![](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_x97oorE2c9c/S6ahTZCOu6I/AAAAAAAAA6Q/WhO_nWZHN4k/S220/ArizonaMiracle.jpg")
No nation whose symbols are built on a foundation of death and destruction can sustain itself.
Nearly five years have passed since President Bush stood in the Rose Garden and gave the Palestinians a choice. They could have either a state or they could have terror. But they could not have both.
In June 2007, it is clear that Palestinians have chosen terror instead of a viable state. Not only have the Palestinians continued to choose terror against Israel, but they have chosen terror against themselves. The government cannot provide basic services. There is no free market nor any independent public institutions to speak of. Corruption is the rule, not the exception.
There are also two separate security forces – one loyal to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah and one to Hamas led by Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ismail Hamiyeh. Needless to say, Hamas and Fatah security forces are vying for control where little exists. At the moment, Hamas has the upper hand and Abbas’ days might very well be numbered.
Almost anyone who has been in a first or second year political science class will be familiar with early 20th Century political economist Max Weber’s definition of the state as having a “monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Inside Gaza, nobody has a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. Longtime Palestinian activist and politician Dr. Hanan Ashrawi told The Christian Science Monitor, “This is the end of the Palestinian state, frankly. If you have two separate systems, there is no way that you can have a Palestinian state that is contiguous.” Weber couldn’t have said it better himself.
It comes as no surprise to me that this state of affairs has come to pass. After all, what is the Palestinian national symbol but the suicide bomber? Palestinian schools, streets, soccer tournaments and summer camps are named after them. No nation whose symbols are built on a foundation of death and destruction can sustain itself. So long as the worship of the suicide bomber continues, succeeding generations of Palestinians (who survive on misplaced left-wing sympathy) will continue to become inherently self-destructive.
One could argue the Left has helped pave this road to Palestinian self-destruction. With all the focus on the “occupation,” no one on the Left gave any thought to whether Palestinians could actually govern themselves and bring about a viable state. Palestinians are very good at bemoaning “occupation” but when suddenly put in the awkward position of actually having to rule themselves, life under Israel suddenly doesn’t look so bad. Israel’s foundation was built on the sweat and toil of the kibbutzim. The Palestinian foundation rests on a litany of blaming Israel for its problems and then encouraging its youth to take the easy way out by killing themselves and taking as many Israelis with them as possible. How is it that the world expects Israel to cede land to a people not responsible enough to preserve their own lives?
President Bush told the world almost a half decade ago, "The choice here is stark and simple. The Bible says, 'I have set before you life and death; therefore, choose life.'" Clearly, the Palestinians prefer death.
The argument in your article is riddled with such blatantly obvious logical fallacies that I'm surprised it was even published. In the interest of time I won't point all of them out to you, but I'll make an exception for one to ensure that my comment is at least somewhat constructive.
"Palestinians are very good at bemoaning “occupation” but when suddenly put in the awkward position of actually having to rule themselves, life under Israel suddenly doesn’t look so bad."
I think that the Palestinians were making visible progress towards ruling themselves. It went to the point where the right (no it wasn't the left) in the form of George Bush came up with the conclusion that it would be best to give the Palestinians democratic elections to better rule themselves.
And so as they had their democratic elections, they elected Hamas, an outcome the occidental powers immediately decried and attempted to manipulate by forcing them to change the platform upon which they were elected, namely the "liberation of their land", or face a a loss of goverment funding.
To make a long rant short, your fallacy is that you point to the inherent inability of Palestinians being unable to govern themselves as if this is some sort of genetic predisposition and as such they need the oversight of Israel, who must therefore be genetically superior.
Yet every rational person will agree that a government without funds can not function properly. So to ask a nation to democratically elect their government, cut all funds for that government once done so, and then place the blame on that government and those people for being inherently unable to govern themselves is such a ridiculous suggestion, its borderline racist.
In conclusion, I will rebut your quote of "Clearly, the Palestinians prefer death" with a quote from the state of New Hampshire; a state that is considered to be very American, very Patriotic, and very able to govern themselves. The quote is "Live free or die."
I totally disagree with "alexkreuz" and believe the article is right on the money.
It seems that everyone but the Palestinians themselves are to blame for their problems. All their transgressions, violence, mayhem and killing is ascribed to someone else. Why the Palestinians are blameless!
Alexkreuz mentions money. Well what happened to all the money the West pumped into this abyss? Much went into buying more weapons to exacerbate the killing and the rest into the Palestinian leaders pockets. Yep, that's something we should support.
Personally I say it's time for a reality check. The West should get its head out of its rectum and see things as they are, not as they wish they were.
And while we're at it, what benefits for mankind has come out of this whole region with the exception of Israel? I guess if you're preoccupied with hating everything and everyone else you don't have the time to use your energies for mankind's betterment.
Well I guess that's a topic that will required more excuses on top of the myriad of excuses already being heaped on us.
I resent alexkruez reference to N.H. and it's motto Live Free or Die. If he wants to apply that to the Palestinians he should correctly modify it to Live Free to Kill and/or Die in that endeavor!
I always love the absolutely silly "Your article is so easily disprovable, that I will take no time to try to disprove it." With such unassailable logic, it's a wonder that there's still a debate on the table!
How can someone seriously point out that Palestinians elected Hamas, and then go on to say that there's no reason to believe they can't govern themselves? They were given a chance at self-goverance, and they made the worst possible choice. It's almost like saying that we can't call a man who freely jumped off a building suicidal.
alexkreuz is clearly anti-Semitic. I suppose you support the Holocaust, don't you?
See how fun and easy the charge of "racism" is to level in absence of any logical or rational argument?
Well, I've said everything I had to say. Ranting more won't wake my argument any stronger. But Patrick, I would like to enlighten you with a little fact about semitism.
Palestinians are semitic people. Semitic languages "include the ancient and modern forms of Amharic, Arabic, Aramaic, Akkadian, Ge'ez, Hebrew, Maltese, Tigre and Tigrinya among others."
I don't think its possible to be anti-semitic and argue in favor of the Palestinians. I think logic and rationale are on my side on this one.
The term "anti-Semitism" has been well understood to refer specifically to Jews since WWII. Not that that had anything to do with my point in the first place. I think my meaning was well understood. Or certainly should be. An argument "riddled with logical fallacies" and the only charge you can specifically manage to level is "racism". Very original. Obviously you hate Jews. And Irish people. So your argument is irrelevant. (Turn your sarcasm radar on and see if you can pick up the inference. I have faith in you)
Patrick,
That is correct, the term "antisemitism" has always been used incorrectly as a red herring to draw attention to the real cause of the conflict. You're right I did know the "assumed" definition of the word which is that people assume "antisemitism" to be anti-Jewish.
Now that we've cleared that up, I will say no, I'm not anti-Jewish. I don't believe that humans of any specific religion or affiliation are automatically inferior to others, which ironically is what this article inherently seems to argue when it makes the statement "Why group x cannot commit action group y, which action the rest of the modern world seems to be able to carry out."
I don't elaborate because I don't feel I need to explain my lack of support of racism or any form of prejudice to you, but because now that I've explained to you what it means to be anti-Jewish, I can go further to explain that most people who are incorrectly labeled as antisemitic, are not antisemitic by any form of that definition.
I am anti Zionist. I am against the belief that people who have lived throughout the rest of the world for thousands of years at some point in time decide that it is their god given right to occupy a region where people have lived for thousands of years in peace under various rulers and slowly but surely push those people who lived there out of those lands.
Now I won't go into the pros and cons of this argument. Its sufficient enough to say that most of the world, with the exception of those who have this word "antisemitism" stuck in their head, understands that there is an argument on this topic. If you are genuinely interested in the discourse over this topic, check out the discussion link on the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism to see how the wikipedians are arguing over this topic.
To conclude, it is possible to be against the Manifest Destiny, a destiny that claimed it was god's will that America expand across North America, wiping out American Indians in their path, but not be against Americans or Christians on racial or prejudiced terms. It is possible to be against the Inquisition, in which the Catholics were went to kill Christians of various sects that did not agree with the pope, without being against Catholics on prejudiced terms. It is also possible to be against the policies of a government, without being labeled anti-patriotic.
I think the sooner you understand the difference between actions a person carries out, and inherent properties of the person, the sooner you will understand the difference between antizionism and antisemitism.
"I think that the Palestinians were making visible progress towards ruling themselves."
Anybody seen the news lately? There's a Palestinian civil war going on.
"I think that the Palestinians were making visible progress towards ruling themselves."
Anybody seen the news lately? There's a Palestinian civil war going on.
Phillip, did you actually read what I wrote or are you deliberately misquoting me out of context?
"were making progress" is in the past tense because it refers to a period before the democratic election of Hamas that the right is responsible for.
Patrick, there were multiple arguments I could have levied against this article, but in the interest of time I went with the simplest one.
First I want to say that if the "public" well understands a term to mean something doesn't mean it actually means that. If you are suggesting that I am anti-zionist, then yes, I am anti-zionist just like I am anti-manifest-destiny, anti-insurrection, and so forth.
To keep this short I will simply say that if the author were to say something along the lines of "Those who support violence and oppression can not govern themselvs" then I would have to wholeheartedly agree.
But the author said that "Palestinians" can not govern themselves. This suggestion is a generalization if a certain part of a society engages in certain activities then it must reflect on the entire people, which is a logical fallacy; a stereotype.
The suggestion also means that if Palestinians elect Hamas then it must mean that Palestinians support terrorism. That is also a logical fallacy because it assumes that the the only reason Palestinians elected Hamas is because Hamas is a "terrorist organization", which is so laughable as it assumes that Hamas and the Palestinians are one-dimensional.
You know, white America used to say that black "adult" slaves are like their children because they can not govern themselves. If black slaves were allowed to determine their own future for themselves they would result to violence and savagery.
Yes that is racism to suggest that an entire people can not govern themselves.
“'were making progress'” is in the past tense because it refers to a period before the democratic election of Hamas that the right is responsible for.”
This is pure sophistry. People don't break into a civil war simply because they dislike the results of the last election and would have preferred that a different candidate win. The election brought to the surface the endemic insanity and corruption that typifies the Palestinian state, exposing these people for what they truly are. That entire society is a corrupt thugoracy. And it always has been; the current situation is not something that ‘suddenly’ happened. Palestinians cannot govern themselves because of what they believe, and the way they express those beliefs. I’m surprised that anybody would be surprised that these people are killing each other at a faster (and more brutal) pace than anything Israel was ever accused of when it ruled Gaza.
"People don’t break into a civil war simply because they dislike the results of the last election"
I don't know if you're familiar with this, but the Palestinians were happy with the results of the last election. The parties that were unhappy about it were the USA, Israel, and other Western powers.
The reason why there was progress before the "democratic election" was because the government of Palestine had funding to operate. After the democratic election, when the Palestinians were happy with the results of their election, all funding was cut on the idea that we do not fund terrorists.
And since that point, the situation there has unraveled.
"alexkreuz" inadvertently makes the point that the Palestinians can't govern themselves when he writes:
"Yet every rational person will agree that a government without funds can not function properly. So to ask a nation to democratically elect their government, cut all funds for that government once done so, and then place the blame on that government and those people for being inherently unable to govern themselves is such a ridiculous suggestion, its borderline racist."
His argument implies that the Palestinians are incapable of governing themselves without huge influxes of Western cash.
Oops.
"His argument implies that the Palestinians are incapable of governing themselves without huge influxes of Western cash."
stutzenbach, Yes that is true. Palestinians can not survive without western cash, or more accurately, foreign aid in general.
But rather than suggest this with this overtone of supremacy, why don't you pose the question "Why can the Palestinians not survive without foreign aid?"
"The reason why there was progress before the “democratic election” was because the government of Palestine had funding to operate. After the democratic election, when the Palestinians were happy with the results of their election, all funding was cut on the idea that we do not fund terrorists. And since that point, the situation there has unraveled."
This is a civil war between Hamas and Fatah. Hamas is at war with Fatah not because Israel and the West are not funding the new government, but because one group of terroristic thugs wants to dominate the other group of terroristic thugs. If the only thing driving the present hostilities was a dispute over a lack of funds, both sides would be engaged at war with the West rather than trying to exterminate each other.
This is a battle between two groups of thugs for dominance. It is not based on any principle (such as the principles over which the American Civil war was fought). It’s a raw, naked exercise of power. Equating these people, their motives, and skills at governance to the ebb and flow of normal politics is a clear distortion. This is a more akin to a Mafia war in which Phil Leotardo is trying to wipe out Tony Soprano so he can control the spoils of what’s left over. Neither Tony nor Phil are any more capable of governing than Hamas or Fatah are. Threats, intimidation and violence are the only methods they know to “influence” people.
PS: The Palestinians cannot survive without foreign aid because they need this money to buy their weapons to kill each other, that is, when they're not massacring innocent civilians in other countries. They routinely steal whatever aid they get and divert it to this use (or to a private bank account) instead of using it to build indigenous industries and infrastructure that actually help people, which is what legitimate governments do.
This is a civil war because Fatah is trying to secure western funding for their government by ousting Hamas from power, and Hamas is trying to secure the power owed to them by the "democratic" election by ousting Fatah from power.
This civil war conflict arose when the west cut funding.
If the funding wasn't cut, then Fatah, in the form of Abbas, wouldn't need to desperately try to appease the west by undermining the legitimacy of Hamas.
If you were paying attention to the news right now, you'd realize that now that Abbas has effectively thrown Hamas out of the government, the west is ready to release all funds, including the income taxes of Palestinians owed to them. That was the goal of Fatah and Abbas and the source of this civil war conflict.
"Washington, Europe and Israel prepared to throw open the taps on financial aid to Abbas that was cut off a year ago when Iranian-backed Hamas used its popularity in impoverished Gaza to defeat Abbas's Fatah faction in a parliamentary election."
With Gaza lost, Abbas wins international support
Unfortunately none of these parties have the capability to approach this problem civilly and thats just the sad reality of mankind.
"PS: The Palestinians cannot survive without foreign aid because they need this money to buy their weapons to kill each other"
The Palestinians need foreign aid because Gaza has been under siege for quite a while now and without a "Berlin airlift" from a foreign power, they can not survive. I hope we're not going to suggest that the West Germans didn't have the capability to govern themselves because they needed American assistance in the form of the Berlin airlift.
"This civil war conflict arose when the west cut funding".
This was the same reason that Phil decided to whack Tony — a dispute over funding.
Real governments don't kill their own people because they don’t get foreign funding. They also don’t kill people because one side is trying to dominate the other politically. Everything you say to support your position ultimately ends up supporting the basic proposition that these people are inherently incapable of governing themselves. If they were, they would have spent the last 25 years trying to build a real society instead of diverting the foreign aid into secret bank accounts, underwriting domestic terrorism, and lobbing rockets over the border into Israel.
Phillip, I never argued that a "real government" is in charge of Palestine.
Palestine is a region without international recognition with a pseudo government ambivalent to its own citizens that is continuously under siege by western powers and manipulated by other Muslim nations to further their own national aspirations.
Everything I have said points to the conclusion that in an environment where you have outside nations manipulating your domestic policies, killing your prominent leaders, occupying your land, sanctioning your economy, it becomes impossible for any type of people to govern themselves.
Isn't that what the Soviet Union did to Eastern Europe throughout the better half of the last century? When the iron curtain came down in the 90s, the West found a bastion of corruption and savagery in Eastern Europe which the West constructively addressed throughout the better half of the 90s.
Yet everybody agrees that the state of Eastern Europe in the 90s was not because the Eastern Europeans inherently incapable of governing themselves, but the fault of the Soviet Union which for decades had oppressed that region.
"Unfortunately none of these parties have the capability to approach this problem civilly and thats just the sad reality of mankind. "
alexkruez seems to be painting with a very broad (and potentially racist) brush. alex, I hope you are not implying that all Palestinians are uncivilized.
"alexkruez seems to be painting with a very broad (and potentially racist) brush. alex, I hope you are not implying that all Palestinians are uncivilized."
I said "parties" not "Palestinians".
Do my comments sting you a little bit, stutzenbach?
Alex,
You have described the Palestinians' primary representatives — Hamas and Fatah — as uncivil. This seems to imply some sort of inherent inability of Palestinians to govern themselves. Are you anti-Palestinian?
“Phillip, I never argued that a ‘real government’ is in charge of Palestine.”
*** You said that the “Palestinians were making visible progress towards ruling themselves.” I would assume that this “visible progress” would manifest itself in something resembling a real government in its developing stage. The actual evidence indicates the opposite. There has been no developing political consensus among the Palestinians that is the precursor to a legitimate government. Rather, there are different clans and factions with radically different domestic agendas/motives united around a common desire to exploit the Palestinian people (when they weren’t attacking Israel).
The election of a so-called “Palestinian government” forced the lie to be exposed that they were anything other than a bunch of self-serving thugs divided into competing, self-serving factions. Killing EACHOTHER because the West withholds aid reinforces my point that this is a mafia war. Hamas and Fatah are not like the Democrats and Republicans, they’re like Tony and Phil. They each want what the other has, and are willing to kill their own people to get it.
To your illustration about the Soviet Union — their “outside dominance” did not breed the same kind of internecine bloodshed in Eastern Europe during the era of Soviet domination that we see among the Palestinians during their present era of “outside nations manipulating [their] domestic policies”. These countries WERE united by a common political identity and value system. Only when a country like Yugoslavia (which was an artificial creation) was freed from Soviet dominance did bloodshed like in Gaza arise. But it hasn’t within Estonia, Latvia, and other Baltic states that had a true national identity.
The dirty little secret of all this is that there is no real “Palestinian people”, just a collection of refugees from Egypt, Jordan and the West Bank who share very little in common with one another other than a hatred for Israel. It’s no surprise that they can’t govern themselves — there is no “themselves”; just a collection of warring tribes and factions.
The only real question in all of this is whether the leader of Hamas is Tony, or Phil? Neither is George Washington.
stutzenbach, you're assuming that the sole reason for electing Hamas and Fatah is because of their uncivil nature. Hence the Palestinians must therefore be uncivil as well.
If President Bush has properties A, B, and C, that does not mean that all Americans are have or support properties A, B, and C.
Also, I didn't limit the parties to just Hamas and Fatah. I inherently included the parties of Israel, USA, and so forth. I don't believe bulldozing people's homes or sieging cities is civil, nor do I believe providing aid upwards to $8 billion a year to a nation that does the former is civil.
First, they did not kill each other because the west withheld aid. I said that was the catalyst.
They killed each other because Hamas forcefully enforced their right over the security of the Palestinian people. Hamas was elected because the "grassroots" in Palestine supported them. Hamas was supported because over the last 5-10 years their primary focus was on the betterment of the day to day activities of the Palestinian people.
Fatah lost the election because they were out of touch with the realities of the Palestinian people similar to how our government is out of touch with us. They lost the election because the Palestinian people had adopted the mentality of "throw the bums out". Fatah was primarily concerned with securing western aid in order for their "pseudo-government" to function. It was because the Fatah government was corrupt that they lost the election.
I said there was visible progress. But there was no government by a long shot. Any amount of progress made is always destroyed every couple of years with a siege, or a military strike, or sanctions of some sort by an outside power.
It took America 11 years to realize that the Article of Confederations weren't working before throwing it out in favor of the Constitution. Yet within half a year of Hamas being elected, the west automatically decided this would not work, and killed the "democracy" by cutting all funds.
If its true that we support democracy and oppose corrupt governments then we should have opposed Abbas' Fatah and supported the will of the Palestinians to elect Hamas. Yet even now, we're about to finance Fatah, the corrupt pseudo-government, again to take on Hamas.
"The dirty little secret of all this is that there is no real “Palestinian people”"
To suggest that there were no people who populated the lands that are today called Israel, West Bank, and Gaza is outright ignorant.
People lived there. Jerusalem existed before 1949. Christians, Muslims, Jews all lived there.
When we talk about Palestinians we talk about the people who lived there, who were promised by a British mandate that if they helped overthrow the Ottomans in World War I they would be given the right of self determination over their land.
Those people lived there for the thousands of years that the Israelis were dispersed throughout the world.
I don't know how comprehensive your understanding of the history of this region of the world is, but I do hope it consists of more than talking points picked up by various pundits.
“People lived there. Jerusalem existed before 1949. Christians, Muslims, Jews all lived there.”
Yes. A much more diverse and divergent group than that which Hamas and Fatah reflects, to which the refuges of Gaza and Jordan have been added. Thanks again for reinforcing my point.
Alex: I'll make this equally simple for you. When all you need to do to understand what is going on in Gaza is watch the last two episodes of the Sopranos, rather than take a course in political science, there’s not a lot left to be said on the matter
And if you want to match credentials, go to my website and read my bio. Then I'll be glad to compare the basis for my understanding of geopolitics with yours.
"Yes. A much more diverse and divergent group than that which Hamas and Fatah reflects, to which the refuges of Gaza and Jordan have been added. Thanks again for reinforcing my point."
The issue is like you said, Hamas and Fatah represent only a majority portion of the former "diversity" that was Palestine. But if you posed the question of "What happened to the diversity?" you'll find out that the diversity ceased to exist when Israel declared independence by creating a "Jewish" state.
Hamas and Fatah represent a majority of Muslims not because they are or are not antisemitic, but because the minority Jewish people all relocated themselves to Israel.
So the claim that Palestinian people do not exist is false. Palestinian people do exist. They were composed of both a minority of Jewish and a majority of Muslims. The Jewish relocated themselves to Israel, created by European Zionists, and the Muslims, who by the very definition of the Declaration of Independence that Israel is a "Jewish State" could not swallow their pride and be included in a government of foreigners.
Also the claim that the people in Palestine had no "nationhood" as an argument to support the claim that the European Jewish population had a right to create a nation in Palestine is as absurd as the claim that the American Indians had no nationhood and were a bunch of roving tribes and as such had no argument against the creation of America.
I don't agree with with the principles of Manifest Destiny, Western Hegemony, Zionism, and the like. I think that must be why we have a differing world view.
Ok, before I leave let me just thank you all for a very stimulating discussion before I leave for the weekend. I haven't had one like this for quite a while.
Alex:
The phrase "Palestinian people" doesn’t refer to a group of people with widely divergent beliefs (Christian, Jew, Moslem) who happened to co-exist in the same geographic space. In political terms, it refers to a shared world view based on a common value system. The so-called Palestinian nation is a cobbled together coalition of refugees from Egypt and Jordan, along with some indigenous population, whose only real unifying philosophy is their hatred of Israel. Otherwise, they have very little (philosophically) in common, as evidenced by the indiscriminate bloodbath currently taking place in Gaza.
Phil
Seeing as alexkreuz is getting ganged up on here… .
Surely all can agree that Palestinans shooting each other in the streets cannot be seen as a Palestinian problem but the fault of Israel. I could explain this, but it should be enough to note that Palestinans settling their disputes by bloodshed was almost unheard of until "ISRAEL" turned over the Gaza strip, effectively turning them into animals.
Besides, even if they are killing each other, no one ever promissed that land for peace would mean Palestinans would not be allowed to slaughter each other.
Bloodthirsty? Sure, but how ridiculous is it for us here to criticize terrorists for how they administer government. We should respect that not every government is going to lead the way we expect it to. How arogant?
The techniques employed by Hammas in dealing with its problems clearly were known to the voters, so how can anyone argue that what is going on right now on the Strip is anything but what the voters were driving for when they elected Hammas? The people have a right to elect the leaders they want to govern the way they want.
We in the U.S. are always talking about the importance of democracy and what do we do when Palestinans employ it? That's right, we slam them for it.
We have to remember that while it may appear they are not governing themselves well, different people have different standards for what is civil and we have to respect that diversity.
While the execution of 30 to 50 people in the streets may seem harsh, we have to examine whether we have the moral authority to question it.
What alex is wise enough to realize is that we have to be careful not to fall into the trap of judging others by our own standards.
Here in the U.S., for example, we know how cruel it is to assault the ears of terrorist combatants with rock music, but completely overlook that is some cultures it is traditional to fire an assault rifle round into a person's ear.
Let the Palestinians be. It took them forever to gain control of the Gaza Strip and no sooner than they begin a few reforms in a manner few could argue is anything but consistent with the governing style of the legally and democratically elected majority than we start piling on with the criticism.
Nick: Great parody!
Phil
Well, everybody at a go at this.
So let pose a hypothetical question. Suppose Gaza were left to settle its own problems without outside interference. Kill each other? Fine, do it. But don't extend you killing spree outside of Gaza or you'll get it back in spades. Now suppose they did that, confined their blood lust solely upon themselves. What would be left?
Let me throw another hypothetical at you. Suppose Gaza tipped over throwing everyone on it into the sea where they all drowned. Would the world be worse off?
It's a puzzlement…or is it?
Mr. Kreuz , You state the following, " I am anti Zionist. I am against the belief that people who have lived throughout the rest of the world for thousands of years at some point in time decide that it is their god given right to occupy a region where people have lived for thousands of years in peace under various rulers and slowly but surely push those people who lived there out of those lands. "
I do not think I will change your mind so I will not attempt to.
However to omit the fact that Jews have been persecuted for the last one thousand five hundred years while attempting to live peacefully " throughout the world " is intellectualy dishonest. To deny safe haven to a persecuted minority, in this case the Jews , is blatant racism.
Secondly, Jews have also been pushed out of Palestine! How so? Despite international guarantees and in contravention of international law Palestine, as it had been constituded between 1400 AD and 1900 AD , was divided in 1922 into Palestine and Transjordan. Moslem Palestinians made up two thirds of the population but they recieved eighty percent of the land and the most fertile areas. The Jews received the balance and it is from that remaining twenty percent the Palestinian Moslems seek to carve out a second state. Jews can not live in Jordan despite our historical and legal right to do so.
The one half of one percent of the Middle East Israel comprises belongs to the Jews. Of course there are some who think that Jews do not deserve the same rights as others. They seek to deny us our rights despite the moral imperitive and historical record.
Those minds will not be changed and it is fruitless to try.
MBY
menachembenyakov,
Persecuted Jews should be given safe haven. The country that prosecuted them should set land aside for them. A sizable piece of land should have been carved out of Germany as reparations for the Holocaust.
How do you justify taking land in a region that did not persecute the Jews? Will you give me a bedroom in your house if I tell you that I am a crime victim?
I don't think so. You will see "How am I responsible for that?"
"The Jews received the balance."
That is intellectually dishonest. It is factually incorrect. Please read the British White Paper of 1922.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/brwh1922.htm
"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view."
"But don’t extend you killing spree outside of Gaza or you’ll get it back in spades."
I don't think you understand the point of contention.
Nick,
"Palestinans settling their disputes by bloodshed was almost unheard of until “ISRAEL” turned over the Gaza strip"
That is also factually incorrect. Israel handed Gaza over in 2005. Palestinians didn't kill each other until 2007.
The bloodshed happened because Fatah refused Hamas the power they won in the election and Hamas got violent. Now that Hamas has been kicked out of government, the USA will fund the corrupt Fatah again.
Corruption : 1 – Democracy : 0
I am surprised that most of you are ambivalent to the United States' history of pitting one group against another in foreign nations.
If we truly looked at this issue in a completely objective manner, we would have to conclude that we ought not be so concerned about the Palestinian-Israeli problem. It is a huge problem for them but it ought not be a problem for Americans.
I didn’t always feel this way. For the longest time I shared the Israeli outrage for the Palestinian terrorism but I have since come to understand that (1) Israel is no friend to the U.S. and (2) we Americans have been grossly manipulated by Jewish domination of virtually all main-stream media.
True, the militant Palestinians are barbarians but they have simply resorted to means that are similar to those employed by Zionists like former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin who used terrorist bombings to drive the British out of Palestine in the 1940s so they could establish Israel in the first place. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Begin] Since then, Jews/Israelis have:
(1) spied against us more than any other group
[http://wake-up-america.net/jewish_and_israeli_spies.htm]; (2) attacked the USS Liberty and murdered our sailors [http://www.ussliberty.org/]; (3) bombed American and British property and tried to frame others in the Lavon Affair [http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/zionism/mossad/lavon_affair.htm]; (4) probably withheld intelligence leading to 9/11 and its agents DEFINITELY celebrated the destruction of the twin towers [http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/sept11/herald_spies.html]; (5) manipulated our foreign policy in favor of Israeli interests against our own [http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html], and all the while took the lion’s share of American foreign aid [http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/israel050602.html]. We should stop being so stupid.
Jews got themselves in this mess with Palestine. Jews were expelled from more than a hundred countries over time because they have been the agents of left-wing subversion in virtually every country that has hosted them, especially in the U.S in the last sixty years. See Culture of Critique by Dr. Kevin MacDonald [http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-Preface.html] That’s the thanks we got for defeating the Nazis.
All peoples need a nation of their own but we cannot solve this problem between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Jews are, by far, the wealthiest people in the world. Let them deal with the problems of the Jewish Nation. Let’s stop taking on every problem in the world as it is our own. We have enough problems to deal with such as immigration, social ills, debt, terrorism and every other problem related to Jewish influence in this country.
Mr.Kreuz , The British White Paper was a betrayal of previous agreements , ie
" San Remo Resolution – April 25, 1920
This resolution, consisting of the Balfour Declaration and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, is the basic document upon which the Mandate for Palestine was constructed. The San Remo Resolution concerning Palestine and the Jewish National Home was adopted at the San Remo Peace Conference on April 25, 1920 by the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I who were represented by the Prime Ministers of Britain (David Lloyd George), France (Alexandre Millerand) and Italy (Francesco Nitti) and by the Ambassador of Japan (K. Matsui). The Resolution was a binding agreement between these Powers to reconstitute the ancient Jewish State within its historic borders “from Dan to Beersheba”, an agreement that was incorporated into the Treaty of Sevres and the Mandate for Palestine.
——————————————————————————–
| |
It was agreed –
(a) To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the proces-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine; this undertaking not to refer to the question of the religious protectorate of France, which had been settled earlier in the previous afternoon by the undertaking given by the French Government that they recognized this protectorate as being at an end.
(b) that the terms of the Mandates Article should be as follows:
The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The boundaries of the said States will be determined, and the selection of the Mandatories made, by the Principal Allied Powers.
The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. "
Additionaly persecution of Jews did not begin with Nazi Germany nor did it end there. Many European nations were complicit in the Holocaust. Shall Poland, Germany , France etc, also contribute land to your fictional paradise? Are you not aware that the Mufti Of Jerusalem raised an army to fight alongside Hitler and the Nazis? That he campaigned for Jews to be murdered ?
In any case the Holocaust did not erase Jewish history. Hitler did not erase Moses or Joshua or The Holy Temple. Jewish history predates Islam by three thousand years as does our claim to The Holy Land.
Since you like analogies I will leave you with one -
The Mosque on the Temple Mount is like placing a cigar box on a Cadillac automobile.
Which came first?
MBY
MBY,
"in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people"
The White Paper of 1922 addresses your point. The Jewish home was to be "IN PALESTINE". Your quote never suggested that all of Palestine should be under Zionist rule.
"They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.'"
Please read the White Paper of 1922 in its entirety.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/brwh1922.htm
Also if what you say is true then who are the Zionists to question the British change of mind. The British were in charge of Palestine.
"The Mosque on the Temple Mount is like placing a cigar box on a Cadillac automobile."
What difference does it make whether you owned the property before I did? Its mine now. If you trespass I have the right to defend my property, do I not?
MBY,
Sorry I almost missed this part.
"Are you not aware that the Mufti Of Jerusalem raised an army to fight alongside Hitler and the Nazis"
That surprises you when the Irgun (Zionist Militants) was terrorizing the Arab Muslim population throughout the 30s? You really expect the Arabs to remain ambivalent when the Irgun were committing terrorism in Palestine? Is your understanding of the scenario really so selective?
"every Jew had the right to enter Palestine; only active retaliation would deter the Arabs and the British; only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state"
Do you know what active retaliation means? Here is your active retaliation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing
And they call Muslims terrorists.
Alex.
Your comment reveals a fatal flaw.
All of what "Palestine" now wants is owned by Israel. By your own (lack of) logic, the Israelies have every right to lethally defend their territory. Your argument fails on its own premise.
"Palestinans settling their disputes by bloodshed was almost unheard of until ISRAEL turned over the Gaza strip. That is also factually incorrect. Israel handed Gaza over in 2005. Palestinians didn’t kill each other until 2007."
Um … the last Israeli soldier left Gaza on September 12, 2005. Then on May 9, 2006 Time magazine ran a story about Gaza, titled “Is a Palestinian Civil War Breaking Out?” http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1192602,00.html
That’s maybe 8 months, not 2 years. Seems like it's not Israel's presence, but absence, that provided the catalyst to this violence.
"That is also factually incorrect. Israel handed Gaza over in 2005. Palestinians didn’t kill each other until 2007."
You are quite right, alex, and I only hope I did not undermine your efforts.
Like I said, and you remind us by pointing out the "facts," it is important not to judge other cultures by our own standards.
Twenty-two months before dragging their own into the streets and shooting them through their heads may appear to be less than a success to the misinformed debating you here, but they fail to consider what a remarkable achievment it is for the Palestinians.
If these other posters would only realize it is hopeless to bebate us here… . Don't they know we have an answer for every criticism?
Not until they realize the Palestinans are blameless victims of the Zionists and of American foregin policy, will they have any hope of emerging from the seas of their confusion.
Wolvenbear,
"All of what “Palestine” now wants is owned by Israel. By your own (lack of) logic, the Israelies have every right to lethally defend their territory. Your argument fails on its own premise."
That is the point of contention. It makes little difference if the "world" recognizes Israel, if the parties involved in the conflict do not. Until Israel is "recognized" by the Palestinians, Israel does not own the land.
Now in the Israeli point of view, yes they do have a right to defend "their" land with lethal force because they believe it is their land legitimately.
But they first have to convince the Palestinians of that before it becomes true.
Until the American Indians accepted being conquered by the Americans, and stopped resisting, America remained the conquerer and the American Indians were "lethally" defending their territory.
Phillip,
You are right I stand corrected. However it was part of the same problem of corruption and refusal to accept the legitimacy of Hamas.
"Many current and former PSA leaders — all Fatah members — had used their posts to establish lucrative networks and monopolies in Gaza and the West Bank, all of which was threatened by Hamas' anti-corruption campaign platform."
This in no way will be helped by the current attempt of Israel and USA to fund and support Fatah in an effort to rout Hamas. It didn't work in Iran when we supported the Shah over the Islamists, and it won't work here.
Nick, I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not.
For a good article that analyzes the situation, read the following
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/sami_moubayed/2007/06/find_or_create_another_arafat.html
Great article ling, alex.
I think the line that reads: "When the Hamas leaders were voted into power, they were dying to be recognized as statesmen rather than guerilla warriors" sums it up best.
Most people, again judging only by the standards they are most comfortable with, assume that there can be no such thing as an "armed statesman."
Every statesman is an armed statesman.
Whether it was George Washington and his musket or George Bush and his nuclear arsenal. Whether it was Menachim Begin and his Irgun or Ehud Olmert and his IDF.
Even the democrats know that the only electable statesman is an armed statesman. That is why "all options are on the table" with respect to Iran.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/18/opinion/edkhouri.php
http://uk.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUKNOA84074520070618
And most statesmen have two arms as well. We shouldn't overlook that similarity between George Washington and the leaders of Hamas.