|
« Oldest hatred, latest chapter
Main |
December 12, 2003
Peaceniks in knots
An earthquake appears to be under way in Israeli politics. All of a sudden, light appears to have dawned among some Likudniks about the trap into which they have managed to manoeuvre themselves. By hanging onto the disputed territories in the wait for a negotiated settlement which will never come, the Jewish state is under existential threat from demography, a threat greater even than terrorism or war, since within the forseeable future Israel will be ruling more Arabs than Jews even though many of these Arabs will be outside its borders. This realisation provoked the deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to astonish everyone and enrage many within his own party by stating that Israel should now unilaterally withdraw from 90 per cent of the West Bank and Gaza. Quite right. Welcome to sanity. Since the 'two-state solution' called for by the Palestinians out of the western side of their mouths was always a ruse to conceal the real agenda --which remains, as it has been since 1948, the destruction of the Jewish state -- it follows that the Palestinians will always block the creation of their own state, waiting instead for the combination of terrorism, poisoned world opinion and demography to bring about their final solution to the impasse. That is Arafat's strategy. It is extremely shrewd, and the Israelis have fallen for it almost as badly as has benighted Europe. Until now. With Olmert's sensational remarks, the Israeli debate has been transformed. Never mind that a similar proposal was made by the Labour party and dismissed as absurd. Its time has now come -- precisely because such a suggestion can only be made by the militaristic hawks. The result is that Ariel Sharon is also making unilateralist noises, which may be clarified in a major speech next week. Yet what do we find among the opinion formers of the west who have been demanding year in, year out that Israel withdraw unilaterally from the territories? Do we find excited and enthusiastic commentary, congratulating the Israelis for moving the debate onto this territory and encouraging them? Do we hell. These same opinion formers are now throwing up their hands in horror. They say Sharon will not withdraw as Olmert has urged but instead will withdraw from only part of the territories in order to redraw the map of Israel. In the Jerusalem Report, Yossi Alpher, co-editor of an Israeli-Palestinian website expresses the left's view: '...he does not believe Sharon will dismantle settlements on the Palestinian side of the line to make an equitable two-state solution possible. "Sharon," he says, "believes he can create a Bantustan situation and get away with it. That with settlements and fences, he can isolate the Palestinians in about 50 percent of the West Bank and whatever they have in the Gaza Strip, call it a state and compel them to produce a leadership that will accept it."' And according to an article in Forward, Washington doesn't like this unilateralist tendency either: 'While Sharon's flirtation with one-sided measures is viewed inside Israel as a clear lurch to the left, it is strenuously opposed in most other capitals, including Washington. World public opinion would view unilateral steps as disrupting any chance for peace and as preceding direct Israeli annexation of areas in dispute. Indeed, senior administration officials were warning this week that the unilateral steps Sharon is discussing, if intended to redraw the map permanently, would "not be viable."' But if the Palestinians refuse to end their war, then it is eminently reasonable for the Israelis unilaterally to declare the very goal for which the Palestinians and the rest of the world are ostensibly clamouring. Since the entire area of the disputed territories is lawfully occupied by Israel because it is still the victim of a never ending war being waged against it, precisely where any new demarcation lines are drawn (in a place where there are no borders, only the 1948 and 1967 cease-fire lines) is a detail which can be argued over. ThIs all may simply be a tactical manoeuvre of no real import. But the important thing is the principle -- withdrawal, in Israel's own interests -- for which the world has also been clamouring. Now, though, it seems, there is something it finds worse than occupation and settlements after all -- the prospect that the Jewish state might survive.
Posted by melanie at December 12, 2003
Comments
Unilateral separation is the best thing for Israel. Let them build their fence, dismantle the more far flung settlements, keep Palestinians out of Israel which means no more Palestinian workers (Hamsa can find them jobs), and let the diseased, nihilistic, Culture of Death detroy itself in all its rottenness. Posted by: Travis at December 12, 2003 04:45 PMThe joker in the pack is the Iranian ,or even the Arab,nuclear option and the future of the Jews. As to the future then of the West Bank all bets are off.All talk of a few yards here and a few yards there is instant water under the bridge. Posted by: Prof. J. Edwards at December 12, 2003 05:16 PMHas it occurred to the Iranians that a nuclear fallout over Tel Aviv will not not be limited to Israel proper but spread to the West Bank and guarantee the extermination of the entire Arab/Islamic world from an Israeli counterstrike (many of their nukes are offshore)? What is it about Islam that makes people stupid? Posted by: Travis at December 13, 2003 02:03 AMHas is occurred to the EUropeans that an Iranian nuclear strike that over-shoots Israel will render the Mediterranean a radioactive cesspool for one thousand generations? After 50 years, it is time Israel set unilateral borders, the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine aka Jordan legally annex the remainder of the "West Bank", Egypt take back the Gaza Strip and all of Arabdom be compelled to enter the 21st Century. Posted by: Garrison at December 13, 2003 01:27 PM"Has it occurred to the Iranians that a nuclear fallout over Tel Aviv will not not be limited to Israel proper but spread to the West Bank and guarantee the extermination of the entire Arab/Islamic world from an Israeli counterstrike (many of their nukes are offshore)?" Of course it has. They just don't care. If they had anything even remotely resembling human compassion for the Palestinians, they would have taken in the refugees and given them homes and jobs, much like Israel took in the Jewish refugees from Iran when they were expelled by Ayatollah Khomeni. The Palestinians are puppets to the other Islamic nations, nothing more. Disposable puppets whose only purpose is to destroy Israel, and their miserable failure to do so for the last fifty years has made them the most expendable of all the mullahs' tools. If Islam got a nuke, they would not even try to get it into Israel; they would ship it into Palestine and detonate it there, and hope that the fallout from the blast can destroy Israel. ******BREAKING NEWS******BREAKING NEWS******BREAKING NEWS******BREAKING NEWS******BREAKING NEWS******BREAKING NEWS******BREAKING NEWS******BREAKING NEWS******BREAKING NEWS******BREAKING NEWS****** CHIRAC AGREED TO SEND 200.000 FRENCH TROOPS TO BAIL OUT YOUESSAN “ARMY” HIT BY MASSIVE DESERTIONS
French officials are alarmed by the catastrophic news coming from Iraq: unitedstatish "soldiers" are escaping from Iraq under the guise of Kurdish citizens, wearing the famous Iraqi and Arab al-dashdasha (loose headdress) which has become much sought-after recently, Iraqis told FoxNews. His Excellency Jean-David Levitte, France’s ambassador to the youess, was lately ordered to return to France immediately by the President of the French Republic, Jacques Chirac. Mr Levitte unconvincingly denied leaking that President Chirac was “infuriated” that the French ”had to bail the youess out for a third time in less than 250 years” ---referring to the independence granted by the French Army to the British insurgents and to the Louisiana purchase wanted by Paris to help nascent youessan agriculture and stop starvation. According to press leaks, Mr Chirac nonetheless admitted that he wouldn’t ”wait until all those cheeseburger-eatin’ desertin’ she-boons are hiding somewhere in Turkey” to lend a helping hand to the desperate unitedstatish officials. An aid to Mrs Michèle Alliot-Marie, Minister of Defence, aired that President Chirac was prepared to send a 200.000-strong expeditionary force to replace deserting youessans. The aid told Mrs Alliot-Marie did nothing to hide her ”annoyance” at youessan ”staggering incompetence ” and ”utter inaptitude ”. She allegedly even mentioned that ”the UN-mandated French are successful in Congo-Zaïre the size of which is four times bigger than that of France whereas the youessan outlaws are simply incapable of taking charge of Iraq which is 22 times smaller than the youessey. This is starting to get ridiculous !”. Authorised sources from Vichyngton D.C. disclosed that Obersturmführer John Ashcroft recently arranged a secret trip to the French capital for Donald Rumsfeld. French Authorities have issued a forged Pakistani passport under the fake name of “Donallahda Ben Rimsfild” to camouflage Rumsfeld’s top-secret flight to Paris. Besides those humiliating measures, Mrs Ben Rimsfild had to put a burka on before she was allowed on board in an Air France’s Airbus for Paris. ”The burka was needed to guarantee anonymity to Mr Rumsfeld”, said Jean-Cyril Spinetta, Air France’s CEO. “It was intended as neither a persecutory manœuvre nor a vicious intrigue. It was a mere self-explaining precautionary step”. At her arrival to Charles-de-Gaulle airport, Mrs Ben Rimsfild was swiftly pushed in a black-glassed, bullet-proof luxury Renault that rushed to the Quai d’Orsay ---the office of Mr Dominique de Villepin, Minister of Foreign Affairs. After a three-hour fifty-minute wait in the sumptuously furnished anteroom to de Villepin’s austere cabinet, Mrs Ben Rimsfild was eventually asked in. Profoundly embarrassed by Mrs Ben Rimsfild’s utter impropriety, Mr de Villepin urged the youessan to unveil. Which (s)he did ---suddenly bursting into tears and yelling hysterically: ”You MUST help us out ! You MUST bail us out ! I can’t take it anymore…”. Disconcerted by such an obvious lack of sang-froid, de Villepin spouted comforting words to Mrs Ben Rimsfild that he would see to it that President Chirac makes a telephone call to Bush, and then he saw the whining nuisance off at his cabinet’s mahogany doors. Unfortunately French concerns about unitedstatish impotence are not limited to diplomatic and military issues. Said Francis Mer, France’s Minister of Economy and Finance: ”The French are happy to help the youessey overcome those very sad times” ---a polite allusion to the disastrous $-31.250.000.000.000 deficit caused by unitedstatish households, companies and federal government. Mr Mer explained that the “fine” the Californian Attorney General “demanded” from the Crédit Lyonnais ---a top-ranking French-owned bank--- and from French Authorities ”was actually a secret bilateral agreement”. To the great despair of demoralised youess financial “markets”, the Crédit Lyonnais acquired Executive Life (an ailing unitedstatish insurance company) a few years ago. Upon a formal request by Mrs Roselyne Bachelot, Minister of Environment and Ecology, Mr Mer agreed to inject fresh money ($ 475.000.000) into the youess “economy” ”to help California hire more fire-fighters so that new blazes could be extinguished more rapidly”. Mr Mer also insisted that the extra subsidy ”should be allocated to the 60.000.000 youessans who still don’t enjoy Social Security, a fundamental right of unitedstatish citizens”. Asked whether the $-475.000.000 subsidy was truly considered a “fine” by the French government, Mr Mer simply left without answering ---a clumsy attempt to appear diplomatic. Mrs Bachelot ---an inveterate leaker--- later floated that the subsidy was in reality categorised as “foreign emergency aid” according to the French public budget system, although ”we are eager to show utmost consideration towards our unlucky, pitiful unitedstatish friends”. That's... uh... impressive. Especially the constant use of Orwellian "newspeak." Truly a nightmare scenario, but thank God it's never going to happen, outside the derranged minds of the elitist prigs running the EU. The international communities uniformly negative reactions to Mr. Sharon's unilateral plans for the Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories are indeed puzzling. This is especially true in light of the fact that these withdrawals will be pretty extensive in scope, close to a hundred per cent of what that same international community has demanded for decades. The least they could do in that idiotic, un-funny article is learn to spell dishdasha. Just think of dishtowel—checked dishtowel. ;-) "What is it about Islam that makes people stupid?" The "immutable" word of Allah—as dictated to Mohammed in the 7th century. It won't let them move forward.
It strikes me that Arafat might not be the only one looking forward to a potential “total victory”. This from the same article in the Jerusalem Report: "We will probably need another Yom Kippur-like catastrophe to wake us up," says Knesset member Aryeh Eldad, of the far-right Moledet. "Total rebellion of the Arabs of the West Bank, joined by some of the Israeli Arabs, and conflagration on the northern border with the Hizballah in Lebanon. All that could happen tomorrow or in several years’ time. But it will happen. Then, when Israel defends itself, it will impose the Jordan-is-Palestine solution." Let’s get real. How long does Israel expect that it will be able to remain both a viable member of the “progressive” nations of the world, yet deliberately nurture and foster a Jewish rule via majority population? The place is going to have to get in step with the rest of the community of nations and disconnect religious matters from those of governance. Totally. Not to mention the implicit ethnic exclusivity. A “Jewish” state? Now, yes. Forever? Not possible. Simply not realistic. The world is changing, for the better. So must Israel. Israel will always exist, and I would think (and hope) that it would continue to act as a haven for those who feel perpetually threatened absolutely everyplace on Earth, by everyone. But it will have to do so as a democratic nation that is governed by a body representative of its rich and diverse ethnic makeup. If the majority of those people think it should be one way instead of another, well, that’s democracy. And “rigging the system” to suit any policies of ethnic/religious supremacy/exclusivity is just plain backward. I don’t want my country having dealings with a state like that, be they Israelis, Arabs, or whatever. Israel will not always exist if the Palestinian Arabs have their way. Arafat is following the phased strategy he declared in 1974, using any area of Palestine he could get his hands on as a springboard for further attacks until the whole of Israel is destroyed and the sherds are in his hands. Some people may not have noticed, but Israel is democratically ruled, with Arab Members of the Knesset. But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of dissing Israel. Israel is the only country in the world Jews can be certain of receiving them if they are persecuted elsewhere, something that happens with monotonous regularity. As such they need their little patch of ground. It is a tiny place but even so small a refuge is to be denied them by the dogs in the manger, whether genocidal Arabs, EUnuchs fearful of boatrocking, or people who think it's not "progressive" for such a state to exist. Posted by: Michael Lonie at December 14, 2003 03:13 AMIt isn't Michael. Please explain to me, if you can, how a nation-state that is based on the notion of racial and religious singularity and exclusivity can be considered progressive. The "size" of their country has nothing to do with it Michael. That is a classic strawman fallacy. Does a nation state, regardless of geographical volume, that possesses the only strategic nuclear capability in the entire region still qualify as a tiny, insignificant little place? Was the Third Reich progressive? It had a similiar agenda. Just replace "Arabs" with "Slavs" and "Jews" with "Aryans". After you have explained these things, perhaps for dessert you might make the Empire State Building disappear. And Israel is about as Democratic as the surrounding nations, it just goes about fixing things in a way that is more subtle. When the Egyptian President wins an election by a 90% majority, he KNOWS we know that he rigged it. "If the majority of those people think it should be one way instead of another, well, that’s democracy. . . " Ah, no, Mr. T. that is the tyranny of the majority. That is why the very best democracies have checks and balances. Looks like some of the Israelis are regrouping: ". . .The Likud is publicly grappling with a prospect long raised by Israel's left: that within a few years Arabs are likely to be the majority in Israel and its occupied territories, and that they may switch from demanding their own state to demanding the right to vote in Israel, threatening its Jewish identity. The result is a breathtaking inversion: Though the Likud's platform opposes a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River as a threat to Israel, some members of the party say they have concluded that only the creation of such a state can save Israel as a Jewish democracy. . . "
". . .The figures are striking. About 5.2 million Jews and 1.3 million Arabs are Israeli citizens, while roughly 3.5 million more Arabs live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Arab birth rate exceeds the Jewish rate. . . " In Israel, as well as elsewhere, Islam will win the war not with traditional war but by breeding the rest of the world out of existence. Lili Posted by: Lilith at December 14, 2003 07:32 AMIf they have captured Saddam Hussein this is fantastic news ! Time to pay a bonus to the Special Forces guys ! This is excellent news ! Posted by: Romulus at December 14, 2003 11:55 AMAmen Romulus. Merry Xmas to you mate. Posted by: Mike Talismann at December 14, 2003 01:39 PMTo quote Melanie: "It's time has now come -- precisely because such a suggestion can only be made by the militaristic hawks." In the above context, I think you'll find the correct usage of "it's" to be "its". I learned such principles of punctuation in submitting writing for my new-fangled Media Studies lessons. A totally unnecessary subject, I think you'll agree. Posted by: First-Timer at December 14, 2003 04:34 PMMike T 1./ Singlarity? 2./ Small, Insignificant? Israel is less than 3% of area of the Mid East alone, let's not bother adding up all of the states who want Israel destroyed. 3./ Now who's using "Strawman" arguments quoting the third reich allusion, Have the Israelis got a genocidal state sponsored system in place to remove a people group from the face of the earth? 4./ Hey where's the Empire state building gone? I know it seems silly and puerile, but I don't see many Israelis queuing up to launch attacks against the USA least of all trying to carry them out. which leads very nicely into If you as an ordinary citizen spoke out against Assad or Mubarak (as the Israelis do against their own government) you and maybe some of your family would disappear! In fact the truth is, if the world were to invade Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria as Iraq has been the people would be liberated from dictatorships not democracy. Why do you ignore this? Mike NZ “Someone has to take issue with your propaganda, so it might as well be me.” Wow, the hero finds his call to arms. I am breathless with anticipation. “1./ Singlarity? Saudi Arabia won't allow any Jews in their country, not only that whilst anyone can worship their god in Israel, Only Allah is allowed in Saudi Arabia. Anyone can convert to another religion in Israel in Saudi you get the death penalty. Do they equate?” Does it matter? You have made a classic debating error here Mike, called the “Strawman Fallacy”. You erroneously think that because I criticize the Jewish state for being singular, I (for reasons unknown) find it perfectly reasonable for the Arabs to do the same. Newsflash junior, I don’t. One MAJOR stumbling block that we all must get past is that not all people take a pet side on this issue. You do, because you are naïve, and you believe that one side are the “goodies” in the white hats, and the other side are the “baddies” in black. I don’t support either side in the ongoing Israeli/Arab slapfest. I am just tired of ALWAYS hearing how whiter-than-white the Israelis are, compared to those evildoers, the Arabs. Have you seen a person blown apart by a suicide bomb, and a person blown apart by a 120mm shell lobbed into a densely-packed civilian area? I have sonny, and there is really very little difference. It is arbitrary and horrific. And some Israelis seem to agree with that notion. A small group of heroic Israeli pilots (some of them veterans) are right now “on strike” and in threat of being court-martialed, all because they don’t want to go on blowing up little kids in ridiculously unsurgical assassination attempts with missiles or tank shells. Don’t worry about strawmen arguments. Just focus on the issue at hand. If I don’t mention another country or advocate it in any way, don’t hallucinate that I have. Oh, and by the way, it is still illegal for a Jew to marry a non-Jew in Israel. Did you know that? This is the nation you defend. “2./ Small, Insignificant? Israel is less than 3% of area of the Mid East alone, let's not bother adding up all of the states who want Israel destroyed. Let's be honest, Israel was only insignificant until the Jews got their homeland back.” When was it “theirs” in the first place? The only “historical” accounts for their ownership of the land (for a very, very little while) come from them. How is this creditable? If my sister writes a book that claims my grandfather owned your block of land for a while back in 1930, does that mean I am entitled to come along and bang you out of it? Let’s face it, 1930 was one hell of a lot more recent than what… 70AD when the Romans shipped them out? And according to your logic, violent expulsion is A-OK as a means of settling land disputes. “3./ Now who's using "Strawman" arguments quoting the third reich allusion, Have the Israelis got a genocidal state sponsored system in place to remove a people group from the face of the earth? Whereas the very people ranged against them want to destroy them as a state and as a people period. or haven't you read anything about the pre primary education funded by the EU?” Genocidal? Not in terms of the numbers dead that you need to have mounded up to call it a “true” Genocide. But ethnic-cleansing? Sure. “4./ Hey where's the Empire state building gone? I’m sure that this has some discernable meaning. Perhaps I need to see it from another perspective. On my knees, behind a sheep perhaps? Oh, and on the subject of Israeli attacks against the USA, go read some history: http://www.ussliberty.org/wrmead03.htm http://www.ussliberty.org/why.htm “5.Where do you get this, how can you even compare? If you as an ordinary citizen spoke out against Assad or Mubarak (as the Israelis do against their own government) you and maybe some of your family would disappear!” Yes, and annoy the Mossad sufficiently and you will end up floating someplace off Haifa. Or just kidnapped from Rome and put in solitary confinement for your entire adult life. You can go ask an innocent dead waiter in Norway about the former and Mordechai Vanunu about the latter. “In fact the truth is, if the world were to invade Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria as Iraq has been the people would be liberated from dictatorships not democracy. I don't include Lebanon as it is a vassal state of Syria.” Duh. Who defended the Arabs? I said the Israelis were as BAD as them. But at least the Arabs don’t bother with all the annoying BS hypocrisy. They know we know they are backward despots, and don’t spent lots of our aid money (that they don’t get) on Lobby groups in the west, telling us how wonderful they really are. Like Israel does “Why do you ignore this? Are you an Israeli? Why do you defend their interests so zealously? Do you think they would do the same for you, you silly naïve little goy? Your worthless ass is nothing to them. Just as it is to the Arabs. So WAKE UP and look after your OWN nation’s interests. Mike, it so nice to see an anti-semite write, especially one with so much hatred as you. You do realise that the history of Jews in the area didn't started after WWII? You do realise that there was a Jewish state (in fact several of them) until the Romans flattened them? Saying that Israel is as bad as the Arab countries smacks of moral relativism and is frankly an ludicrious thing to say. Israel is democratic, doesn't export terrorism and looks favourably towards the West. While Israel does not have a perfect history towards either the US or the UK as far as behaviour they are no where hear as bad as Syria, Iran, Iraq or Egypt. And another thing, when have the Israelis ever said they wish to see Muslims wiped off the face of the earth? When has Israel ever stated it wanted to obliterate and country by pushing it into the sea? Both of these things not only have been said by Palestinians and their Arab bretheren but have been said in the last few days. Palestinians actively call for the extermination of the Jews (not only Israel) and routinely praise Hitler for making a "good start". Yes, Israel is as bad as this lot...sure maybe in your warped little world. The rest of us think you are a fool...and an anti-semitic one at that. Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge at December 15, 2003 02:34 PMEr I meant Mike T, not Mike NZ. (If that isn't obvious enough.) Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge at December 15, 2003 02:35 PM“Mike, it so nice to see an anti-semite write, especially one with so much hatred as you. You do realise that the history of Jews in the area didn't started after WWII? You do realise that there was a Jewish state (in fact several of them) until the Romans flattened them?” Yes, I do realize that, thank you Andrew. Thank you also for the “you’re nothing but a big nasty racist so nothing you say is valid” ad-Hominem attack. I also recall that there were people living in Canaan before the mythical Hebrew tribes were “led” to the “promised land” after so much “slavery” in Egypt. Which by the way never had slaves, and used paid labourers to build the pyramids. No archaeological evidence WHATSOEVER for the trans-Sinai migration either, even thought this herd of hundreds of thousands of people supposedly crossed it REALLY SLOWLY. But hey, I am prepared to believe all the rest of it on faith. I’m that kind of open-minded guy. “Saying that Israel is as bad as the Arab countries smacks of moral relativism and is frankly an ludicrious thing to say. Israel is democratic, doesn't export terrorism and looks favourably towards the West.” Israel is a government whose leading party is unable to free itself of its alliance with the religious right, and it is a state that is still effectively under the control of religious law. And Israelis, when not assassinating westerners for having dared to meddle in the politics of Palestine, conducting HUGE spying operations against the security infrastructure in the USA and UK, (largest ever captured Spy-Ring in the USA to date) OH! And deliberately attacking and nearly destroying allied US Warships--when they aren’t doing those things (and supplying arms & running drugs in cooperation with South American scumbags) they are just PEACHY. “While Israel does not have a perfect history towards either the US or the UK as far as behaviour they are no where hear as bad as Syria, Iran, Iraq or Egypt.” Not perfect? Not as bad as? What a pathetically amoral display of sophistry. Do you have any ethical anchor man? At all? Any standards you adhere to? Here’s a tip for you. If it smells, it stinks, and you shouldn’t touch it. I am not advocating anyone go running off to the Arabs after Israel is discarded. I am not so stupidly polemical. I say, until both sides shape up, we MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS. If you disagree vehemently with that... well, whose interests do you guard first and foremost? I suggest not that of your birth--unless you were born in Tel-Aviv. “And another thing, when have the Israelis ever said they wish to see Muslims wiped off the face of the earth? When has Israel ever stated it wanted to obliterate and country by pushing it into the sea? Both of these things not only have been said by Palestinians and their Arab bretheren but have been said in the last few days. Palestinians actively call for the extermination of the Jews (not only Israel) and routinely praise Hitler for making a "good start".” Have you lived in the Middle-East? I have, and in Israel. To the Arabs of the region, to be “a Jew” and to be “an Israeli” is totally synonymous. That this was brought about by the exodus of Jews from Arabic countries to Israel, or their expulsion is by the by. But it is a distinction that has little to do with conscious racism. Had you lived there, you would know this. It is a given. And as for comments about exterminating Arabs (as well as keeping away from nasty little Christians too) I only have to look so far as the still-revered Rabbi Kahane. But no doubt you don’t know who he is, do you? "Yes, Israel is as bad as this lot...sure maybe in your warped little world. The rest of us think you are a fool...and an anti-semitic one at that." And I think that you are a naïve, know-nothing, brainwashed, servile little apologist for a country you know NOTHING about. But that is just as much an ad-Hominem attack as yours was, and I am not interested in exchanging flames. Either debate the topic with me, or don’t talk to me at all. It is that simple. I don’t intend to clutter up somebody else’s comments section with flame-wars. If you are that inconsiderate, then keep going, and I shall exercise my infinite powers of selective hearing. Oh, and you speak for yourself Andrew. Not “everyone”. “Er I meant Mike T, not Mike NZ. (If that isn't obvious enough.)” Neither Mike NZ, nor myself, have ever brought race into this topic, so no, it is not “clear” Andy. The accusation of anti-Semitism is a blunt rhetorical tool, and is only effectively made against holocaust deniers or holocaust minimizers. I know the holocaust happened, that Hitler knew about it, and that it involved 6 million Jews. Many Jews seem to think that they are a “race” and not a “people”, and I can back that up with hundreds of quotes by Jewish authors. Do I think Jews are racially inferior? No, they are obviously a very driven, intelligent race, IF a race they are. Do I believe them to possess certain dispositions, what with the gravitation towards banking, movie production, media… etc? No. The preponderance of Jewish people in these industries has nothing to do with genetics, but instead is probably a reflection of cultural upbringing. What I complain about, when it comes to rabidly Zionistic, Orthodox Jews, is the immunity from critical examination that is cultivated, and the cult of victim-hood that is being actively maintained. Such people within the Jewish community do not see the Jewish Holocaust through the lens of Jewish History, but rather see Jewish History through the lens of the Holocaust. This, combined with nasty little gutter-debaters like yourself, have produced a distinct unwillingness within the 5th Estate to criticize Israel, or even someone who happens to be Jewish, even if the matter for critical analysis has nothing to do with religion. Why? Because they will be branded anti-Semites. Maybe you don’t follow this Andy. Well, let me make it easier for you. Below is a post that you made on this site, wherein you claimed that: “Exactly, will be interesting to see if they actually do anything about it in Canada. Doing something about it might risk "offending" their Islamic population. Here you are clearly inferring that (to your mind) Islamicists enjoy a “sacred cow” position. You think that people won’t touch them or the topic of Islam for fear of being branded Anti-Islamic. Right? Well, take “Islamic” out of your post, and replace it with “Jewish” or “Israel”. And you have my argument in a nutshell. But don’t worry Andy, your secret deep racial hatred of the Muslims is safe with me. ;-) As they say in the classics: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity.” Poor Andy. So full of sound and fury; signifying… nothing. And the winner of the counter-flame attack award for 2003 goes to... Posted by: Debbie F at December 16, 2003 04:32 AMMike T., this statement of yours struck me as rather bizarre: "And Israel is about as Democratic as the surrounding nations, it just goes about fixing things in a way that is more subtle. When the Egyptian President wins an election by a 90% majority, he KNOWS we know that he rigged it." In what sense are Israeli elections "rigged"? And your equation of the suppression of free speech in the Arab world with a supposed clamp-down in Israel seems equally suspect. There are many well-known Israeli "dissenters" who criticize Sharon in the harshest terms and none of them seem to be getting bumped off. Is there an Arab equivalent of, say, Uri Averny living in Egypt or Syria? Also, why are you so opposed to the idea of a Jewish state? You´ve lived in Israel and I haven´t, so I guess you know more than I do about the situation there. My only experience in that part of the world was a short stay in Morocco, where I noticed that portraits of the king hung on the walls of every shop. A Moroccan told me it was an unofficial requirement. Does Israel compel its people to put up portraits of its rulers? Israel consistently describes itself as a bastion of Western democracy and as the only democratic state in the entire Middle East. To demonstrate that theirs is a "democratic" country, Israel emphasizes that Palestinians in Israel have the right to vote, that there are Palestinians in the Knesset (Israeli Parliament), that Palestinian citizens enjoy a higher standard of living than Arabs in neighboring states, and that the only distinction Israel makes between Jews and Palestinians in Israel is that Palestinians are not required to serve in the Israeli army. Israel's 1948 Declaration of Independence defined Israel as both a Jewish and democratic state, committed both to the "ingathering of the [Jewish] exiles", and to guaranteeing equality to all its citizens regardless of race, religion, or gender. Yet, in defining the state as a specifically Jewish state, Israel effectively compromises the degree to which it can be truly democratic. As a Jewish state, Israel rests on three minimum conditions: Jews form the majority, Jews are entitled to special treatment and preferential laws, and a reciprocal relationship exists between Israel and the Jewish people in the diaspora. The Palestinian minority inside Israel, now comprising one-fifth of the Israeli population, is excluded and therefore discriminated against: by privileging Jews, the state treats non-Jews, which is its official name for Palestinians (miyutim lo yehudim) as second-class citizens. Lacking a formal constitution, Israel's Knesset has propounded a series of Basic Laws that form a constitution-in-evolution. Prior to 1992, none of these Basic Laws guaranteed any basic rights to Israeli citizens, Jews or non-Jews. However, in 1992 the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom was passed. It authorised courts to overturn Knesset laws that were contrary to the right to dignity, life, freedom, privacy, property and the right to leave and enter the country. It pointedly did not include the right to equality, however. Further, section 1A of this Basic Law states that it aims to anchor "the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state". Given the lack of an explicit law that constitutionally protects equality for all citizens, an emphasis on the Jewishness of the State again compromises equal rights protection for the large and growing Palestinian minority. Here are two clear examples of laws that discriminate against Palestinians by distinguishing between Jews and non-Jews: Citizenship rights and The Law of Return The Israeli Law of Return discriminates against 5 million Palestinian refugees who are prevented from returning to their homes of origin and their properties. The Committee on the Implementation of the Convenant on Economic, Social and Economic Rights noted in 1998 that Israel's 1950 Law of Return "discriminates against Palestinians in the diaspora upon whom the Government of Israel imposed restrictive requirements that make it almost impossible to return to their land of birth." The Committee further noted with concern that internally displaced Palestinians in Israel continue to be displaced and dispossessed of their lands. In 1998, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination noted that: "the rights of many Palestinians to return and possess their homes in Israel is currently denied," and strongly recommended that Israel give "high priority to remedying this situation." As a result of the World Zionist Organisation-Jewish Agency Law, the Jewish National Fund, Jewish Agency, and World Zionist Organisation have special constitutional status in Israel and are known as quasi-governmental or extra-state bodies. These are very influential Jewish organisations that benefit and represent Jews only, but have authority over certain governmental functions, including ownership and development of state lands, housing projects and settlements. Their activities are co-ordinated with the government and they receive significant tax-exemption privileges. These agencies, which do not represent all the citizens of Israel, but rather, Israeli Jews and World Jewry, exercise far-reaching influence on state decision-making boards (particularly in agriculture and land use). The Palestinian minority is excluded entirely from these agencies' actions and decisions as either beneficiaries or participants. Furthermore, no government organisations perform the same functions for non-Jews. Consequently, Palestinian needs are systematically disregarded. The government categorises the country into different zones and awards different statuses and benefits to different regions and towns. For instance, it defines certain areas as national development areas, which then makes them eligible for benefits such as special tax incentives for industry, educational programmes, and housing incentives. Development areas are supposed to be determined according to socio-economic criteria. Yet the zones are drawn to include a disproportionate number of Jewish localities and to exclude nearly all Palestinian ones. For example, in the 1998 classification, out of 429 localities accorded Development Area A status, only 4 were Palestinian, despite the fact that Palestinian towns and villages are consistently at the bottom of the socio-economic scale in Israel. These zoning patterns and decisions were used to exclude the vast majority of the Palestinian minority from these benefits. The Palestinian minority in Israel is discriminated against by those aspects of the legal system that allow the government to adopt discriminatory policies, or the discretionary power that can be used by Israeli officials to maintain a systematic pattern of preferences. The Budget Law, which governs Israeli state Often this discrepancy is justified by the fact that the government administers projects in cooperation with the Jewish Agency, thus necessitating only Jewish beneficiaries. There are three ways in which the implementation of the law adversely affects the Palestinian minority in Israel: 1. Positive statutes that the State is expected to enforce or services that the State is required to provide can simply not be implemented in Palestinian communities, such as the Compulsory Education Law, and the provision of truant officers or counselors, despite the fact that Palestinian students form 75 percent of those who drop out of school throughout the whole country. 2. Laws that apply to both Jews and Palestinians can be selectively or predominantly implemented only in relation to Palestinians, such as land confiscation laws or house demolitions orders to prevent or counteract unlicensed building. 3. Laws can be implemented according to vastly different criteria for Jews and Palestinians, such as criteria for family assistance in educational programmes or production quotas for agricultural production. Often quotas differences are maintained due to a lack of Palestinian representation in decision-making bodies. The judicial review of this institutional discrimination is limited. To date, there is not one case in which the Supreme Court has accepted a case of discrimination against the Palestinian minority and ruled to protect its rights. Not once. Statistics alone state that this is unjust. The Supreme Court usually accepts the claim of the Israeli State that its policies serve national priorities and therefore are not intentionally discriminatory, or that the different treatment accorded Jews and Palestinians before the law is legitimate, as they are different ethnic or religious groups. Even when historical discrimination is acknowledged, the court will not rule to close the gaps, arguing that responsibility lies within the decision-making powers of the executive. In short, Israel is a full democracy only if we were to also consider the former Apartheid Government of South Africa a full and equitable democracy. "Was the Third Reich progressive? It had a similiar agenda. Just replace "Arabs" with "Slavs" and "Jews" with "Aryans"." Oh, pu-leeze. If you think Israel is even remotely like the 3rd Reich, go study some history. This trivializing of the Nazi horror has to stop. You've totally discredited yourself right there. Not because anyone is trying to "suppress" you, but because you are simply grossly ignorant. Go learn. Your ignorance is also revealed in your attempt to raise the thoroughly debunked USS Liberty issue, which the US government is entirely satisfied was an accident. And this one: If you don't supply detailed facts for each of these smears, I'm just going to ignore them. And if you do, I'm going to debunk them. Another point: Also, no one in Israel can marry someone of another religion, because there is no civil marriage in Israel, and all the recognized religions (which is all of them) will only perform weddings for people of the same religion. So many Israelis go to Cyprus to get married, and come back to live in Israel, and their marriages are recognized. There are more than a few Arab-Jew marriages in Israel. I am not defending this policy, but you make it sound like it is some sort of racial purity measure instead of something applied across the board. So anyone reading Mike's supercilious propaganda might want to assess it in light of the lies and distortions I have already exposed. Also, Mike, I could post a long list of countries where one indigenous people is considered the standard, and most of them would not be in the Middle East, they would be in Europe, Africa, and Asia. I don't notice you being outraged about any of those. "To the Arabs of the region, to be “a Jew” and to be “an Israeli” is totally synonymous. That this was brought about by the exodus of Jews from Arabic countries to Israel, or their expulsion is by the by. But it is a distinction that has little to do with conscious racism. Had you lived there, you would know this. It is a given." If it isn't conscious bigotry against a minority, then what is it? Do you not hold the Arabs accountabel for anything? You seem to have a case of condescending racism yourself. "It is a given." Oh, well, I guess we musn't question it then. ""And Israel is about as Democratic as the surrounding nations, it just goes about fixing things in a way that is more subtle. When the Egyptian President wins an election by a 90% majority, he KNOWS we know that he rigged it." In what sense are Israeli elections "rigged"?" Yes, I noticed Mike didn't respond to that one. "I also recall that there were people living in Canaan before the mythical Hebrew tribes were “led” to the “promised land” after so much “slavery” in Egypt. Which by the way never had slaves, and used paid labourers to build the pyramids. No archaeological evidence WHATSOEVER for the trans-Sinai migration either, even thought this herd of hundreds of thousands of people supposedly crossed it REALLY SLOWLY." There is archeological evidence for the Jews being in Israel - inscriptions that correlate with Bible chronicles - since at least 800 BCE. That's almost 3000 years in one spot. Before that, we are not sure whether they migrated from somewhere else, whether they conquered the Canaanites or intermarried with and absorbed them. But so sweet of you to care about the poor Canaanites. How do you feel about all the other peoples which have disappeared or been displaced around the globe since the Bronze Age? Are they just as interesting to you if you can't use them as a stick to beat the Jews with? The last long bit you quoted was cut and pasted from somewhere, and you should supply a link or a source of some kind. But I would be curious to hear about your life in Israel. How long were you there, and where exactly? In what capacity? Did you have Israeli friends? Did you hate Israel before you arrived, or did something cause you to become such a bigot later? Posted by: Yehudit at December 18, 2003 10:48 AMWay to go COMPLETELY side-stepping every point that I took pains to make about anti-Democratic Israel. Did you think your flappy rant would misdirect our attention? If you ignore my posts entirely, how then are you able to credibly complain about my ignoring yours? I'll fisk the crap out of this bunch of CRAP when I have time to waste. Assassination is the extreme form of censorship. Posted by: Kalish Seth at January 20, 2004 02:02 PM |
