated by 'those Jews' trying to get attention.
So, thanks for enlightening us - keep up the good work - and please, don't hesitate to share other articles which will help us understand the world through your eyes - a one-sided trip down a selective memory lane full of rockets, mortars and hatred all pointed at the State of Israel
Posted by AFANOFSHIRIN at January 14, 2009 04:56 PM"Part of the reason why Israel stands out in the Middle-East is that it shows the ability of Jews and Arabs to live together as friends and neighbors within the same country."
There are two big things wrong with this statement, Eriposte.
1. For Jews and Arabs to "live together as friends and neighbors" in Israel is the rare exception rather than the rule. Palestinian citizens of Israel (most of whom do not appreciate being called "Israeli Arabs") are for the most part less than second class citizens. They are viewed as inferior, and the overwhelming majority live in segregated communities that do not receive the same government funds or services as Jewish neighborhoods, despite the fact that they are "equal" citizens with full tax paying obligations.
Until quite recently Palestinian citizens could legally be barred from purchasing property in Jewish neighborhoods. There was a case a few years ago that was resolved in favour of a family trying to buy a house in a Jewish neighborhood (just in order to provide their kids with decent parks and schools to go to), but they were still prevented from buying the house. Despite the court ruling there are other mechanisms in place that make it quite easy for Jews to prevent their Palestinian fellow citizens from becoming neighbors.
Palestinian citizen of Israel do not have the same educational, professional, or economic opportunities as their "more equal" Jewish fellow citizens. There is a term "Arab labour" that refers to low level manual labour. There are many more highly discriminatory laws and practices, both official and unofficial.
A study late last year found that a significant percentage of Israeli Jews - around 30-40% as I recall - are in favour of expelling Israel's Palestinian citizens. A number of very high level Israeli Jewish government officials, including Tzipi Livni, have spoken in favour of expelling Palestinian citizens from Israel.
There have been many vicious attacks by Jewish Israelis on their Palestinian fellow citizens that would be considered hate crimes if they occurred in the U.S.
You might also try googling Israel unrecognized villages and Judaization of the Galilee to see another example of the degree to which Palestinian citizens of Israel are treated like friends and neighbors of their Jewish fellow citizens.
2. Actually Jews and Arabs have lived together very well in the same country for centuries as friends and neighbors, and colleagues and teachers/students and so on. The Jewish community of Iraq dated back to the Babylonian exile, and was there when the Arabs arrived. When Jews were being persecuted in Spain, the majority fled to the Arab world where they were far safer than in Europe.
There were strong and vibrant Jewish communities all over the Arab world, and in some countries such as Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia (to name only three) there were always Jews among the professional, intellectual, artistic, and business elite. In Palestine Jews and Arabs lived together in mutual tolerance, and often as friends, neighbors, and colleagues in cities like Jerusalem and Hebron. In places like Iraq, Syria, Tunisia, Morocco, Lebanon, Egypt they also lived together in mutual tolerance, and often as friends, neighbors, and colleagues in all the major cities, and many of the smaller ones all over the country.
By and large Jews and Arabs lived together very much as do any two groups who occupy the same country, and probably better than some do. It was Zionism that changed all that, and yet even then personal relations and relations at the level of society remained the same more than they changed.
I could go on with more specific history and examples, but this is long enough, so I will end.
Posted by Shirin at January 14, 2009 06:13 PMAFANOFSHIRIN:
When you can't argue substance, go personal, eh?
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Posted by Shirin at January 14, 2009 06:16 PM"1,000 Palestinians dead
Of those 300 are children
15 Israelis"
10 of whom were soldiers taking part in the atrocities in Gaza, and four of them were killed by so-called "friendly fire".
The overwhelming majority of murdered Palestinians were civilians. And once they get a list of the missing, and uncover the bodies that are buried in the rubble the number of victims will increase.
Posted by Shirin at January 14, 2009 06:26 PMShirin,
1. I somehow suspected you were going to argue this point and I really did not want to turn my post into a discussion of the history of minority rights in various countries because a few books can be written on that subject. There are many countries in the world where one ethnic group has a large majority and also dominates economically over the main ethnic minority. In most of these cases, the ethnic minority has ended up poorer, with a worse standard of living and often fewer rights. They have ended up as "second class" - sometimes "third class" citizens. However, this does not mean that the majority and minority are unable to live together as friends and neighbors in any of these countries. The Black minority in the US has long suffered - sometimes even more than Palestinians have suffered at the hands of Israelis. However, while their condition was terrible decades ago it has been improving steadily (with some damage done during the post-Nixon Republican regimes). Israel is not particularly unusual in this respect and just because there is much scope for improvement doesn't mean Israeli should be minimized for deeming to have minorities stay within its borders.
2. The fact that a minority of the Jewish population in Israel wants to expel Palestinians does not mean Israel wants to expel Palestinians. The fact that a minority of White Americans are racist and that occasionally Republican thugs come to power who favor policies that repress Blacks does not mean America is a racist country.
3. Have you heard of hate crimes against Blacks in the US? You seem to have a blinding negativity to everything Israel and you need to think about what you are saying.
4. We are not talking about history decades or centuries ago. We are talking about now.
I hate to say this, but your highly one-sided, non-stop Israel-bashing - and natural tendency to repeatedly portray Palestinians as the perpetual helpless victims - is too much to take even for me. I am perfectly willing to acknowledge Israel's various imperfections and have even written many posts on it already, but you just take the cake I am sorry to say.
Posted by eriposte at January 14, 2009 07:55 PMDavid Ben Gurion discuseed this in the early days of Israel, I believe that in the Knesset he said you can either have a small very jewish state or a large sated that will not be as jewish.
Posted by tenacitus at January 14, 2009 08:53 PM"I can only hope that you will soon share with Eriposte's audience your extensive research on the Holocaust."
No, sorry, I have no expertise regarding the Shoah beyond what is probably somewhat more than the general understanding of what took place and some of its ramifications.
I accept as fact that the Nazis had a program to remove the Jews from Europe by a combination of extermination and deportation, that they rounded up millions of Jews and put them into concentration camps where they suffered horribly from a variety of unspeakable abuses, and where massive numbers were either systematically killed or died of starvation, untreated disease, exhaustion from overwork as slave labour, or some other inexcusable cause.
I don't personally care whether the number was 100,000, 600,000, 1,000,000, 5,587,642, or 6,000,000. There is a point at which an atrocity is so huge that numbers stop having meaning, and the Shoah clearly passed that point no matter what the precise number was. Further, what matters at least as much as the number is the intent behind the crime, and that appears to be very clear. Therefore I do not quibble about numbers at all, not with the Holocaust minimizers, and not with anyone else. It was an atrocity of unimaginable magnitude, and that is all I need to know. I understand why the numbers matter to many Jews, but past a certain point they just do not matter to me.
I have known and worked with Holocaust survivors, and the children of Holocaust survivors. The psychological damage suffered by the survivors also causes damage to their children which will in turn cause damage to their children and so on down the line. It will take several generations before the damage dissipates completely.
Posted by Shirin at January 14, 2009 11:45 PM“ I somehow suspected you were going to argue this point and I really did not want to turn my post into a discussion of the history of minority rights in various countries because a few books can be written on that subject.”
Interesting attempt at diversion. This is not a discussion of “the history of minority rights in various countries”, it is very specifically an argument about a statement you made about Israel and the rest of the countries in the Middle East. And if you did not want to have to defend your statement, then you should have used your better judgment and refrained from making it.
Your statement consisted of an explicit claim that Jews and Arabs can live in Israel as friends and neighbors and an implicit claim that Israel is unique, or at least exceptional in the Middle East in this regard. I presented facts that demonstrate that your statement is contrary to reality in both its explicit and its implicit parts.
1) “i>There are many countries in the world where one ethnic group has a large majority and also dominates economically over the main ethnic minority.”
We are not talking about many countries, we are talking about Israel. We are not talking about a large majority economically dominating over an ethnic minority, we are talking about whether Israel stands out as an exception in the Middle East because Jews and Arabs can live together as neighbors and friends. Whether in many countries a majority ethnic group economically dominates an ethnic minority tells us nothing about whether Jews and Arabs can live together in Israel as neighbors and friends, or whether Israel is exceptional in this regard.
“In most of these cases, the ethnic minority has ended up poorer, with a worse standard of living and often fewer rights. They have ended up as "second class" - sometimes "third class" citizens. However, this does not mean that the majority and minority are unable to live together as friends and neighbors in any of these countries.”
Can we please focus on 1) your premise that Israel stands out as an exception in the Middle East because Jews and Arabs can live together as neighbors and friends, 2) fact and reality instead of this convenient and completely unsupported theoretical construct you have invented?
“The Black minority in the US has long suffered - sometimes even more than Palestinians have suffered at the hands of Israelis. However, while their condition was terrible decades ago it has been improving steadily (with some damage done during the post-Nixon Republican regimes). ”
Can we please stick to the subject? We are not talking about America or American Blacks. We are talking about your claim that Israel stands out as an exception in the Middle East because Jews and Arabs can live together there as neighbors and friends. Whether American Blacks have suffered more than Palestinians is highly debatable, and utterly irrelevant. Equally irrelevant is whether the condition of American Blacks has improved or deteriorated, steadily or unsteadily, or how post-Nixon Republican regimes damaged or did not damage their condition.
“Israel is not particularly unusual in this respect and just because there is much scope for improvement doesn't mean Israeli should be minimized for deeming to have minorities stay within its borders.”
No one is “minimizing Israel” for “deeming to have minorities stay within its borders”. And what a deeply ironically revelatory statement that is given that those minorities that Israel “deems to have within its borders” are the remnants and their descendants of its incomplete ethnic cleansing in 1948-49 of the indigenous non-jewish people who made up 97.6% of the population.
2. “The fact that a minority of the Jewish population in Israel wants to expel Palestinians does not mean Israel wants to expel Palestinians.”
Okey dokey then, what DOES it mean that 30-40% of the Jewish population of Israel is willing to admit that they want to expel their “equal” Palestinian citizens? I suspect what it means at the very least is that they do not view them as neighbors and friends. And what DOES it mean that people who hold high elective and appointed offices in the Israeli government speak opening about expelling 20% of the "equal" citizens of the country who happen not to be Jewish? I suspect that it means that they are not viewed even as fellow citizens with equal rights, let alone as neighbors and friends.
“The fact that a minority of White Americans are racist and that occasionally Republican thugs come to power who favor policies that repress Blacks does not mean America is a racist country. ”
Once again, please try to stay on point. We are not talking about White Americans or Repbulican thugs, we are talking about your claim that Israel stands out as an exception in the Middle East because Jews and Arabs can live together as neighbors and friends. And we are not talking about whether such and such country is a racist country, we are discussing your claim that Israel stands out as an exception in the Middle East because Jews and Arabs can live there as neighbors and friends.
3. “Have you heard of hate crimes against Blacks in the US?”
You really don’t seem to want to stay on point at all. We are discussing your claim that Israel stands out as an exception in the Middle East because Jews and Arabs can live together there as neighbors and friends. Bringing up hate crimes in the US does nothing to support either the explicit or the implicit part of your claim.
“You seem to have a blinding negativity to everything Israel and you need to think about what you are saying.”
Interesting argument. If you cannot address the facts and realities, then attack the person who is putting them in front of you.
4. We are not talking about history decades or centuries ago. We are talking about now.”
Yes, we are talking about now. We are talking about the fact that your claim that Israel stands out as an exception in the Middle East because Jews and Arabs can live together as friends and neighbors is false in both its explicit and its implicit parts.
“I hate to say this, but your highly one-sided, non-stop Israel-bashing - and natural tendency to repeatedly portray Palestinians as the perpetual helpless victims - is too much to take even for me. I am perfectly willing to acknowledge Israel's various imperfections and have even written many posts on it already, but you just take the cake I am sorry to say.”
Interesting how defensive you are about this. In our discussions over the last few days I have responded to you directly, specifically, factually and realistically, supporting my facts with sources, stayed on point and maintained a non-judgmental manner. You have consistently engaged in various logical fallacies (the fallacy of common practice being your favourite one here), gone far off point, constructed various theories unsupported by facts or on-the-ground realities, and when all else fails you have attacked my knowledge, my character, my integrity, and made unfounded assumptions about my sources of information.
If you see simply stating facts – facts you are clearly unable to dispute – as constituting “highly one-sided, non-stop Israel-bashing” then it appears that it is those very facts that are troubling you.
Your premise that Israel stands out as an exception in the Middle East because Jews and Arabs can live together there as neighbors and friends is not only contra factual in both its explicit and its implicit parts, it is offensive on several levels, not the least of which is that it stands reality on its head. Israel stands out as an exception in the Middle East not because Jews and Arabs can live there together as neighbors and friends, but because it is the only Middle Eastern country that was created by a minority that immigrated from another continent and established an ethnocratic state by ethnically cleansing 80% of the indigenous majority and taking their land and property. If you think you can dispute that fact, please try. I would love to debate you on it.
Wow, just catching up on this thread now. Not sure where to start:
eriposte asked: Why does he believe there is a need today to consider Israel a Jewish state - as opposed to the State of Israel that would allow its Jewish majority to advance their interests and preserve their traditions and culture?
I'm not sure what the difference is. What I do know is that there is this problem of being a "Jewish state" (whether that means advancing the interests and preserving the culture of Jews or whether it means something else) and being a democracy. As we all know, the problem is one of demographics. Arabs will outnumber Jews if Israel had all of the the West Bank and Gaza. Non-Jews will outnumber Jews in Israel without those territories in coming decades. This, not racism, is why some are calling for Palestinian Israelis to be expelled. It sure ain't pretty, but it's a matter of survival. Either that, or Israel would need to codify that non-Jews are not full citizens. It's an ugly reality.
Shirin, your link to the article "which spells out in very clear and simple terms why it was a problem for a group of Europeans to establish a Jewish state in a land that had a pre-existing population that was overwhelmingly not Jewish?" gives an incredibly bad analogy. It says: what if we're here living in the US minding our own business and all of a sudden a Jewish state is established here and we are told to leave. However, Jews had been living in the area referred to as Palestine for thousands of years and the only reason their numbers were small was because they'd be repeatedly forced out by conquering powers. Plus, Palestine had never been self-governed by Palestinians. The area had been ruled by the Romans, the Ottoman Empire and lastly the British.
So instead of an analogy where the US is the Palestinians and the Jews establish a state and kick us off to Canada, imagine that the US is Israel and the Native Americans want their land back. Sure, they have some historical valid claim (moreso than the Palestinians), but are we all going to just leave? And go where? Say the surrounding countries are Native American. We can't go there even if we wanted to. Our only choice is to give up our safe haven, the only place on earth where we run our own government and can guarantee that we are never again victims of something like the Holocaust. Are we going to let the Native Americans take over? We don't have anything against them. We can live peacefully with them. But are we going to put up with rocket fire at our homes and schools? I don't think so.
Posted by CG at January 15, 2009 05:03 AMWhat type of propaganda are you trying to spread?
I state up front that I was not alive then, so I must rely on history to form my opinion….
I link to that history (which happens to come from Wikipedia) and then I summarize
What was found in this encyclopedia.
You tell me:
The rest of your summary is overly simplistic and is clearly heavily influenced by the Israel Creation Myths that have permeated western beliefs about Israel and the conflict for decades…
You point me to an article (which by the way also makes many references to Wikipedia for some of it’s fact checking – so obviously someone feels it can be trusted with “the facts”) Yet, it appears like the entire article is meant to attempt to “prove” that there is something sinister from the “bad Zionist elitist” – and the supposed audience for the article was to be US Citizens – since it try’s to make the claim that if it were the US was “carved” up to create a “Jewish State” – then the audience would know about the “feelings” of the poor Palestinians.
Well, I read the article and I believe it was nothing but propaganda. And pretty crappy propaganda at that … since many of it’s facts were wrong – not because they used Wikipedia – but they tried to apply inconsistent logic.
But even if I took your article at “face value”….. where does it describe what really happen?
Where is the facts describing the “real history” …..
All it provides is propaganda history!
I stick with the
encyclopedia version ….
At least it attempts to provide the facts, not tell me what to think about those facts.
Posted by KJS at January 15, 2009 09:59 AMInteresting discussion here. I hope we can continue to avoid the use of "scorecards" (I shot that missile at you because you attacked me because I shot that other missile at you because you bombed my house because....). Does the term "infinite regress" mean anything to anyone?
I take it as a given that nations, or ethnic groups, or whichever terminology du jour one wishes to use, do not choose to commit collective suicide. Yet the ossified positions of the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships (and their respective supporters in the rest of the world) seem to rest on the assumption that if the other side would just commit collective suicide, all would be OK. Palestinians and their Arab neighbors call for a right of return that would completely transform the ethnic makeup of Israel. Some Israelis, and their apologists elsewhere, continue to insist that the very notion of a "Palestinian nation" is a fraud and that the conflict would vanish if those faux Palestinians would simply become Jordanian, or Egyptian, or whatever.
Posted by joel dan walls at January 15, 2009 10:14 AMMark my words...Israel will get exactly what it wanted out of these years of abuse of their prisoners.
They will be granted the port city of Gaza and the rest of the world will sigh a huge sigh of relief that the fighting has ceased. The mission could have been accomplished without so much bloodshed......but then, where's the fun in that?
Posted by TLV at January 15, 2009 12:28 PMShirin,
I couldn't help but notice that your reply(s) to my previous email were as I expected - disdain and dismissal. I could have taken time to refute all of your erudition regarding the State of Israel, but what would be the point? You are representative of those who study only those perspectives which validate your preconceived ideologies about the Jews, and the State of Israel. Eriposte comes from the same line of Palestinian apologists who refuse to recognize the historical intransigence (think: Arafat)of the ad hoc leaders of the Palestinian movement.
Let's look a bit of history: there was no pro-Palestinian movement in the U.S. prior to the takeover of Iran in '79, when Ayatollah Khomeini came to power, destabilizing the price of oil throughout the world. Pro-Western support of the State of Israel, which was at it's apogee because of world-wide admiration of Israel because of their defense of their nation in the '67 and '73 wars. Once the price of oil became the prime driver of politics in the Region, Israel became a scapegoat, this time for anything which affected the price of oil.
People with your world view don't consider the politics of the Region post-1948, as it undermines your rhetoric about "A Palestinian State". If your mind was open, you would know that there has never been a Palestinian State. Never. The Ottoman Turks never had a Palestinian State in the Region now claimed by the Palestinians. The Jordanians (Trans Jordan in the old days) who controlled the West Bank, and the Egyptians, who controlled Gaza never had a Palestinian State. As for how the people in those areas were treated by their respective countries - well, let's just say the Israel is a walk in the park as the ruling entity in the Region.
And I know you don't like to accept the fact that there has been a Jewish presence in the Region for millennia. When the Zionist movement at the beginning of the 20th Century brought the return to what is current day Israel, the Arab population was primarily Bedouins, nomads who traveled throughout the Region. It wasn't until Jews made the desert flourish that Arabs wanted a piece of the action.
Under the Ottoman Turks, until their ouster by the British in the early 20th Century, there was no Palestinian State - and in fact, the Saudi Arabian Penninsula was an amorphous land mass without geo-political states or countries. After the Balfour Declaration was enacted, the Jews were given back their historical homeland. Later, of course, they were screwed by the Brits, and their piece of the landmass pie was reduced to a sliver.
When Israel achieved statehood in '48, there was no Palestinian State, especially after the Westbank was confiscated by what is now Jordan. The Arabs of the West Bank are Jordanian, not Palestinian - never were.
In '66, Yasser Arafat began his efforts to "drive the Israeli's into the sea", and to create a Palestinian state. Arafat was born...in Egypt. His parents were originally from Gaza - a piece of Egypt's region hegemony. Arafat was never, ever, an honest trading partner in his negotiations with Israel. When Israel called his bluff under Bill Clinton's Presidency, 95% of what was demanded by Arafat was agreed to by Israel. He rejected the offer. Period.
Finally, regarding to your 2nd reply to my previous post regarding your work with Shoah victims: if true, you should be ashamed of yourself for demeaning the horrors through which they suffered, by shilling for those who would gladly ensure that history repeat itself.
Posted by AFANOFSHIRIN at January 15, 2009 01:08 PMI was watching the Daily Show and the guest was Fareed Zakharia (probably butchered the spelling) and he pointed out that philisophically, all the parties are closer than they've ever been. The majority of Israelis are now in favor of a 2 state solution. That was not true some years ago. The majority of Palestinians are in favor of a 2 state solution. The majority of surrounding Arab governments are moving toward favoring a 2 state solution and recognizing Israel. Maybe someday we'll get there. The problem (as I see it) is that whenever Palestinian moderates who are in favor of peace rise in power, an anti-Israel anti-2-state-solution faction rises up in response. That keeps the violence going.
Posted by CG at January 15, 2009 01:33 PM"The majority of surrounding Arab governments are moving toward favoring a 2 state solution and recognizing Israel."
Yes, I saw that interview. As is frequently the case, Zakharia is not up to speed - in fact, he is seven years behind. In 2002 the Arab League - that is, every one of the 22 Arab states* - unanimously approved a formal, written peace proposal to Israel. The Arab League offered
- Peace.
- Normal relations (embassies, ambassadors, trade relations - all that).
Israel's part in the agreement would be:
- Full withdrawal from all the occupied territories.
- A just resolution to the Palestinian refugee problem, to be agreed upon according to UNGA Resolution 194.
- Recognition of an independent Palestinian state in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.
Israel refused to even discuss it.
For seven years, despite everything, the Arab League has kept this very generous offer on the table, and formally re endorsed it unanimously in 2007. For seven years Israel has turned its back on it.
And did Zakharia mention the fact that Hamas has repeatedly stated its acceptance of a two state solution with Israel existing within the pre-1967 borders, and the independent state of Palestine in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem? I don't recall.
"The problem (as I see it) is that whenever Palestinian moderates who are in favor of peace rise in power, an anti-Israel anti-2-state-solution faction rises up in response. That keeps the violence going."
The facts do not support your assumption. No time to go into detail now, unfortunately, maybe later. For now, here is how Israeli Professor Avi Shlaim sums it up. Dr. Shlaim, currently a professor of International Relations at Oxford, is regarded as one of the world's leading authorities on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
"...throughout its sixty years, Israel has been remarkably reluctant to engage in meaningful negotiations with its Arab opponents to resolve the dispute between them and only too ready to resort to military force in order to impose its will upon them. And the current vicious Israeli onslaught on the people of Gaza is the climax of this longstanding Israeli policy of shunning diplomacy and relying on brute military force."
*Egypt and Jordan, who have separate peace agreements and normal relations with Israel, were absent, as was Yasser Arafat, Israel's chosen "peace partner".
Posted by Shirin at January 15, 2009 05:54 PM"I could have taken time to refute all of your erudition regarding the State of Israel..."
No you couldn't, and you know it. That's why you have to resort to desperate attempts to characterize me as having "preconceived ideologies about the Jews", whatever the hell that means. Poor thing, you can't refute one single one of the facts I have presented here.
"Let's look a bit of history:"
Ohhh, this SHOULD be good!
"there was no pro-Palestinian movement in the U.S. prior to the takeover of Iran in '79, when Ayatollah Khomeini came to power, destabilizing the price of oil throughout the world."
With the first "historical fact" you assert, you are already talking out your derriere. Of course there was a pro-Palestinian movement in the U.S. prior to 1979. I ought to know, I was part of it, and I can name some names very familiar to all of people who were also part of it, and thousands of names of people, including some Jewish names, whom no one has heard of who were part of it. And assuming for the sake of discussion that there wasn't such a movement, so what? What possible relevance could that have to what we are discussing?
"Once the price of oil became the prime driver of politics in the Region, Israel became a scapegoat, this time for anything which affected the price of oil."
I notice that you do not support any of your contra factual nonsense with - you know - sources? Nor, of course, do you even try to connect it with anything remotely relevant to the subject at hand. It is as though you feel compelled to fill the page with - well, stuff - whether it is factual, or relevant to the discussion. Maybe this is your version of a filibuster?
"People with your world view..."
And what world view is that, please? Inquiring minds want to know.
"don't consider the politics of the Region post-1948, as it undermines your rhetoric about "A Palestinian State"."
Funny, but I don't recall uttering any rhetoric about a "Palestinian State" or a Palestinian State, either. And nothing about the politics of the region post-1948 undermines anything I have said.
"If your mind was open, you would know that there has never been a Palestinian State."
It might surprise you to know that I am very aware that there has never been a Palestinian state. I am also aware, as you appear not to be that lots of things, including states, which have never existed before, somehow come into being. One of those things, incidentally, is the Jewish State, which came into being in 1948. Prior to that there had never been a Jewish state. Never.
"The Ottoman Turks never had a Palestinian State in the Region now claimed by the Palestinians."
They also never had a Jewish state in the Region now claimed by the Jews, and yet now there is a Jewish State. Funny how that works.
"The Jordanians (Trans Jordan in the old days) who controlled the West Bank, and the Egyptians, who controlled Gaza never had a Palestinian State."
And how does that obviate against the possibility of a Palestinian state now?
"As for how the people in those areas were treated by their respective countries - well, let's just say the Israel is a walk in the park as the ruling entity in the Region."
1) How exactly is that relevant to anything we have been discussing? 2) Don't tell me, tell the Palestinians and the Lebanese what a walk in the park it is dealing with Israel. 3) Don't tell me, tell the people living in "the rest of the Region" that they are ruled by Israel. I suspect they would not agree with you. 4) How do you know how "the people in those areas were treated by their countries"? Ever lived in "those areas"? Ever been one of those people? Think you know more than I do about that? I doubt it, since I am one of the people who lived in "those areas".
"And I know you don't like to accept the fact that there has been a Jewish presence in the Region for millennia."
What an interesting assumption! Sorry to tell you, though, that I am extremely aware up close and personal of the "Jewish presence in the Region", its history, and its contemporary reality. In fact, I daresay that I am far more in touch than you ever cared to be with the historical and contemporary "Jewish presence in the Region", and I promise you that unlike you I would never try to use the Jews of the region as some kind of tool with which to make a fraudulent "debate point". I have far too much respect to do that.
When the Zionist movement at the beginning of the 20th Century brought the return to what is current day Israel, the Arab population was primarily Bedouins, nomads who traveled throughout the Region."
I notice as is your wont that you do not support this assertion in any way at all. That is because there is no factual basis for it. The vast majority of the population was divided between settled agrarian and urban communities. There were relatively few nomads, and they were not really included in the population counts, which was very frustrating for the Ottomans because it made it very difficult to tax them (you see, the Ottomans kept very good track of things like that for taxation purposes, therefore we have very accurate and very specific population counts).
I will be happy to provide sources if anyone is interested, but I will not take the time now.
"It wasn't until Jews made the desert flourish that Arabs wanted a piece of the action."
OMG, you are parroting the discredited Joan Peters fraud! I should have recognized it with that nomads remark, but I really didn't think ANYONE had the chutzpah to mention that anymore, even in a whisper. How sad that you believe you can still use that and maintain any credibility at all!
Again, for anyone who is interested, I can provide a more in depth discussion of this, with sources, but not now.
"Under the Ottoman Turks, until their ouster by the British in the early 20th Century, there was no Palestinian State - "
Just as the nonexistence of a Jewish state under the Ottoman Turks did not stop the Zionists from creating a Jewish State, there is no reason on earth for the nonexistence of a Palestinian state under the Ottoman Turks to obviate the creation of a Palestinian State.
And just to add to the fun, there was also no state known as Lebanon, no state known as Syria, no state known as Iraq, no state known as Kuwait, no state known as Saudi Arabia, and so on and so on. And yet those states exist today. Go figure.
"and in fact, the Saudi Arabian Penninsula was an amorphous land mass without geo-political states or countries."
So? And by the way, the fact that you can describe it with a straight face as "an amorphous land mass" shows just exactly how good is your grasp of the history you are pretending to teach here.
"After the Balfour Declaration was enacted, the Jews were given back their historical homeland."
Ah yes, the Balfour Declaration! You know, entire books have been written about that, and I have copies in my personal library. I also have accounts of internal Zionist discussions about the Balfour Declaration that would probably surprise even you. But this is a separate discussion all by itself and too much to go into now.
"Later, of course, they were screwed by the Brits, and their piece of the landmass pie was reduced to a sliver."
You know, you really need to update your material. This argument is sooo 20th century!
"When Israel achieved statehood in '48, there was no Palestinian State, especially after the Westbank was confiscated by what is now Jordan."
Yes, that was an interesting deal the Zionists struck with King Abdullah, wasn't it? You help us prevent a Palestinian state from coming into being, and we'll let you have the West Bank without a fight. (Sources available on request)
"The Arabs of the West Bank are Jordanian, not Palestinian - never were."
GOD, your material is out of date! I have not heard anyone try that one in years!
"In '66, Yasser Arafat began his efforts to "drive the Israeli's into the sea", and to create a Palestinian state."
LOOOOOOOOOL! Oh my god! First the Joan Peters fraud and now this!
"Arafat was born...in Egypt. His parents were originally from Gaza - a piece of Egypt's region hegemony."
OK, you know what? Update your material and come back. I am tired of this.
"Finally, regarding to your 2nd reply to my previous post regarding your work with Shoah victims: if true, you should be ashamed of yourself for demeaning the horrors through which they suffered, by shilling for those who would gladly ensure that history repeat itself."
ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Posted by Shirin at January 16, 2009 12:14 AMJoel, and CG, I am sorry I spent so much time on the nonsense just above and neglected your far more serious and timeworthy comments. I was lazy and took the easy road, choosing to shoot at fish in a barrel when I should have put the time into a thoughtful reply to thoughtful comments. No time now for that, but I will try later.
Just two points though:
Joel, you refer to the "ossified postion of the Palestinian leadership". Well, if insisting upon a fully independent and sovereign state - that is a state free of any degree of foreign control and with full control of its own borders, air space and waterways - in all the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem is ossified, then I guess you have a point since Israel has never offered such terms to the Palestinians.
CG, your argument regarding the analogy is based on premises that are historically inaccurate and/or irrelevant as well as, I think, a poor understanding of the point of the article. The main point of the article was to try to help Americans to see the situation from the point of view of the Palestinians who made up the overwhelming majority in Palestine, and had done for many, many centuries. In that regard it was an excellent analogy. It also might surprise you to know how little most of the Jewish Palestinians welcomed the Zionists, but that is an entirely different subject.
Posted by Shirin at January 16, 2009 12:36 AMThere's more to it all than you mention Shirin, but I don't have time to get into it now. Right of return was a huge sticking point in the Arab League's plan for one. Zakharia isn't 7 years behind--everyone is still moving in the 2-state direction and is closer than before.
Posted by CG at January 16, 2009 05:47 AMCG, yes, Zakharia was seven years behind when he said the majority of "surrounding Arab countries" were in favour of a two state solution. For seven years ALL Arab states have been formally committed to a two-state solution. That is a very, very, very different thing than what Zakharia said.
I will address Israel's reaction to the truly generous offer agreed to unanimously seven years ago by every single Arab country (NOT the majority, ALL of them) a bit later.
Posted by Shirin at January 16, 2009 07:48 AMGenerous--give back all the land you won in a war and just trust us to not attack again. And let anyone who left/fled/was forced out back in so that the Jews are a minority. Yeah, generous. I won't argue that it's progress and it's a starting point. I remember being so hopeful about it when it happened. But it's not something Israel is just going to agree to. Again, it's a very good starting point. It's great progress. I hope all parties involved can get back to the negotiating table.
Posted by CG at January 16, 2009 09:53 AMShirin,
Well, I see that you answered my previous post, line-by-line; however, you didn't refute my historical evaluation of the region. Your answer seems to be, 'so what'....nyah nyah nyah - 'that's soooooo not today'. Of course, we know that historical context doesn't count when it applies to Israel. Oh, btw, never read the Peters book - though I'm not surprised that your sources discredited it; I'm sure your sources discredit anything which they find anathema to the cause. As for the Ottoman Turks and post '48 hegemony of the region - why didn't the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank rise up against them and fight for a Palestinian State - well, for that matter, why didn't they fight for their state against Jordan and Egypt? Uh, forgot - that was sooooo then. Oh, and regarding Israeli's whom you quote who want peace in the Region, and want to embrace a two - State solution - well, they can do that in a democratic state. Can you say that about Palestinian peaceniks in Gaza, or do ya think Hamas might take offense (please refer to Fatah; murdered by; Hamas, 8/05).
Regarding your participation in the anti-Israeli movement going back to the late 70's, that wasn't a movement, it was a fart. I know, I know, Lynne Redgrave yada yada. However, it does put your ideology in context - your dismissal of Israel's right to exist, your one-sided library, which I'm sure, gives you plenty of space to hang pictures on the other 3 sides. It would appear that you hatred of Israel has been shaped over a period of decades. So, in the spirit of fun, let me be on the "side of righteousness" and make your arguments for you: blah blah blah blah Israel bad blah blah blah blah blah Palestinians goooood blah blah blah blah blah blah King David Hotel Menachem Begin a terroist blah blah blah blah occupation blah blah blah right of return blah blah blah Golan Heights blah blah Arafat good blah blah blah innocent Arab children blah blah blah Apartheid blah blah blah blah Hamas freedom fighters blah blah blah occupation blah blah blah, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
So thanks for the dialog - I've seen it's like over millennia. I'm sure you're not an anti-Semite. I hope we have a two-state solution. Sorry to have zzzzzzzzz'd you - although it must happen a lot when people disagree with you. Oh, and a final thought - you might feel good about yourself by growing a pair and going to Gaza and fighting against the Zionist pigs - you might even achieve Rachel Corrie, deification-like status by going out with your guns a-blazin. Oh, right ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz
Love ya,
AFANOFSHIRIN
I would strongly encourage anyone who has an interest in this issue to search for Lawrence of Cyberia, a blog maintained by a former state department expert in the middle east.
The pictures are quite graphic, and the text pulls no punches. Nor does she state, "i'll get to that later."
The unfortunate dynamic in this country is that any criticism of israel, or its actions will automatically result in an accusation of antisemitism. I have no doubt at all that the israelis launched this war to try to eliminate hamas as a representative before Obama takes office with the fear that he would not be as pliable as the Bush administration.
Israel successfully destroyed the PLO, a non-religious nationalist organization, in order to allow Hamas to be the predominant political entity in Gaza. Why else attack all the PLO governmental programs and leave Hamas entirely alone even when Hamas was the bad actor?
I leave you with two points:
1. Jews are less than 1/2 of one percent of the country's population yet make up nearly 1/4 of the members of the US senate. Much like Cubans, this group has influence far larger than its population should dictate. (and i am cuban)
2. The "accidental" killing of civilians doesn't make people feel any better about the loss of their loved ones. Palestinians are just as human as any other people, they have the same emotions ,dreams, desires, and aspirations.
Posted by ltgesq at January 16, 2009 11:33 AMltgesq, thanks for pointing out the Lawrence of Cyberia blog. I actually linked to an article from that blog earlier in this thread. It is an extremely valiable resource for both current and historical information and perspectives!
Posted by Shirin at January 16, 2009 11:47 AMItgesq,
Here's the bio from Lawrence of Cyberia:
I am a British-American living in the Washington D.C. area. I was born here, grew up here, and went to school here, or more specifically here, where I studied this. Always one to follow the herd, I specialised in this and its influence on the development of this, which meant I spent a lot of my time here , and studied under inspiring people like this, this and this.
I subsequently spent ten years working as a translator and intelligence analyst here, where I developed both a professional interest in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and a cynical view of the workings of international diplomacy. I met my better half – also a linguist - while we were both stationed here.
I have also worked here, but I never mention this.
I gave up paid employment to be a full-time parent, but retained my interest in international relations, especially the Middle East. Over the years, and especially since this was inflicted upon us, I have come to understand the Israel-Palestine conflict not as an academic interest but a human tragedy and a national disgrace, which will not be resolved until we as individuals demand that our governments practice in their foreign policy the same values that they preach to others, and until we want for everyone else’s children all that we want for our own: a transformation in attitude which I attribute to the arrival of this and this (links)
And so, those of you who read Shirin, Itgesq, et al, check out the impartial "expert" the writer refers us to. I'm pretty sure that Shirin is probably a fan of Lawrence, as well.
Keep up the good work, Itgesq!
Posted by GoItgesq at January 16, 2009 12:35 PMWhen you can't argue the substance, go after the person.
Posted by Shirin at January 16, 2009 02:06 PMShirin,
Good to hear from you - I thought I might. So, let's get real - from now on, provide links to your sources so we can evaluate whether the information to which you refer is 'truthy", or indeed factual. Many thanks for your interest in my conversation with Itgesq.
Posted by AFANOFSHIRIN at January 16, 2009 03:57 PM"from now on, provide links to your sources...."
No problem at all. You start. Provide sources for your claims, and I'll provide the sources that refute them.
But, you know, not all of us depend on Wikipedia for all our information. Some of us actually read books and periodicals. So, you might have to make a few trips to the library if you want to confirm my sources. Oh - and some of my sources might not be available in the branch library down the street. Just giving you a bit of advanced notice so you can be prepared.
Posted by Shirin at January 16, 2009 08:16 PMOK, CG, you clearly are incensed by the Arab League's offer of everything Israel claims it has always wanted - peace, recognition by, and normal relations with the Arab world.
Tell me what would be an acceptable offer to you.
Posted by Shirin at January 16, 2009 08:46 PMShirin,
To your inquiry about my personal library: (nope, don't get my facts from Wiki) it consists of approx. 200 books about the region, which I have collected for more than 40 years. And yes, I do have a copy of Said's, "Orientalism", and several other progenitors (i.e. Ashrawi)who have shaped the worldview on display during your exchanges on this website. But seriously when you quote the old propagandist dodge that "Arabs aren't allowed to own land in Israel"....seriously, that obfuscation is older than the admittedly sketchy ideas of Joan Peters?)!
So Shirin, let's get to the raw meat of it - the glistening viscera - the raw flesh of it - and give us your plan. Give us your two-state solution which will ensure the safety - the existence of Israel. I will, however, issue two caveats; I won't accept a plan which demands the "right of return" - unless, of course, it equals and does not exceed the number of Arabs who actually fled Israel in '48; and absolutely no plan which includes the return of the Golan Heights. Ever. Other than that, share your plan which spares us the sophistry, the twisted tautologies, the weasel words, the re-invention of history - the standard issue intellectual trickiness from your side, which enables the malefactors who spew this stuff to keep Palestinian in a state of perpetual night.
This will surprise you, I'm sure, but I too have been a proponent of a two-state solution for many years. It is obvious that Israel will never have a chance for peace and security without a Palestinian State. But it is not the Israeli's who use the people of the West Bank and Gaza as pawns; it is, and has been, the Arab countries in the Region and beyond, who scapegoat Israel by using the them as pawns for their own selfish ends.
My plan welcomes investment, not only from the oil-rich countries in the region, but Europe, the U.S., China - any trading partner which will bring industry to Palestine for job creation to raise the standard of living of its people, and allow them to have the pride of accomplishment. I welcome investment in an educational system which will allow future generations of Palestinians to build on those who come before them - those who will help build and sustain a Palestinian state. Not an educational system of hatred - but one which educates and creates doctors, computer scientists, medical researchers, engineers, teachers, mathematicians, and professions both skilled and non-skilled, which will give the people of Palestine the ability to rise up with pride and take their place in the community of nations.
But - it is your side, which has in the past, and continues to make excuses which enables those who will never accept Israel as their neighbor. Oh, another surprise - I agree that the Israeli's have in the past, worked against their own best interests, by delaying their acceptance of Palestinian statehood. The Israeli's are pragmatists, and now understand that they will never achieve true peace without acceptance of a Palestinian state.
So - I'll await your plan in the hope that you are a true bargaining partner who recognizes the rights of both Israel, and a future Palestinian state, enjoy peace and prosperity.
Posted by AFANOFSHIRIN at January 17, 2009 12:19 PMWhat now? You want to play duelling libraries? The thing is, you need to get an updated list of talking points. The one's you're using are at least a decade out of date.
Let me know when you have something substantive to say.
Posted by Shirin at January 17, 2009 10:38 PM