# Hamas and the Taliban



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

It was a democratic election but the outcome is truly scary. Hamas is bent on the destruction of Israel and has emerged from the corruption and ineffectiveness of Fatah to do anything of consequence for Palestinians. Terrorists are not idiots. Their strategy is intelligent and ruthless - they are simply wrong and see the worlsd fromt he wrong perspective. They have not renounced violence but their thrust will be to continue to indoctrinate the Palestinian youth. This is the tactic used by the Taliban except Hamas has used democracy for their validation. So what with George W. do now?

An except from the Globe and Mail:



> Sheik Mohammed Abu Teir said Hamas plans to institute single-sex schooling 'because we look at examples in the West, like Sweden. they have the highest level of co-education and the highest level of suicides.'


Such ridiculous statements only serve to demonstrate how desperate the situation is. The irony of Hamas being the party of suicide bombers is too sickening to contemplate.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

I guess they will test the old adage that "democracies do not make war on one another". 

Actually, there are so so so many ways to have fun with all of the different ironies and perspectives in this situation.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

A democratic election victory is not a panacea - Hitler was elected fair and square in 1933. 

It's hard to visualize a gang of terrorists dealing with normal government concerns like housing and education. I wonder if they'll have a Ministry for Murdering Women and Children.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Gerbill, only if it's Israeli women and children. Or a different branch of Islam's women and children. Or Christian women and children. 

I'd better stop. 

Just like Nazi Germany, Hamas Palestine is an example of a failed state about become extremely dangerous.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

NBiBooker said:


> Gerbill, only if it's Israeli women and children. Or a different branch of Islam's women and children. Or Christian women and children.



No, they'll stone their own women, do this regularly, in fact. It's an evil world that allows this to happen.


----------



## Sun Dog (Jan 4, 2004)

Before this occured one of my TAs said that anyone who can come up with an example of a democracy attacking another democracy gets an A+. He must be squirming now.

It's hard to imagine Hamas, such an ideological group, leaving Palestine democratic though.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Sun Dog said:


> Before this occured one of my TAs said that anyone who can come up with an example of a democracy attacking another democracy gets an A+. He must be squirming now.
> 
> It's hard to imagine Hamas, such an ideological group, leaving Palestine democratic though.


One swallow doesn't make a summer. One democratic election does not make a democracy.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

time to build a bigger wall i guess, eh?

let's not even begin to discuss why Hamas was elected
i'd better be careful what i say, else the watchers of this board declare me anti something again

one bomb/death threat from a "defence league" per lifetime is more than enough for me


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Well, Macspectrum, at least you aren't among those who have to keep saying "never again" or worry about having their gravestones being regularly pushed over or symbols sprayed on their houses.

Poor you.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Sun Dog said:


> Before this occured one of my TAs said that anyone who can come up with an example of a democracy attacking another democracy gets an A+. He must be squirming now.


Your TA should have offered an A+ to anyone who can find a democracy that has never attacked anyone else. I can only think of one, perhaps, Switzerland.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

HowEver said:


> No, they'll stone their own women, do this regularly, in fact. It's an evil world that allows this to happen.


The stoning of women or democratic elections? If you're concerned about the former how is that different from the electric chair, the needle or the bullet in the back of the head beyond the delivery of sentence? Or, are you concerned about the free exercise of a democratic vote?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> let's not even begin to discuss why Hamas was elected


Maybe it's because the citizens of a country decided to go with a party that, while it has its dark side, offered itself up as an alternative to another party that has been in power for far too long, that is corrupt, steals from its constituents and is ineffectual in keeping everyone happy.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

IronMac said:


> The stoning of women or democratic elections? If you're concerned about the former how is that different from the electric chair, the needle or the bullet in the back of the head beyond the delivery of sentence? Or, are you concerned about the free exercise of a democratic vote?



Is this for real?

If you can in any way rationalize stoning women (routine offences: adultery, the men go free of course; rape, that is, of the women, the men go free of course; and more of the same) with no trial, judge or jury or anything, then, by all means, go get the help you need, or better yet, go live in a patriarchal totalitarian society since you can't tell the difference.

The difference between that and the electric chair, for example, should be obvious, but apparently that isn't the case. Not that I'm in favour of capital punishment anyways.

As for the suggestion that someone has said "it's an evil world" that "allows democratic elections," this too, would have seemed to be beneath you.

Choosing a group of terrorists as your leaders is at best stupid, at worst evil. But you don't get to make that kind of choice twice. You don't get the chance.

Why are you seeming to defend this bunch of thugs, democratically elected thugs or not?


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

HowEver said:


> No, they'll stone their own women, do this regularly, in fact. It's an evil world that allows this to happen.


I'm not going to take sides here, partly because I have a biased view, but I can't sit by and let this one go. Please give me an example of a Palestinian woman being stoned to death. Just one, you don't even have to justify the "regularly" part of it. 

Palestinians may be known for throwing stones, but it's usually at tanks, jeeps, and Israeli soldiers. Also, Palestinians living in Hebron routinely have stones thrown at them by the Jewish settlers there, while the Israeli army turns a blind eye. There are evil acts being committed almost daily, many of which go unreported. The idea of "closure" (look it up) is something that you and I can never imagine. 

As someone who is married to a Palestinian (a Christian if that matters to you) I ask you to take a closer look at the region. Unless you've lived there or even visited for an extended period, I don't think you have the right to judge anyone who lives there. To paraphrase: "Let whomever is without sin cast the first stone."

I'm not a Hamas supporter, but if a government is elected democratically shouldn't we at least give them a chance? Or do we want another Algeria?



> In December 1991, the Islamic Salvation Front won the first round of the country's first multiparty elections. The military then canceled the second round, forced then-president Bendjedid to resign, and banned the Islamic Salvation Front. The ensuing conflict engulfed Algeria in the violent Algerian Civil War. More than 100,000 people were killed, often in unprovoked massacres of civilians.


- from wikipedia


----------



## Jacklar (Jul 23, 2005)

Its funny Hamas isn't just a terrorist organization, they do have a militant wing but they also have what is now a very sucessful political wing as well. They provide social services for many Palestinians.North America is generally cast towards the terrorist side because of media bias, where as most of Europe sees Hamas as two wings on violent and the other very important to social organization. 

You also have to remember the people chose Hamas as an alternative to Fatah, Hamas is a legitamate political organization. Many don't realize that during the peace accords Israel expanded settlements by over half compared to when Hamas was fighting through armed resistance. Israel has built a security wall which effectively cuts Palestinian families in half which they cannot cross. The wall has basically destroyed the Palestinian economy. 

Both sides are wrong, but Israel is able to fight with a Military and blocked the Palestinian economy via cutting off access with the security fence. 

Israel isn't a saint in this case and is very much just as responsible for the current situation as Hamas, both are extremist governments. Fatah was a puppet government that was corrupt and uneffective. Hopefully Hamas will be able to solve the problem through diplomatic means. As for their militant wing they are looking at creating a military to unifiy the militant wings and create a defensive force. Palestinians currently have no way of defending themselves from when Israel decides to move into an area.


----------



## Applelover (Mar 6, 2005)

Jacklar said:


> Its funny Hamas isn't just a terrorist organization, they do have a militant wing but they also have what is now a very sucessful political wing as well. They provide social services for many Palestinians.North America is generally cast towards the terrorist side because of media bias, where as most of Europe sees Hamas as two wings on violent and the other very important to social organization.
> 
> You also have to remember the people chose Hamas as an alternative to Fatah, Hamas is a legitamate political organization. Many don't realize that during the peace accords Israel expanded settlements by over half compared to when Hamas was fighting through armed resistance. Israel has built a security wall which effectively cuts Palestinian families in half which they cannot cross. The wall has basically destroyed the Palestinian economy.
> 
> ...



*Here here, thunderous applause*


----------



## Jacklar (Jul 23, 2005)

I started the last post earily in the day and had to come back to finish it, as for stoning women, I believe people are often to fast to jump on the terrorist boat or take a certain side. 

This issue is hugely under reported in western media, there is huge bias towards Israel, people need to educate themselves on both sides of the issue before they create statements blaming one side or the other, that just extends the argument. We should be looking at solutions not pinning the blame. 

As for stoning women I don't condone it but thats a different culture with different rules, how dare anyone tell a culture they are wrong? They're are abuses of course ie. genocide and mass killings but in general what right do you have to tell someone they can't stone a person as a form of punishment? Thats like them telling us we don't have the right to let our transnational corporations into their countries so they can pillage their oil. Or telling us we don't have the right to live like we do because we take up more resources then the rest of the world, it would take 9 planets of resources to sustain the world if we all consumed like America and Canada. 

Just because you think your culture is right doesn't mean it is, just because you think they're doing something wrong to you doesn't mean it is. This is a way of life these people live, to us its a stoneage poor way of life but they are living a sustainable life. You can also look at our history and realize that we in some cases we much worse then what happens. Maybe their culture is right? You don't see them polluting their land and over consuming the way things are going now these people would outlive us if we were seperate planets living independantly.

No culture is right or wrong its a different set of values for a different area. We and they have no right to say either or are wrong, you must try to understand it and hopefully evolve but you can't just change it because we think its wrong after a people have lived like this for hundreds if not thousands of years.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

I can't really defend the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis, but it's hard to recall the last time an Israeli strapped on a belt of explosives and scrap metal and detonated it at a crowded bus stop or marketplace. The last time an Israeli did that was, let's see... never?


----------



## Jacklar (Jul 23, 2005)

Israeli terrorists killed the Israeli Prime Minister who was pushing for the Oslo accords, they also attacked during the Palestinian pullout. There are extremists on either side of this conflict.

The thing is Israelis don't use terrorism as a weapon because they don't have to. Thats what the Israeli military is for. Terrorism is a weapon used by those out gunned by a larger and more weaponized force. Thats the whole reason for terrorism its a war conducted against a larger force by a smaller force that is not able to fight a military battle. The Israeli military definitely terrorizes the Palestinian population through constant attacks and movement into Palestinian terrority and movement out of the Palestinian terrority, even the Security fence could be said to be a form of terrorism in a sense. 

But overall terrorism is a method of attack used when you cannot fight a military battle, thats the whole reason behind it. That'd be like me and you trying to fight America we wouldn't do it in a military battle simply because its not possible but we would resort to a method in which we could fight on our grounds and win. Strategically its a very effective method for a small group, whether it works for policy change thats a different story. For Hamas it stopped the Israeli settlement expansion, for al-Qa'ida and its battle in Iraq with the insurgency it could also said to be working, the American population is starting to question why they are there and why we aren't leaving. However it started the war on terrorism and has made it much harder for cells and camps to exist and plan effectively. But it has also attacked civil liberities by causing a false sense of threat and fear. There is no doubt it is a method of war but by non states against states. 

If Hamas continued to condone terrorist attacks against Israel I wouldn't be surprised to see it considered an act of war by the Palestinian government. But to crush the Palestinian government would simply mean a Western puppet government would be instilled which more often causes more damage to the area.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Israelis teach their children to love one another and respect their neighbours--unless their neighbours try to attack and kill them.

Hamas runs social programmes including schools which teach that Israelis are inhuman and deserve to be hunted and killed, at any cost, including the lives of their own children who commit suicide and homicide at the same time.

Repeated offers of peaceful coexistence by Israel have been met with wave after wave of murder/suicide.

If you feel strongly that Hamas deserve your support, publicly declare that you are a supporter, and try sending them your hard-earned Canadian money. See what happens.


----------



## Bajan (Apr 11, 2004)

Both sides have their issues but after reading all the posts over the years regarding Israeli/Arab discussion I find it astonishing how many people on ehMac are anti-Israeli/Jewish. Of course not even one of you would fess up to it. If you do not belive it then step back, take a deep breath and read.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Bajan said:


> anti-Israeli/Jewish


I think the '/' is poorly used. Sort of like anti-Bush/U.S. But, I only picked up on anti-Israeli policy sentiment.


----------



## Bajan (Apr 11, 2004)

Beej said:


> I think the '/' is poorly used. Sort of like anti-Bush/U.S. But, I only picked up on anti-Israeli policy sentiment.


Trust me the '/' was not at all poorly used. It is a metaphoric fish hook used to catch something and it got your attention.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

That said, it's a good point. There are many legitimate critiques of Israeli policy, it's just amazing how often many of those expressed would lead to the obliteration of Israel--hence the anti-Semitism label for those particular sentiments.

The anti-Israel sentiments, though, nearly never have their equivalent levelled at other countries, held to the same standard.

You do have a true democracy in Israel, and sure you have terrorist-democracy now in Palestine. But that is only recently the case for Palestine, and it is not the case for the Arab and other countries that threaten Israel.

Palestine has voted in a party that has promised to kill every Israeli they can. You can hardly expect Israel--or Canada, for that matter--to simply pony up and establish normal relations.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The simple issue here, that everyone seems to be avoiding, is that Hamas is on the road to converting the Palestinian people into a hard-line, fundamentalist state. They are being supported by Iran and other middle-eastern countries. Iraq will follow suit. They know they cannot win by technology - they are prepared to let the people suffer and be indoctrinated so that the "struggle" agains the oppressor (first Israel and then the West) lasts for many years.

As for respecting the culture of others, there are lines. A male-dominated culture that states that women are inherently inferior has no place on this planet. I don't care how you adorn it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> male-dominated culture that states that women are inherently inferior has no place on this planet. I don't care how you adorn it


Them's fightin' words.............unfortunately 

Look what it took in Japan.....pre WWII


> Historically, women in Japan were thought of as children Gordon said. They spent their childhood preparing for marriage to men they never met before the wedding, and were subservient to their husbands for the rest of their lives.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

HowEver said:


> You do have a true democracy in Israel, and sure you have terrorist-democracy now in Palestine.


"terorist-democracy"...what a laugh. Look, just because the Palestinians freely elect a party that uses "terrorist" acts does not make it less of a democracy. People accuse Israel of using "terrorism" to cow its enemies but do we see people using the term "terrorist-democracy"?

It's a democracy...let's see what happens now. If they conduct terrorist acts then Israel can simply march in like they've done so many times in the past and root them out.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Look what it took in Japan.....pre WWII


MacDoc, I'm surprised at you...I would have thought you'd have known that there are many many societies the world over, even in Western society in the past where women were treated as mindless bargaining chips.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

miguelsanchez said:


> I'm not going to take sides here, partly because I have a biased view, but I can't sit by and let this one go. Please give me an example of a Palestinian woman being stoned to death. Just one, you don't even have to justify the "regularly" part of it.


Neither source talk about stoning as a method of execution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing#Locations
http://www.worldandi.com/newhome/public/2003/may/clpub.asp


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

I'm not sure why you're missing this, but Hamas' main election platform was the obliteration of Israel. It wasn't fresh water and equality for women. It wasn't rooting out the corruption in government. It was death to Israel. Look the other way if you like, but Hamas trains children from school age to adulthood to hate, and teaches them on how to act on that hate.

Wait until they commit a bad act? Sure, what else are we going to do? But in the interim no one accepts that Hamas is going to play nice.

I hear they are looking at Stephen Harper's childcare plans closely, though.



IronMac said:


> "terorist-democracy"...what a laugh. Look, just because the Palestinians freely elect a party that uses "terrorist" acts does not make it less of a democracy. People accuse Israel of using "terrorism" to cow its enemies but do we see people using the term "terrorist-democracy"?
> 
> It's a democracy...let's see what happens now. If they conduct terrorist acts then Israel can simply march in like they've done so many times in the past and root them out.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

used to be jwoodget said:


> As for respecting the culture of others, there are lines. A male-dominated culture that states that women are inherently inferior has no place on this planet. I don't care how you adorn it.


Extremely valid point. Wow. Me and Utbj on the same line, who would of thunk it.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

HowEver said:


> You do have a true democracy in Israel, and sure you have terrorist-democracy now in Palestine.


Is it a real democracy or "Jewish Democratic state"? Is it a based on your religion or on who you are?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Considering that Arabs vote, get elected and hold cabinet positions in Israel, what do you think?



ArtistSeries said:


> Is it a real democracy or "Jewish Democratic state"? Is it a based on your religion or on who you are?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I would like to learn a lot more about this topic from real sources (ie Moore-O'Reilly equivalents need not apply).

Is Israel's system open to Arab politicians? (voters choosing otherwise is different, I mean the legality and processes)

How many prominent Israeli politicans have publicly supported the idea of two states?

How 'free' are Palestinian elections?

All stuff I just plain don't know. Please don't post links from highly biased sites that use a grain of 'truth' upon which they build a mountain of evidence using innuendo.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

HowEver said:


> I'm not sure why you're missing this, but Hamas' main election platform was the obliteration of Israel. It wasn't fresh water and equality for women. It wasn't rooting out the corruption in government. It was death to Israel. Look the other way if you like, but Hamas trains children from school age to adulthood to hate, and teaches them on how to act on that hate.



I think you hit it on the head HowEver!!! A hitler in the making....


----------



## Jacklar (Jul 23, 2005)

What kind of message are you sending to the rest of the countries in the world who are trying to become democracys if Palestine votes and elects Hamas and the west decides to ignore them?

Your sending a message of the government is only valid if the west approves of it, only if we think its valid. 

Some people on this forum seem to be so intrenched on Israels side that they almost seem to be extremist in their own ways. The fact of the matter is Hamas won, there is nothing you can do to change that other then work with them to create a better situation. By ignoring them you are telling Palestine that unless you deal with the people we want to deal with then nothing will ever occur. What incentive does that give them not to attack you? 

Your telling the world that a democracy is only valid if we accept it and approve of it. To me that is a facist. The fact of the matter is Israel doesn't accept Palestines existence either the offical comment from the Israeli Foreign Affairs department is not even to speak or debate with a Palestinian member of government. I'm studying the issue and their department wouldn't let any member of the Israeli government talk with or engage in discussion with a Palestinian government member because they don't offically acknowledge the existence of a Palestine. 

It doesn't matter whos right and whos right you can't change the past but you can only work towards the future. Both parties have done wrong in the past its time to find solutions not lay down blame. 

Leave your own opinions, feelings and bias at the door and suggest solutions instead of casting blame and assigning guilt.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

I think the point I'm making is that democracy is not the panacea that we pretend it is. If you listen to our politicians and others, you get that repeating message of "democracy will make everything right". Bulldoodoo. Many people may have voted Hamas to toss out a corrupt government, but they did so knowing that they were supporting terrorism and intended genocide. They may not consider eliminating Israel to be their personal main goal, but they are willing to live with it to get a regime change. What makes democracy the best we have come up with governance wise, is also it's weak point. It reflects the people it represents, and sometimes the majority of people are hate-filled, nasty people. This is a democratically elected government. But I don't think there is anything wrong with us saying that is not a democratically elected government we are willing to work with. We respect the right of the Palestinian people to chose institutional hatred. But that doesn't mean we have to work with them. And I would suggest that there might be other governments in the world that we should also take this approach to.


----------



## Jacklar (Jul 23, 2005)

RevMatt are you suggesting that all Palestinians are abunch of hate mongers? 

Hopefully you not that blind in labelling an entire society by a few. This issue is so large that you cannot simply just label someone terrorists and turn your eyes onto why they are doing it?

You've got to look past the labels and find the reasons why people do this. Otherwise your just another ignorant uninformed person standing on the sidelines choosing sides without even knowing why simply because you choose to watch the news at 6 each night.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> We respect the right of the Palestinian people to chose institutional hatred. But that doesn't mean we have to work with them.


I agree with this statement and am shocked, shocked I tell you, that I agree with RevMatt.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Jacklar said:


> RevMatt are you suggesting that all Palestinians are abunch of hate mongers?


If you read carefully what I said, I said that the majority of Palestinians had chosen to support an agenda of hatred. To quote myself:
"They may not consider eliminating Israel to be their personal main goal, but they are willing to live with it to get a regime change."
They are not hate mongers, but they are willing to vote for those who are. There is a difference, certainly. I would argue that it's not a big one, but there is one.

edit - Beej, agreeing with both ML and I in one night is a sure sign of political schizophrenia. You should get that checked


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Hamas points to Fatah and says "what have you done for us?". They point to the corruption, the construction of the wall and the lack of progress for the palestinian people as a whole. They do not want to negotiate. They want to bomb Israel into submission. This is pure fanaticism. Israel is contributing to their poor quality of life by protecting its population (there are clearly extremists in Israel as well but these are not the majority by any means), but they compare themselves to Iran and Syria. They want a fundamentalist state yet they know that there is no way they'll achieve it with the Christian population and with Israel in existance. If Hamas had its way, there would be ethnic cleansing of the region of both Jews and Christians. This will extend first to Iraq, then to Lebanon and Egypt. It's the reverse of the Crusades and just as barbaric.

Hamas is a revolutionist and fundamentalist organization. It is not interested in a political solution.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Jacklar said:


> The fact of the matter is Hamas won, there is nothing you can do to change that other then work with them to create a better situation. By ignoring them you are telling Palestine that unless you deal with the people we want to deal with then nothing will ever occur…
> 
> The fact of the matter is Israel doesn't accept Palestines existence either the offical comment from the Israeli Foreign Affairs department is not even to speak or debate with a Palestinian member of government. I'm studying the issue and their department wouldn't let any member of the Israeli government talk with or engage in discussion with a Palestinian government member because they don't offically acknowledge the existence of a Palestine.


I don't know what you mean by studying, but much of what you believe to be true is fundamentally and objectively incorrect.

Israel has, for years, recognized the Palestinian Authority. This recognition even includes collecting and remitting taxes to the PA. 

While nobody recognizes "Palestine", as there is no such country at this time, the majority of Israeli's support a two state solution and the creation of a Palestinian state. Several Israeli governments made concrete proposals, culminating in the Barak proposals, which would have created a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and almost all of the West Bank. 

What does Hamas propose? Destruction of Israel and murder of Jews. Does Hamas recognize Israel? No. Is a Hamas led PA democratic? Time will tell. I certainly hope it will be.

I'm not sure what kind of negotiation you feel is realistic with a body that is sworn to destroy you. If there's a guy at your front door, screaming, "I'm going to kill you!", do you invite him in to talk?


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

Beej said:


> Is Israel's system open to Arab politicians? (voters choosing otherwise is different, I mean the legality and processes)


Yes, there are about seven or eight Arab members of the Knesset (Israeli parliament), although their influence on government policy is miniscule, even though Arabs make up about 20% of the Israeli population.



Beej said:


> How many prominent Israeli politicans have publicly supported the idea of two states?


That's a very good question. I don't follow Israeli politics enough to answer fully, but the only ones that i can think of are Yitzak Rabin (assasinated), and possibly Shimon Peres, who has really been waffling lately on that issue. 

The key here is that you rarely if ever hear the word "Palestine" come out of an Israeli politician's mouth. "Palestinian state" is what you will usually hear. The difference is subtle, but I think that using the former indicates an acceptance of a country to exist, whereas the latter indicates something more akin to the cantons that existed in apartheid-era South Africa, or even our own native reservations. (my opinion only, no flames please!)



Beej said:


> How 'free' are Palestinian elections?


At least as "free" as ours are. According to the BBC News, the international observers reported only minor problems at a couple of polling stations, and no-one was coerced into voting or not voting. They said that the elections went as smoothly as they could have expected. Indeed, that was part of the platform on which Hamas campaigned: honest, open government. At least we know there is no hidden agenda with them.

Really, just about anyone "in the know" on this subject (on both sides) will tell you that the only real solution is for Israel to get out of Gaza (done) and the West Bank, back to the "Green Line" of 1967 (more or less). I believe most people in the region would be happy with this solution, yet no-one on either side seems to have the guts to make it work. Perhaps the election of Hamas is a good thing for Israel: it's easier to make peace with your enemy than with your friend.

I hope this helps you Beej. I tried not to be too biased in my answers, although I am sure someone will call me "terrorist hugger" or some such for my opinion, I just call it like I see it. I personally don't subscribe to the basic philosophies of groups like Hamas (I am non-violent at heart), but I also don't subscribe to the policies of the Israeli government either. You have to do a lot more research on your own to really understand the issue. It took a long time and a lot of reading to form my opinion, and it has nothing to with the family that I married into. 

Peace,

Miguel


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

miguelsanchez said:


> That's a very good question. I don't follow Israeli politics enough to answer fully, but the only ones that i can think of are Yitzak Rabin (assasinated), and possibly Shimon Peres, who has really been waffling lately on that issue.
> 
> The key here is that you rarely if ever hear the word "Palestine" come out of an Israeli politician's mouth. "Palestinian state" is what you will usually hear. The difference is subtle, but I think that using the former indicates an acceptance of a country to exist, whereas the latter indicates something more akin to the cantons that existed in apartheid-era South Africa, or even our own native reservations.


The difference is only that "Palestinian state" refers to a prospective country that does not yet exist. The PA already has far more autonomy in governing the bulk of the territories than the examples you site. 

As well, Rabin and Peres are not voices in the wilderness. A majority of Israelis have supported Palestinian statehood — i.e. a real country — for several years and numerous Israeli leaders have done the same.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good point nx  ...sorry could not resist.

•••

Looking at the problem purely from a resource standpoint is there enough arable land, available water and other natural resources to reasonably expect sustain the existing Palestinian populace?? I understand there are hundreds of thousands of "Palestinian" refugees in other surrounding states as well.

or is the situation such that it will self fulfill as a failed state and be mostly dependent on the largesse of others??
I don't know - I'm asking.

What makes one person a "Palestinian" and another an Israeli???
and who decides? 
Certainly has the elements of apartheid present.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

miguelsanchez said:


> I hope this helps you Beej.


Thanks for the post, it was quite helpful.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Looking at the problem purely from a resource standpoint is there enough arable land, available water and other natural resources to reasonably expect sustain the existing Palestinian populace?? I understand there are hundreds of thousands of "Palestinian" refugees in other surrounding states as well.


This is actually a great point. Not one international protest would succeed about getting rights for Palestinians in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon or any other country where they number in the thousands and tens of thousands. Only Israel must cede land, only Israel must suffer attacks and murder and be told this is an acceptable part of Palestinian suffrage. When one single person protests at the Egyptian embassy about the thousands of Palestinians with absolutely no rights there, who have lived there for generations and have no citizenship, voting rights, social services, anything, give us a call, okay?



MacDoc said:


> What makes one person a "Palestinian" and another an Israeli???
> and who decides?
> Certainly has the elements of apartheid present.


Careful. Calling this area "apartheid" is part of a long used strategy which is at heart anti-Semitic, not your intent of course, but the goal is to throw comments like this at Israel over decades and see what sticks. It is a totally uneducated comparison. There are worse, of course.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

miguelsanchez said:


> Yes, there are about seven or eight Arab members of the Knesset (Israeli parliament), although their influence on government policy is miniscule, even though Arabs make up about 20% of the Israeli population.


Yes, please do tell us which part of your reading suggests that voting and serving in parliament and the cabinet cripples the authority of these electors and serving politicians. This makes no sense.




miguelsanchez said:


> That's a very good question. I don't follow Israeli politics enough to answer fully, but the only ones that i can think of are Yitzak Rabin (assasinated), and possibly Shimon Peres, who has really been waffling lately on that issue.


So which is it? You claim that your theories are based on advanced reading--just not about this situation at all?



miguelsanchez said:


> The key here is that you rarely if ever hear the word "Palestine" come out of an Israeli politician's mouth. "Palestinian state" is what you will usually hear. The difference is subtle, but I think that using the former indicates an acceptance of a country to exist, whereas the latter indicates something more akin to the cantons that existed in apartheid-era South Africa, or even our own native reservations. (my opinion only, no flames please!)


If you don't want to be flamed, don't spew hatred. As stated above, calling Israel "apartheid" is part of decades of clear and intentioned anti-Semitism. It's a stupid thing to say.

If you want to give credence to people whose express purpose is to kill you, move to Palestine and see how readily accepted your mixed family will be.



miguelsanchez said:


> ...Indeed, that was part of the platform on which Hamas campaigned: honest, open government. At least we know there is no hidden agenda with them.


Okay, this I'll agree with. It is exceedingly easy to see what Hamas' goals are.



miguelsanchez said:


> Really, just about anyone "in the know" on this subject (on both sides) will tell you that the only real solution is for Israel to get out of Gaza (done) and the West Bank, back to the "Green Line" of 1967 (more or less). I believe most people in the region would be happy with this solution, yet no-one on either side seems to have the guts to make it work. Perhaps the election of Hamas is a good thing for Israel: it's easier to make peace with your enemy than with your friend.


Right. As stated above, when that "friend" exists only to kill you, the friendship is going to be somewhat strained, no? Anyone "in the know?"

Your ideas would be helpful if you considered for a second that Hamas is really what the Canadian government says it is: a group of terrorists with terrorist ideals and the means to carry them out.



miguelsanchez said:


> ...I am sure someone will call me "terrorist hugger" or some such for my opinion, I just call it like I see it. I personally don't subscribe to the basic philosophies of groups like Hamas (I am non-violent at heart), but I also don't subscribe to the policies of the Israeli government either. You have to do a lot more research on your own to really understand the issue. It took a long time and a lot of reading to form my opinion, and it has nothing to with the family that I married into.


Perhaps you could re-educate yourself, maybe start by picking up a newspaper, a bunch of them if you want a variety of opinions. Best of all, read what Hamas themselves say about what their plans are vis-a-vis Israel.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Originally Posted by MacDoc
> What makes one person a "Palestinian" and another an Israeli???
> and who decides?
> Certainly has the elements of apartheid present.
> ...


I said "elements" and when a portion of a populace are set under artificial distinctions of race or religion and deprived of rights and confined to certain areas it certainly has similar elements to the situation in S Africa.



> A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.
> The condition of being separated from others; segregation.


If it quacks like a duck n all I'm not in the least afraid to put it in the duck family but I'm willing to listen to arguments that it's a cygnet instead.

Israel is in a difficult situation of attempting to create a secular, cultural and religiously distinct state without the benefits that Japan has in being an island so that questionable human rights practices are simply dealt with by denying any immigration at all.

So my question remains who determines citizenship and how and what restrictions are placed on Palestinians..travel, work, etc???

Personally I don't see ANY answers, it only took the Irish and Brits 400 years to get some resolution under way under better conditions for that to occur and I'm not making any pejorative judgements here - just observations and questions.
An implacable enemy molds it's opponent as much as it's own people.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

Gerbill said:


> A democratic election victory is not a panacea - Hitler was elected fair and square in 1933.


The Nazis won the most seats in the election of 1933, but no one won a majority. Hitler was appointed chancellor reluctantly by Paul von Hindenburg. He was not "elected."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler

...and scroll down to the paragraph titled "Hitler's appointment as Chancellor."


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

Gerbill said:


> I can't really defend the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis, but it's hard to recall the last time an Israeli strapped on a belt of explosives and scrap metal and detonated it at a crowded bus stop or marketplace. The last time an Israeli did that was, let's see... never?


After Baruch Goldstein shot 29 Muslims to death in the Cave Of The Patriarchs on Purim (Feb. 25, 1994), Hamas responded with the first of the suicide bombings they have become infamous for, modeled on the tactics of Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Goldstein


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Mac Yak said:


> After Baruch Goldstein shot 29 Muslims to death in the Cave Of The Patriarchs on Purim (Feb. 25, 1994), Hamas responded with the first of the suicide bombings they have become infamous for, modeled on the tactics of Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Goldstein


From your article:
"*Goldstein's actions were immediately condemned by the Israeli government, the mainstream Israeli parties and the Israeli populace in general. Spokespeople for all the organized denominations of Judaism denounced his act as immoral and as terrorism. The Kach movement, to which he belonged, was outlawed.* The victims of the shooting received financial compensation.

In an address to the Knesset the Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin denounced the US-born Goldstein as a "foreign implant" and an "errant weed." He continued, "We say to this horrible man and those like him: you are a shame on Zionism and an embarrassment to Judaism." Binyamin Netanyahu, head of the Likud party declared, "This was a despicable crime. I express my unequivocal condemnation."

A poll of 500 Israeli adults for the International Centre for Peace in the Middle East found that 78.8 percent of people condemned the Hebron massacre while 3.6 percent praised Goldstein."

*This is the difference between a democratic and free people (Israel) and the state-sponsored terrorism that people fear will be the result of the free election of Hamas.*


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> So my question remains who determines citizenship and how and what restrictions are placed on Palestinians..travel, work, etc???


Primarily, Arabs who remained within the boundaries of the State of Israel at its inception, and their offspring, are citizens of Israel. It's not an Israeli/Palestinian dichotomy, but an Israeli/not Israeli dichotomy, like in every country.

Until the violence, there was considerable freedom of movement. Residents of the Territories were a key part of the Israeli workforce, with large numbers entering Israel every day to go to their jobs. Travel into Israel from the Territories is now much more restricted and a lot of those jobs are being performed by people from the Philippines, etc. This has devastated the Palestinian economy.

Palestinians travel fairly freely from the territories to Jordan and Egypt (keeping in mind that these are international borders). The Gaza-Egypt border is now governed by PA, Egyptian and International patrols — no Israelis. The West Bank - Jordan border is governed by Jordanian and Israeli patrols.

Travel within Gaza is not inhibited in any way by Israel. The only military in Gaza is Hamas, Fatah, PA, etc. 

Within the West Bank, there are Israeli checkpoints that slow travel. The degree of restriction ebbs and flows with the climate. Travel between certain areas can be almost shut down when there has been violence, or fairly smooth when things have been quiet.

Finally, here is a key thing to remember. The West Bank was captured by Jordan in '48 and OCCUPIED by Jordan for the next 19 years, until Israel captured it from Jordan in '67. It was never Jordanian territory. Similarly, Gaza was captured from Egypt in '67. There were refugee camps in both Gaza and the West Bank before '67. Why did Egypt and Jordan keep these people in refugee camps? Why were they not permitted to integrate into society?


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

HowEver said:


> From your article:


Just to be clear: I linked to the Wikipedia article; I didn't write it.



HowEver said:


> "...A poll of 500 Israeli adults for the International Centre for Peace in the Middle East found that 78.8 percent of people condemned the Hebron massacre while 3.6 percent praised Goldstein."
> 
> *This is the difference between a democratic and free people (Israel) and the state-sponsored terrorism that people fear will be the result of the free election of Hamas.*


I merely wanted to provide some context, especially in light of Gerbill's statement. 
Neither side is innocent.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Mac Yak said:


> After Baruch Goldstein shot 29 Muslims to death in the Cave Of The Patriarchs on Purim (Feb. 25, 1994), Hamas responded with the first of the suicide bombings they have become infamous for, modeled on the tactics of Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers


That's a truly malignant comment, purporting to root Hamas murder campaign of hundreds of innocent Arabs and Jews to Goldstein's crime. 

First, Goldstein is to Israel what Clifford Olsen or Paul Bernardo is to Canada. A demented murderer.

Second, "suicide" bombing preceded Goldstein. Further, Palestinian use of premeditated murder of innocents for political ends (shooting up children in dormitories, etc.) predated Goldstein by decades.



mac yak said:


> I linked to the Wikipedia article; I didn't write it....I merely wanted to provide some context... Neither side is innocent.


You quoted the article in a misleading way, the aberration you chose to bring up does not provide any context or insight and your conclusion is glib nonsense.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Thank nx that clears that up and the issue of "stateless" Palestinians is a problem for surrounding areas as well.

So the issue is really not within Israel circa 1947 itself and citizens from then but with the Territories and the "border".

So very little comparison to apartheid.
More similar to the Kurds and Armenians elsewhere.

That answers that....what about the natural resource issue which I know is a problem right across the Middle East??


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

nxnw said:


> That's a truly malignant comment, purporting to root Hamas murder campaign of hundreds of innocent Arabs and Jews to Goldstein's crime.


See below.



nxnw said:


> First, Goldstein is to Israel what Clifford Olsen or Paul Bernardo is to Canada. A demented murderer.


I agree.



nxnw said:


> Second, "suicide" bombing preceded Goldstein. Further, Palestinian use of premeditated murder of innocents for political ends (shooting up children in dormitories, etc.) predated Goldstein by decades.


Yes. 



nxnw said:


> You quoted the article in a misleading way, the aberration you chose to bring up does not provide any context or insight and your conclusion is glib nonsense.


I misstated myself. When I said "No one is innocent in this," I meant to say that both sides have blood on their hands. I hereby retract the "no one is innocent in this" phrase, and I apologize to those who were offended by it.

Thanks for pointing it out, nxnw.

As for context, my point in bringing up Goldstein was only to attempt to counter Gerbill's previous statement and to note that both "sides" are not innocent in this. I'm not endorsing violence or retribution by either side. I'm not trying to justify it, either. There is no justification for it. Innocents have been taken on both sides, whether through suicide bombing or other means.

Given all that's happened in the region, I felt Gerbill's comment was a little disingenuous... that's all.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

Mac Yak said:


> The Nazis won the most seats in the election of 1933, but no one won a majority. Hitler was appointed chancellor reluctantly by Paul von Hindenburg. He was not "elected."
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
> 
> ...and scroll down to the paragraph titled "Hitler's appointment as Chancellor."


Quibble quibble. My point was that Hitler got to be Chancellor through a legitimate democratic political process. That didn't make the Nazis into democrats - they were always loud in their contempt for democracy.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

Gerbill said:


> Quibble quibble.


I had to do it.



Gerbill said:


> My point was that Hitler got to be Chancellor through a legitimate democratic political process. That didn't make the Nazis into democrats - they were always loud in their contempt for democracy.


Point taken. Von Papen and the nobles weren't big fans of democracy, either; they also intended to rule with an iron hand. Von Hindenburg was in the rock/hard place conundrum, so democracy wasn't going to prevail either way.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> Further, Palestinian use of premeditated murder of innocents for political ends (shooting up children in dormitories, etc.) predated Goldstein by decades.


What do you call Israel and it's disobedience of UN resolutions?

1955-1992:
Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
council's order not to deport Palestinians".
Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
Palestinian mayors".
Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
nuclear facility".
Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
allow food supplies to be brought in".
Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
in attack on PLO headquarters.
Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
denying the human rights of Palestinians.
Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
Nations.
Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
Palestinians.
Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
and calls for their immediate return.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_UN_resolutions_concerning_Israel_and_Palestine

What do you call Israel's policy of using targeted assassinations? Using missiles?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

They are a little much seen out of context given the dedication to the destuction of Israel by its "neighbours" and the situation the Israelis were left in by the Brit withdrawal.
That said there is plenty of "ill considered" acts on both sides of the conflict.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> What do you call Israel and it's disobedience of UN resolutions?


What do you call an organization populated by dictatorships and anti-Semites willing to wipe Israel off the map?

The United Nations.

Most true democracies (Canada, the United States, etc.) support Israel and can tell the difference between a country surrounded by hostile forces that want to obliterate it, and a free people who want to protect themselves and their own nation from harm.

Too bad you can't.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

HowEver said:


> What do you call an organization populated by dictatorships and anti-Semites willing to wipe Israel off the map?
> The United Nations.


That really reveals a lot about your and your bias. Also, undermines your understanding of the UN.






HowEver said:


> Most true democracies (Canada, the United States, etc.) support Israel and can tell the difference between a country surrounded by hostile forces that want to obliterate it, and a free people who want to protect themselves and their own nation from harm.
> 
> Too bad you can't.


I have always said that people should look at how Israel was formed and the historical context. It's founders were once considered terrorist. The 1947 UN partition plan was rejected by Begin's Irgun and the Stern Gang. 
When the British Mandate of Palestine expired, the Jewish state was established (actually a little earlier). Ironically, the League of Nations and the United Nations are cited to validate the existence of Israel.



> ...since Israel is a creation of the West, defended by the United States in particular no matter how it behaves, for many, perhaps most, Arabs the struggle with the West is not really over yet....
> What the Arabs got as a reward for their assistance to the winning side of WWI was not the promised independent state but an exchange of colonial masters... Britain was stuck with the pledge it had made to the Zionist movement in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 to create a "Jewish homeland" in Palestine, a pledge that would ultimately result in the partition of Palestine - although London was deeply reluctant to fulfill that pledge, which it knew would alienate not only it's Arab subjects in Egypt, Sudan, Palestine, Iraq, and its Arab allies in the Gulf, but far more importantly the huge Muslim population of the Indian subcontinent.
> The circle could have been squared, of course, if Britain, France, and countries like the United States and Canada had been willing to accept very large numbers of Jewish refugees, but they weren't....
> Jews in Palestine organized their own militias and terrorist groups to fight both the Arabs and the British, and the final showdown was only briefly postponed by the Second World War....
> ...


- Gwynne Dyer


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

Mac Yak said:


> Point taken. Von Papen and the nobles weren't big fans of democracy, either; they also intended to rule with an iron hand. Von Hindenburg was in the rock/hard place conundrum, so democracy wasn't going to prevail either way.


The old hard-line Prussians were, as you say, no democrats. They were, however, a fairly decent lot - I doubt that such a regime would have systematically murdered Jews or anyone else. There were instances during the war of Prussian aristocrats protecting Jews, despite their own anti-Semitism, just as a way of foiling the Nazis, whom they loathed even more.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> What do you call Israel and it's disobedience of UN resolutions?


What's the voting like on most of these? It's a big list, but we're not talking security council (I think) for most of these. My understanding is quite limited, so I'd like to learn more about which countries voted for the resolutions, and which voted against.


----------



## Bajan (Apr 11, 2004)

It is sad to see the origional UN versus the pathetic entity that they are today. Seems that if an Israeli even urinates on a Palestianin house an immeadiate cry to the UN is brought by the Arab/Muslim countries and a resolution is quickly adopted. But when Israelis are killed, when Palestinian Christians are killed the Arab/Muslim countries turn the other cheek. When African tribes are slaughtered nobody shows a tear. Give me a break! The UN is getting closer to disaster with every day that goes by.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Percentage of U.N. Commission on Human Rights resolutions condemning an Arab country for human rights violations: 0

Percentage of U.N. Commission on Human Rights resolutions condemning Israel for human rights violations: 26

Number of U.N. Security Council resolutions on the Middle East between 1948 and 1991: 175 

Number of these resolutions against Israel: 97

Number of these resolutions against an Arab state: 4

Number of Arab countries that have been members of the U.N. Security Council: 16

Number of times Israel has been a member of the U.N. Security Council: 0

Number of U.N. General Assembly resolutions condemning Israel: 322

Number of U.N. General Assembly resolutions condemning an Arab country: 0

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/dennisprager/2004/07/27/12484.html


----------



## Bajan (Apr 11, 2004)

Careful Dudireno, you will soon feel the wrath of ArtistSeries and his numerous links to quotes/websites proving you incorrect.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

The history of UN resolutions on the Middle East says much more about the UN than it does about Israel. The following, from an article by Allison Kaplan Sommer is a fairly charitable (to the UN) explanation of the reasons for it's inveterate anti-Israel bias:


> *The UN's anti-Israel bias is rooted in the organization's very structure. In the General Assembly, 130 of the 190 member nations will, almost automatically, vote against Israel.*
> 
> Tal Becker, legal advisor to Israel's permanent mission to the UN, visualizes this anti-Israel voting bloc as a series of "concentric circles." The smallest of the circles is the core of twenty Arab nations that constitute what is known as the "Arab group," which initiates the harshest condemnations of Israel. These countries are part of the larger fifty-six-member "Moslem group," all of whom can be counted on to consistently support anti-Israel resolutions. These fifty-six nations represent part of the "Non-Aligned" group of 115 largely third-world nations that formed during the Cold War and generally have voted as a group independent of Soviet or U.S. influence. And an even larger circle, considered the standard lineup against Israel, is composed of the 133 members of the G-77, which includes all of the developing countries.
> 
> ...


* That is our current Minister of Justice.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

sure is a good thing that the U.S. is in the security council and has (and uses) its veto vote on a regular basis

AIPAC is doing its job very well


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Thanks nxnw, great information.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Here's an excerpt from <I>Dissent</i> "independent social thought since 1954" :


> Longstanding U.S. perceptions of the UN membership as anti-Western, unprincipled, motivated by petty biases, and dominated by a herd mentality stem largely from—and are given continuing basis by—the body’s history of anti-Israel conduct. *An organization that has been too fractured and passive to confront the moral challenges of our time—including Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur—has managed to adopt more than twenty resolutions chastising Israel each year since 1985.* The isolation of Israel at the UN has strained the U.S.-UN relationship and undercut the legitimacy of the global body in the eyes of many Americans.
> 
> UN secretary-general Kofi Annan is seeking to restore the UN’s credibility after an era of scandal and paralysis. In March he issued a set of recommendations based on the work of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change he set up to propose reforms. Although Annan’s proposals do not directly address Israel’s anomalous position, they do get at certain conditions that have contributed to the ostracizing of Israel. If implemented, these measures should begin to show that the organization is serious about reform. At the same time, simply enacting the Annan reforms will not root out entrenched patterns. The reforms should go hand in hand with a political push led by the United States to put Israel on an equal footing with the organization’s 190 other states. If Israel’s standing does not improve after a major reform effort, Secretary-General Annan and the High-Level Panel will have failed to check the organization’s worst impulses, and the UN’s credibility crisis will persist.
> ...
> ...


Sorry, but the UN card is as phoney as a three dollar bill.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> sure is a good thing that the U.S. is in the security council and has (and uses) its veto vote on a regular basis...


You know what? It is, because a profoundly and outrageously biased body is not a fair and credible arbiter. Sure, it can persuade some to kick Israel around on the basis of these obscene resolutions, but it sure as hell has done nothing to actually help the Palestinians because the UNs moral authority has been a worthless currency.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Sorry, but the UN card is as phoney as a three dollar bill.


What!? Now I'm out three bucks too.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

nxnw said:


> You know what? It is, because a profoundly and outrageously biased body is not a fair and credible arbiter. Sure, it can persuade some to kick Israel around on the basis of these obscene resolutions, but it sure as hell has done nothing to actually help the Palestinians because the UNs moral authority has been a worthless currency.


I prefer multilateral international work, but it always surprises me when people completely dismiss and/or villify the U.S. for every non-multilateral action (of course, Parrish is respected by some too...coincidence?). Sometimes, the U.S. has a valid point. Maybe not a reason to give up, but certainly worth understanding.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

nxnw said:


> First, Goldstein is to Israel what Clifford Olsen or Paul Bernardo is to Canada. A demented murderer.


He wasn't demented, he was an extremist who belonged to a terrorist group. Let's not attribute psychological reasons to someone's murderous acts...he knew exactly why he was doing what he was doing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1543824,00.html


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Is there a list of those resolutions with the sponsor of the resolution?? Should be revealing.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

nxnw said:


> The history of UN resolutions on the Middle East says much more about the UN than it does about Israel. The following, from an article by Allison Kaplan Sommer is a fairly charitable (to the UN) explanation of the reasons for it's inveterate anti-Israel bias:


Decent article...but, let's see what its sources say at the end:



> The UN's hostility to Israel did abate somewhat in the mid-1990s, during the height of the Oslo process and on the heels of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, which had commanded an anti-Israel voting bloc. *The Jewish state also won a small but significant victory in May of 2000, when, as a result of extended American pressure, it was awarded temporary and limited admission to the Western European and Others Group (WEOG) at the UN in New York. Beginning in 2002, Israel is eligible to serve on key UN bodies to which it had previously been denied access;* however, it is not clear if the WEOG group will dare to nominate Israel to fill a vacancy, or if Israel would be elected. The temporary membership will be reconsidered in 2004.
> 
> Also in Israel's favor is the support of Kofi Annan, who is considered by Israeli officials to be the most sympathetic secretary general in recent memory, one who resists knee-jerk condemnation of the Jewish state. To be sure, Annan has been sharply critical of Israeli actions, but he has also been willing to criticize Palestinian violence. He has repeatedly called the suicide attacks on Israelis as "immoral, illegal, as well as politically counter-productive." Even after his dispute with Israel over sending the investigating team to Jenin, Annan declared in his report on the incident that the Palestinian Authority was responsible under international law "to protect Israeli civilians from attacks, including suicide bombings, emanating from areas under its control."
> 
> ...


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

RevMatt said:


> What makes democracy the best we have come up with governance wise, is also it's weak point. It reflects the people it represents, and sometimes the majority of people are hate-filled, nasty people. This is a democratically elected government.


Actually, you are saying that the majority of Palestinians are hate-mongers.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> The following, from an article by Allison Kaplan Sommer is a fairly charitable (to the UN) explanation of the reasons for it's inveterate anti-Israel bias


Now nxmw, Allison Kaplan Sommer is quite the character. I have a hard time with her neutrality on many subjects - or should I say lack of neutrality...


> ... Arafat's Got the Flu
> Send over the matzah ball soup. Arafat's sick. You just know that even if he dies of pneumonia, they are going to find a way to blame Israel....
> UPDATE: Looks like he's feeling better. Dang, couldn't we have slipped something in his Robitussin?
> ...
> ...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Bajan said:


> It is sad to see the origional UN versus the pathetic entity that they are today....Give me a break! The UN is getting closer to disaster with every day that goes by.


The UN is an entity that wants to remplace the rule of force with a rule of law. It is a young body, whose basic tenet is that war is illegal except in self-defense or with a Security Council approval. 
The existance of the UN is threatened, that is certain, by unilateral actions such as the one the USA undertook in Iraq. The UN is dying as Superpowers disobey and flaut international rule of law - the principal being the USA at the moment. 

A great fallacie is that the UN would protect a country's citizen from it's goverment. This is simply not true. The internal affairs of a country do not concern the UN. The UN Charter makes it illegal to wage a war with the exception of self-defense or with a UN Security Council authorization. As odd a concept this is for some, human rights rarely bother the UN - the UN recognized the Khmer Rouge as a goverment-in-exile.

I read that the best measure of an institution's real importance is how much it enemies hate it. Richard Perle truly hates the UN as it seems to impede his and PNAC plans. 

The UN can and does work but only with the will of it's members. It has worked in North Korea in the 1950s, obtained cease fires in Arab-Israeli and Indo-Pakistan conflicts. The UN also worked when Iraq invaded Kuwait as it gave legitamacy to enforce international law. Bush Sr followed the UN Security Council directives.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Now nxmw, Allison Kaplan Sommer is quite the character. I have a hard time with her neutrality on many subjects - or should I say lack of neutrality...
> 
> 
> > ... Arafat's Got the Flu
> > Send over the matzah ball soup. Arafat's sick. You just know that even if he dies of pneumonia, they are going to find a way to blame Israel....


Yup, she doesn't like Arafat, and mocks him in her blog. I don't see how a satiric demeanour in her blog discredits her, though. And, as it happens, "they" did blame Israel for Arafat's death. Among other things, Israel was accused of poisoning him and injecting him with HIV. 

If you are an Arafat fan, you are of a dwindling group. The election of Hamas was a Palestinian condemnation of Arafat, as much as anything else. Most Palestinians won't say that openly, but the corrupt PA didn't suddenly get that way in the few months since Arafat died. 

Anyway, I'm not neutral and you're not either. I'll stake the seriousness, reasonableness and accuracy of Kaplan Sommer's article on the UN against any of the demonstrably biased UN resolutions you cite.

Also, don't you know that I also quoted the _Dissent_ article, asserting the same thesis, especially for you?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> The existance of the UN is threathned, that is certain, by unilateral actions such as the one the USA undertook in Iraq. The UN is dying as Superpowers disobey and flaut international rule of law - the principal being the USA at the moment...


The UN itself set the stage for this by losing any vestige of credibility and fairness.

Annan acknowledges this himself, and expresses the need for the UN to clean up its act, but you still get a UN sanctioned event with a mid-east map that has no Israel on it. You still get no UN resolution when the president of Iran, declares that Israel should be wiped off the map, and Iran overtly removes UN seals from its nuclear enrichment facilities.

The UN has corroded from within, not from any external threat. It was a great notion but its members have made it a farce.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> Yup, she doesn't like Arafat, and mocks him in her blog. I don't see how a satiric demeanour in her blog discredits her, though. And, as it happens, "they" did blame Israel for Arafat's death. Among other things, Israel was accused of poisoning him and injecting him with HIV.


So what some would consider anti-Arab propaganda is considered satire by you?
I'll remember that one.
The accusations about Israel's involvement in Arafat's death are ridiculous. Too bad Stockwell Day actually believed them - don't know if that says more about the power of myth or the gullibility of certain people. On the other hand, given Mossad's history of injecting Hamas members with poison, it's easy to see how that rumour could of started. 
What discredits her neutrality is that she is pro-Israel.




nxnw said:


> If you are an Arafat fan, you are of a dwindling group. The election of Hamas was a Palestinian condemnation of Arafat, as much as anything else. Most Palestinians won't say that openly, but the corrupt PA didn't suddenly get that way in the few months since Arafat died.


I'm sure they are _many reasons_ why Hamas was elected. The corruption of the PA is certainly one of them. 


> The organization is particularly popular among Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, though it also has a following in the West Bank, and, to a lesser extent, in other Middle Eastern countries and throughout the Palestinian diaspora. Based since its 1987 creation on a mix of social, political and military actions, *Hamas' popularity stems in part from its provision of welfare and social services to the occupied territories, such as its involvement in building schools and hospitals, and for its efficiency and perceived lack of corruption, in particular compared to the Fatah.
> *


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas
There seems to exist a duality in Hamas. 
My main comment with regards to Hamas is that they have been elected but this does not mean any government has to deal with them.




nxnw said:


> Anyway, I'm not neutral and you're not either. I'll stake the seriousness, reasonableness and accuracy of Kaplan Sommer's article on the UN against any of the demonstrably biased UN resolutions you cite.


So is there no legitimate criticism of Israel? 




nxnw said:


> Also, don't you know that I also quoted the _Dissent_ article, asserting the same thesis, especially for you?


Thanks - Second time you post it, no?
I posted the Gwynn Dyer excerpt just for you. The last sentence should resonate with you.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> So what some would consider anti-Arab propaganda is considered satire by you?


 There was not a word that you quoted that can be fairly characterized as anti-Arab, much less anti-Arab propaganda. Maybe you were confused when she referred to "spoiled American Jewish boys writing the editorials at the Jerusalem Post", that particular newspaper being a right wing (recently owned by Conrad the Magnificent), Israeli English language paper which she seems not to respect a great deal.


ArtistSeries said:


> What discredits her neutrality is that she is pro-Israel.


So she's pro-Israel. You harbour the conceit that one can't possibly have anything worthy to say if one supports Israel. You'll find a whole lot more objectivity in Ha'aretz than you will in Al Jazeera, let me tell you.


ArtistSeries said:


> There seems to exist a duality in Hamas.


Stalin built hospitals and kissed babies too. It would be nice if hating Jews wasn't on the curriculum in the Hamas schools.


ArtistSeries said:


> So is there no legitimate criticism of Israel?


Don't fall back on this straw man. The UN resolutions (th subject matter of our recent posts here) were illegitimate garbage that have corroded the UN's legitimacy. I have never said that Israel, or Israeli governments are beyond criticism. One need only read an Israeli paper (Ha'aretz has an English edition, BTW) to see dissent and criticism, the very thing you won't see in, say, Syria.


ArtistSeries said:


> I posted the Gwynn Dyer excerpt just for you.


Dyer, please. Jews are in Jerusalem for 3,500 years. Not a soul lives outside the tiny walled city until after 1850, and the "suburban" communities built at that time are Jewish, too. So, Israel is founded in 1948 and, to that sage _Dyer_, it's like the Jews suddenly arrived from Mars.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> Jews are in Jerusalem for 3,500 years. Not a soul lives outside the tiny walled city until after 1850, and the "suburban" communities built at that time are Jewish, too. So, Israel is founded in 1948 and, to that sage _Dyer_, it's like the Jews suddenly arrived from Mars.


It's not like the Arabs where not there but that seems forgotten to you. So are you saying that Jews deserved the land that once was shared by Jews and Arabs?
It is very clear that Jews did exist there, but also clear that increased immigration into Palestine at the end of WWII increased Jewish numbers. You focus in Jerusalem instead of Palestine, why is that?
There is a uncertainty about the census numbers.



> Zionist settlement between 1880 and 1948 did not displace or dispossess Palestinians. Every indication is that there was net Arab immigration into Palestine in this period, and that the economic situation of Palestinian Arabs improved tremendously under the British Mandate relative to surrounding countries. *By 1948, there were approximately 1.35 million Arabs and 650,000 Jews living between the Jordan and the Mediterranean*, more Arabs than had ever lived in Palestine before, and more Jews than had lived there since Roman times.
> 
> The city of Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority since about 1896 - The city of Jerusalem itself there was a Jewish majority since about 1896, but probably not before. The district of Jerusalem (as opposed to the city) comprised a very wide area in Ottoman and British times, in which there was a Muslim majority. This included Jericho, Bethlehem and other towns. Within the Jerusalem district, there was a subdistrict of Jerusalem that includes many of the immediate suburbs such as Eyn Karem, Beit Zeit etc. In that subdistrict, the Jews remained a minority , with only about 52,000 out of 132,000 persons in 1931 for example.


http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm

Of course the 1947 UN partition plan was rejected by many for various reasons.


> The Arab leadership opposed the plan, arguing that it violated the rights of the majority of the people in Palestine, which at the time was *67% non-Jewish (1,237,000) and 33% Jewish (608,000*). While some Arab leaders opposed the right of the Jews for self-determination in the region, others criticised the amount and quality of land given to Israel. They argued that the area of the Jewish state comprised 55% percent of the Mandate territory, while the Jews owned only 6.5% of it. (The proposal, however, was not solely for the Jews in Palestine but for a secure Jewish homeland.)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Just noticed this.


ArtistSeries said:


> It's not like the Arabs where not there but that seems forgotten to you. So are you saying that Jews deserved the land that once was shared by Jews and Arabs?


Again you set up a straw man, so you can respond to an argument I have never made. Of course Arabs were also there. My comments were very clearly responding to your quote from Dyer, as I said, "... to that sage Dyer, it's like the Jews suddenly arrived from Mars."


ArtistSeries said:


> It is very clear that Jews did exist there, but also clear that increased immigration into Palestine at the end of WWII increased Jewish numbers. You focus in Jerusalem instead of Palestine, why is that?


Sure, and there was lots of Arab migration too, and the Crusades and other conflicts reduced Jewish numbers. There has been an ebb and flow in the demographics. There were Jews all over Israel, the "West Bank", indeed all over the Middle East, for centuries. There was a particularly large migration after the Jews were expelled from Iraq, Egypt, etc. The only reason I focussed on Jerusalem is because it is the most contentious issue.


ArtistSeries said:


> There is a uncertainty about the census numbers.
> 
> 
> > The city of Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority since about 1896 - The city of Jerusalem itself there was a Jewish majority since about 1896, but probably not before. The district of Jerusalem (as opposed to the city) comprised a very wide area in Ottoman and British times, in which there was a Muslim majority. This included Jericho, Bethlehem and other towns...


You are going to have major uncertainty if you listen to stuff like this. Talking about an irrelevant concept of the "district of Jerusalem" that includes "Jericho, Bethlehem and other towns"... Yikes! Jericho is practically in Jordan. It may be as close to Amman as it is to Jerusalem. It's a wonder that they didn't include Damascus and Beiruit and skew the numbers even more. I believe there are no Jews at all in either Jericho or Betlehem now (although there were many, were even dominant, at one time.) And, there certainly was a Jewish majority in Jerusalem "before 1896".


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I'm not sure how helpful the way-back machine is for this one. People (almost?) literally sat in rooms and redrew the world map as the age of empires ended in the first half of the 20th century. Trying to pick rightful places before that would involve picking an alternative cut-off. 1800? AD or BC? Still, I'm enjoying learning about the issue through the discussion.


----------

