Live!
Sat 24 Feb 2018
- The award-winning student news website of Imperial College

Know something you shouldn't? Tell us, using our quick, 100% anonymous tip-off form!

Live! - Opinion

This article is an opinion piece and should be taken as such. It is highly likely to be biased, but either the article itself or the ensuing discussion will probably be entertaining. Live! takes no editorial line on opinion pieces.

Justice for Palestine Soc vetoed by SCC

Feb 03 2003 17:30
James Kirkpatrick
SCC votes 9 to 4 against the formation of a Justice for Palestine Society, is the SCC a truely democratic body?

On monday the 27th of January, a Social Clubs Committee meeting was held, to decide -amongst other issues- on whether or not to allow the formation of a Justice for Palestine Society (JPS). This motion was not passed.

The JPS had presented all the necessary documentation to the Union: namely a constitution that agreed with Union regulation and a list of signatures of students. So why was the society not allowed to exist? Many points were raised, chiefly

  • that the society's Aims and Objectives clashed with those of other societies, namely Amnesty International and Islamic soc.
  • that the society was going to be a risk to the students of Imperial College (they would obviously be diverting the stationary funds from the Union to build lethal paper-suicide-bombers).
  • that the society had political aims (unlike Conservative and Labour soc, I suppose...)
  • that the creation of such a society would start a cascade of claims from other potential societies (e.g. a Kashmir society)

Of these objections, only the first has any relevance to discussion by the SCC, and even that is a flawed objection as both Amnesty and Islamic soc were present and contradicted the alleged clash in objectives.

The real reasons why JSP was vetoed are the personal beliefs of the people present at that SCC meeting, personal beliefs that have nothing to do with whether or not a group of students has the right to congregate to promote their ideals. As long as a society abides by Union regulations, guarantees that anyone will be granted admission, keeps their activities transparent and does not break the Law, who has the right to refuse them existence? And even if it does break any of the above conditions, does the SCC have the right to act as a judge of student needs?

In my opinion, a society which is going to debate and promote their ideas - whether these ideas might be the liberation of Palestine or the abolition of abortion or the rights of Patagonian penguins - must be given the right to exist as long as a sufficient part of the student body supports it. We live in a world of violent political events: Imperial with its international character mirrors this world, how can we pretend to shut out these events by just stifling their voices?

Email this Article | Share on Facebook | Print this Article

Discussion about “Justice for Palestine Soc vetoed by SCC”

The comments below are unmoderated submissions by Live! readers. The Editor accepts no liability for their content, nor for any offence caused by them. Any complaints should be directed to the Editor.
1. Fuad   
Feb 03 2003 17:51
 

Nice one

its SJP by the way

i think it will eventually get through and produce good work in the long run. We need to know palestinian society. There are students there with aspirations, we have an oppurtunity to provide palestinian students with the opportunity to study at Imperial. its not a big deal really, but it helps to be a legitimate SCC entity, i wish people wouldnt whinge so much.

We could also help them out with books, asylum, careers advice and even arrange for electives for our beloved medic community.

The SCC is democratic, it votes according to its members perceived self interest.

Feb 03 2003 20:40
 

I beleive this is democracy in action. It sounds as if the article has been written because not all (13 votes in total, certainly not all of SCC) of the societies had voted and that maybe there was some slant put on the bringing this club to the SCC meeting (don't know, wasn't there, not my CSC) So perhaps that could be perceived as undemocratic. However the Union regulations on froming a club or society quite clearly state that the club may only be allowed to exist provided that no other such club already serves that purpose/activity. It seems to me that two of them do. These rules were democratically voted for sometime ago in a council or some such other democratic meeting. So go join the other two clubs (both of them, you don't have to be islamic to be a member of the islamic society under all the equal opps etc.) and bring your issues to the front of their attention - after all that's what they're there for. Clubs that double over, eg Choir and Medics Choir, are an example of clubs existing pre-merger or the fact that they're based at a far flung campus such as Wye or Silwood. Just because you don't like the result, doesn't mean it was unfair - So stop confusing your age with your shoe size.

3. Sam   
Feb 03 2003 21:17
 

The Regulation is the "Clubs and Socs policy" proposed by me, an inordinately long time ago. It states roughly what Starbuck says, but the thing is it also states something else.

The DP(C&S) is the arbiter of whether a club is different to all others. (Exec is the appeal panel) So the fact that this club proposal got to an SCC says either:

  1. The DPCS didn't pre-approve it... a breach of policy.
  2. The DPCS approved it, in which case the argument of duplication is not a good reason to vote down the club.
Feb 03 2003 22:32
 

With respect to the author, he has missed the key point - The Justice for Palestine Society was vetoed because it's representative failed to prove that her organisation was separate from ' Justice for Palestine Societies ' that exist outside of Imperial and have (for example at LSE) called for a ban on all Israeli goods, and who have harassed Jewish students (at UCL) - the representative even went so far as to say that the document of ' aims and objectives ' which they submitted to all members of the SCC was the same as that used by the student groups at UCL and the LSE...

As regards the other points that you raised in your report - I would like to make it clear that I understand just how serious the situation in Palestine is - and I accept that it is vital that attention is drawn to the issue, and I would be fully supportive of any initiative to create for example a group who's aim was to draw attention to the plight of people in Palestine or indeed Kashmir - but what as a member of the SCC I could not allow for was the creation of a society who's very existence would directly endanger the safety and well being of students at imperial - and I have absolutely no regrets about the decision that was made.

Feb 03 2003 22:42
 

Actually that is true isn't it, Sam. But don't the CSC also have to vote as to whether or not this new club can be a part of their CSC and that if a club doesn't have CSC it can't be a club or something along those lines. But it would be interesting to know whether or not Nona had approved it.

Feb 04 2003 00:02
 

Actually, the SCC does have the right to act as a judge of student needs - that's what its there for (partly, at least). And there are always other CSCs/FSAs or appeals to SAC...

Feb 04 2003 05:30
 

Why didn't the club simply call itself Palestinian Soc?

Arguments such as, "it's representative failed to prove that her organisation was separate from ' Justice for Palestine Societies '" or "a society who's very existence would directly endanger the safety and well being of students at imperial" would be even sillier!

How the 'very existence' of a society can injure me in any way is mind-boggling. Previously, I naively assumed someone has to physically do something to me in order to hurt me. Thanks to SCC I now know that political thought (especially at a university!!) is also very dangerous to one's health.

Feb 04 2003 08:21
 

We're an international community. The last thing I want is to see mini versions of the worlds problems staged between groups of students.

Feb 04 2003 10:27
 

"it's representative failed to prove that her organisation was separate from ' Justice for Palestine Societies ' " Whatever happened to the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy that this democratic country allegedally has? It's SCC's job to prove them guilty not their job to prove their innocence.

Obviously harassment of Jewish people (or anybody else) by an ICU society would be absolutely intolerable and would be a strong reason to cease ICU support of such a society. This however has not happened in connection with JPS. To make such pre-emtive accusations on the basis of the similarity to the name of another society(or was there more to it?) is ludicrous.

Give JPS a chance. To not do so is a violation of democracy.

Feb 04 2003 10:49
 

"We're an international community. The last thing I want is to see mini versions of the worlds problems staged between groups of students."

Of course. We wouldn't want subversive views and political thought brewing amongst university students through debate. We should do everything in out power to stomp any attempts at student activism. It's evil.

Feb 04 2003 11:06
 

If the Society's aims and objects and constitution are "in line with" the Union's and you feal aggrevied take it to the next ICU Council and let them decide?

After all, it is democracy, isn't it? Or is it only when you win?

Feb 04 2003 11:29
 

Nia - it isn't "innocent until proven guilty". The onus is on the proposers to prove that the club should be created, not the other way round.

Feb 04 2003 12:46
 

And once again the main point and stands alone to stop this society being created: there are other societies that could already serve this purpose. Does anyone actually know if Nona approved the club? If not they are not acting "lawfully" anyhow.

And labour and conservative socs are not the same thing. They exist for people that have political views that generally ally with those of those two political parties. They are not what sounds like an action group. And their sole purpose is not of any particular political action. It is to put like minded people in touch. I beleive simply from the name of "justice for palestine society" that that is not their intention at all.

The existance of the club harms no one! However there are rules and regulations in place that MUST be followed. Not be changed because a bunch of jumped up reactionaries can't get their own way. Use the system in place for once. You won't get union funding for something that clearly has a political backing, it contravenes the regulations. Politics will only get money thrown behind it if it concerns all the students of this university eg tuition fees. It's not a violation of democracy. These are rules that have been democratically decided. If you want to represent the cause, then there are lots of means for doing that inside of london alone.

If this society is allowed to exist then I'm going to find 20 members of JSOC and start a justice for israel society. And then a justice for chechnya. And then.........

Feb 04 2003 16:55
 

Good grief a society being turned down by SCC!!

If those behind JPS are truely serious about the society my suggestion would be to bring a coalition of current clubs together (the Islamic societies, Amnesty, SWSS, any other) and under an unbrella of 'Justice for Palestine' do activities/campaigns/debates etc

15. tom t   
Feb 04 2003 18:57
 

thought i'd wade into this debate!

starbuck, you are clearly against any sort of recognition of the palestinian problem, and to suggest that reactionaries want to change the rules because they made a case for forming a new society is preposterous.

To suggest that you could canvass round JSOC and form a justice for Israel society, having previously ruled out any sort of political backing as contra-regulations, is also quite ridiculous. Are ConSoc and LabSoc politically impartial? Or has this country's politics been deemed to affect the student, whilst the aggravated threat of terrorism from foreign countries against the UK (in particular London) affects none of us?

I for one would happily accept a Justice for Israel Soc., though quite what they'd be campaigning for I'm not sure. More Apache gunships from the US, perhaps? </tongue in cheek>

16. n/a   
Feb 04 2003 19:59
 

Well, I wasn't even aware such a society was in the forming, as I'm not actually up-to-date on anything ICU does.

All I can say is, while I would never join Islamic society (being a fundamentalist atheist as I am) and have little interest in Amnesty International Society, I would have seriously considered joining a Freedom for Palestine Society (provided, of course, it didn't cost too much membership fee).

And to claim that a society that does not exist yet would result in harassment and violence is ludicrous (unless the proposed society statute suggests so directly, which I doubt)

If democracy means suppressing the minority viewpoint, then it is failing. I would never join Conservative Society, disagree with anything the Conservative party in England stands for, yet if it were to be formed at IC today, I would not oppose it (or even be shocked if it were prevented from starting simply because their viewpoint is unpopular)

Best Regards from a shocked IC student

Feb 04 2003 23:05
 

I agree with Stef,if you can't create a society to do it there is nothing to stop you running events under existing societies. Islamic Soc has run many successful events not directly related to Islam. Maybe they would be interested in this.

18. Jakob   
Feb 04 2003 23:19
 

I don't see what all the fuss is about. The society duplicates the purpose of existing societes at IC. N/a, if you would join SJPsoc but say you wouldn't join Amnesty, then I think that is a little inconsistent at least. Secondly, from what I have heard, the society was presented as a confrontational one-issue setup. Look what happened to Secular Soc. - do we really want more of those.

What I want to know is, why did the SCC see fit to call an emergency meeting to debate this? And did noone think to check the date? Although the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is much more than Jews vs. Muslims, does it strike anyone else as monumentally insensitive to debate the formation of such a confrontational society on Holocaust Memorial Day?

19. punter   
Feb 05 2003 01:42
 

One of the primary reasons why politically active clubs and societies are not allowed to be formed is protection of the student body. Some might claim that the activities of one group of students carries no threat to others. In an ideal world, this would be true.

Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. Tensions are of a huge scale in the area in question. Fanatics, while not sanctioned, approved, or in any way encouraged by either side exist, and while a minority, they still pose a risk to anyone who takes a side in this argument.

I have no objection to people at IC sticking their necks out for something they believe in - but don't put mine on the line at the same time. Fanatics aren't known for their clarity of thought, and just because you might 'know' that you hold different views from the majority of Imperial, the point remains that you are associated with them.

Call me uninformed, racist, happily ignorant - I just don't want to know, be involved or be associated with a university whose student union has active political groups. It's detrimental to the student body, and as such should not, in my mind, be financed by the union. It's bad enough that I should have to work here for four years, to die, be injured or intimidated here for a cause I cannot pretend to understand would be rather unfortunate.

As a side note; if the major powers in the world have been unable to peacefully resolve the situation in the area for going on the past 35 years, what makes you think a small student body is going to make a difference?

20. tom t   
Feb 05 2003 10:37
 

"Fanatics aren't known for their clarity of thought"

"Call me uninformed, racist, happily ignorant - I just don't want to know, be involved or be associated with a university whose student union has active political groups."

These are two statements from an anonymous contributor pseudonym punter, in whose ideal world the pubs would be open 24/7 and everything woudl be done by robots. It appears shocking to him that there are people out there who realise that getting stuff done is a much better way of proceeding than just ignoring the problem.

Furthermore, how does forming a society put his neck on the line?

in short, wake up, get out of your shell, and start realising that we're all in this together. You may think as a priviledged IC student that you have no obligation to humanity, no need to be interested in things around you. Just so long as you can still take the Tube each morning....

Every choice you take is a political one, everything you do has a political edge because you live in a democracy - so stop leaving everyone else to deal with stuff so you

"should have to work here for four years"

Feb 05 2003 14:28
 

By way of clarification:

" I would like to make it clear that I understand just how serious the situation in Palestine is - and I accept that it is vital that attention is drawn to the issue, and I would be fully supportive of any initiative to create for example a group who's aim was to draw attention to the plight of people in Palestine or indeed Kashmir "

The simple fact is that the ' Justice for Palestine Society ' stated in their aims and objectives that they wished to work in association with other JPS in London - in other words it appeared that they were a franchise of the organisations that already exist at UCL and LSE, and when confronted with this the representative of the organisation failed to prove otherwise... and this was ultimately crucial when deciding whether or not to veto the society.

Further I would like to add that the idea of a ' Justice for Palestine Society ' existing as a working partnership with either the Islamic society or Amnesty was proposed at the meeting. The idea being that amnesty has a national infrastructure and in terms of the experience and advice that it could offer - it would mean that were JPS to associate with them - their chances of making a big impact on campus would be greatly increased. It would also serve to put members of the SCC at ease - as IC Amnesty and / or the Islamic society would be able to act as a regulatory body.

However the representative from the JPS was not enthusiastic about this - and did not modify their proposal prior to the vote - and had she done so I think the outcome would have been different...

22. James   
Feb 05 2003 14:48
 

"It would also serve to put members of the SCC at ease - as IC Amnesty and / or the Islamic society would be able to act as a regulatory body."

It seemed to me that neither Amnesty nor Islamic Soc were willing to use their resources to 'act as a regulatory body': the proposer of the society, in fact, is a member of Amnesty, as far as I know!

Feb 05 2003 15:41
 

On the contrary, Tom, I fully recongnise the palestine problem. Forming a Palestinain Society is even fine by me. That is one that is for the appreciation of the culture thereof etc. However I do also recognise the union regulations, the purpose of my ranting in this particular case. Now before you reply in any way shape or form, take a deep breath, step back and read everything again.

I said if SJPSoc is allowed to exist then in the interestes of fairness and clearly as politics is no longer a relevant issue as the JPS would have been approved, I could start a Justice for whatever soc (could even be a new fad.) Proposterous or equal opportunites? I'll think you find the Union in general is pushing quite firmly on equal opportunities.

Also, as mentioned quite a lot, there are other societies that the whole problem could be addressed by. If the proposer of SJP is not getting attention from either isalmic or amnesty or funding, then he clearly needs to improve his diplomacy. Perhaps these two societies don't agree with the actions propsed, erm.....democracy I beleive.

Jumped up reactionaries? Well let's face it, how often do SCC meetings get published on Live! Step outside the ring and look in rather than being inside looking out.

Further to this, I am not a member of Amnesty Soc or Islamic Soc. However I am a member of Amnesty outside of university and I beleive very strongly that issues concerning human rights should be taken very seriously. I also beleive that union rules should be followed. Questions were asked - a vote was taken - you don't like the result - Tough S*** That's democracy. Bring it back at the next meeting having reassessed the proposal and try for a different result - that's democracy too.

Feb 05 2003 16:20
 

Starbuck,

Small tip, before preaching Union regulations read them first.

1. The DPCS's verdict on whether a society provides duplication is not definitive. It is merely advice that the CSC Chair should seek and report to the CSC. The CSC is well within their rights to ignore it (and the DPCS to moan bitterly and appeal at SAC).

2. There is nothing in the Union regulations to say that societies (or the Union itself) cannot be political. How is a campaign against tuition fees non-political???

3. The Consitution prevents the Union from "affiliating to organisiations of a political or religious nature ... but Clubs and Societies are free to do so."

4. There are plenty of ICU societies will Aims and Objectives that can be classed as 'political'.

5. Poltiical (or indeed any) activities that do not directly affect/benefit students fall fould of ultra-vires laws. That doesn't mean the society cannot exist, or have a budget. It just means that those specific activities will not be allocated any funding.

Enough of that. I do agree that under union rules a club/society should not be formed if it largely duplicates an existing one with no apparent justification.

As a member of Islamic Society, I don't really think it overlaps with us. Sure, many of our members will want to get involved in such activity. However, we are a religious society. We do not want our aims and objectives compromised by an activity that brings in lots of new members who have no interest in Islam whatsoever. Similarly, while membership is open I suspect students with no interest in Islam would be wary of joining us.

As for Amnesty, as a member of the organisation yourself you shoudl be aware that it is more than just campaigning about human rights abuses. Membership of Amnesty demonstrates that one subscribes to a particular world-view. Again, not everyone who wishes to campaign on this issue may want to adopt that world-view.

Furthermore, if you are really sad and look in the minutes, you will that we (ICU) used to have a long-standing "Friends of Palestine" society. It was wound up in the mid-1990s, after the signing of the Oslo Accords. Now that the Middle East peace process has fallen apart, it's not exactly surprising that there is demand to revive such a society.

I wasn't at the SCC meeting and don't know much of the details so can't comment on the reasoning for their decision - although there do seem to be many confused arguments. I am particularly concerned about this notion that the proposed society was "unable to prove" that it was innocent of some allegation. As Nia put it, whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

I'm also concerned about this "we don't want political societies" business. We already have many - there is much more to politics than party politics. Sure, some students will feel that they are not interested in politics and don't want Union money spent on it. But there are also students who are not interested in sport and don't see why the sports clubs should get comparatively large budgets. There are those who think the arts should not be subsidised. I believe that a student union should attempt cater for the needs of all its students and all the activities they are interested in (within the law!) - which is precisely what is stated in the Union's Aims and Objectives.

Feb 06 2003 08:26
 

I would be willing to accept this decision if it weren't for some of the arguments heard in this thread - notably that "labour and conservative socs are not [...] what sounds like an action group. And their sole purpose is not of any particular political action. It is to put like minded people in touch."

Yeah, I can just imagine their meetings. A bunch of Tory Boys playing monopoly, organizing field trips to the museums and socializing with "like-minded" girls. Who could possibly think that a club called Conservative (or Labour) Soc is political?!

Yet another extraordinary argument was presented: "does it strike anyone else as monumentally insensitive to debate the formation of such a confrontational society on Holocaust Memorial Day?"

What the he*l does the Holocaust have to do with the Palestinian cause? Are you saying that JPS (or Palestinians in general) are somehow related to Hitler's concetration camps? Other than that, there can be no other reason why you would consider it disrespectful to hold the vote on that day. This is equivalent to condemning the formation of a future Palestinian state, because of the Holocaust (as if one has anything to do with the other).

I am not adamant about what happened in the discussion. However, the arguments heard here are worrying to say the least. If this is what some of the SCC members had in mind, then we're in trouble.

Finally, why couldn't they just call it Palestinian Soc? The Cyprus Socs all over the country regularly campaign for demilitarization and unification of the island without calling themselves 'Justice for Cyprus Soc'...

Feb 06 2003 12:40
 

Just to clear a few things up:

Mustafa, point taken, I shall read the regulations thoroughly before giving out sermons. Apologies. However, for all my misguided ranting, "Poltiical (or indeed any) activities that do not directly affect/benefit students fall fould of ultra-vires laws. That doesn't mean the society cannot exist, or have a budget. It just means that those specific activities will not be allocated any funding." Right, so why therefore apply to start this club? Presumably the want to secure some funding that apparently Amnesty took no interest in. Actions usually costs a little even if its only for photocopying of leaflets. So therefore the club can be created with zero union funding provided it can find a CSC that it can be part of. I wasn't at the SCC meeting, so I don't know the arguments raised, could probably find them minuted somewhere. I'm under the impression this club (to be) was asking for funding. I may be wrong and will happily stand corrected. But the idea that leaps to mind is funding for political action. These actions are not exactly beneficial to all i.e. JSoc. Would it not be wrong of the Union to fund something that may directly harm/offend other members of the union. Hence zero funding. Also action groups don't need to be a club/soc. Tuition fees presumably falls under the union's education and welfare and budget. So my ranting may have not been precise according to the "rules" but i was by and large on the right track.

Stefanos: "ICU Labour Society (a.k.a. 'Labsoc') is a social club that provides a political education for our members." taken from their website (which is a little out of date and also there seems to be no link to ConSoc's web site, or I'm looking at the wrong union website possibly) If you read through the rest of what is written on their info page, it seems there is a distinction between their objectives/policies and the possible ideas that a society called "Justice for Palestine" conjurs up.

Call SJPSoc something else or call it the same thing, but I urge the proposers to bring it back to the next meeting with perhaps amendments to their proposals and answers for the questions that will be asked. Or to think of an alternate strategy.

To clear one final thing up: my use of the term reactonary. The reaction I was describing was being defeated by the SCC and making a song and dance, not actually on the issue of the "Palestinian Problem." Don't give up boys and girls. One obstacle shouldn't stop you from getting from A to B in the long run if you've got enough motivation.

Feb 06 2003 13:01
 

It worries me a lot, Starbuck, that most of your (and other people's on this page) arguments seem to be based on the prejudiced "possible ideas that a society called "Justice for Palestine" conjurs up." as opposed to the actual proposal in hand.

(I use 'prejudiced' in its literal sense - to "pre-judge" as opposed to any other connotations that the word might imply)

Feb 06 2003 14:35
 

True - I am pre-judging. If someone would send me minutes of the meeting, I shall stop pre-judging. However the SCC doesn't seem to have a website and no on-line minutes. Worrying perhaps? Yes. True but then Justice and Peace are two words that have very different connotations.

Feb 06 2003 15:16
 

"Every choice you take is a political one, everything you do has a political edge because you live in a democracy " how true and that is the main reason why I voted against the creation of this society: the representative would not admit that this is a political issue (even if it's not PARTY political) and such an explosive subject needs to be in the hands of someone more...awake? I mean get real, who are you going to send your petitions to, Father Christmas?

On another point, I disagree with Mustafa about the idea that this can't be covered by Amnesty-it is one of many subjects covered byt eh organisation and if people at Imperial want to concentrate on this issue then they should-even if they don't adhere fully to the organisation's other views. It would be quite scary if everyone always followed their group's policy without debate/disagreement-and if I had to follow the Party line?!

And would someone please take note of what Sheraz Q was saying-the reason why they are not calling themselves Palestinian Soc is because they wish to work in conjunction with other JPS' and these have a track record of aggressivity and unacceptable behaviour. Palestinians may need our support but it shouldn't be at the cost of the safetyof us all at Imperial.

30. TOM T   
Feb 06 2003 17:25
 

ESoc collaborated with other 'green' societies throughout London in the past - no-one ever seemed to think that collaboration was a problem.

Why shouldn't JPS collaborate with others - to get bigger and more effective actions, for example.

Banning the formation of JPS on the basis that they might not abide by regs when they said they would is ridiculous - just because another unconnected group at a different Uni had a racist member, or at another a ban on goods was called for as a measure of showing distaste/disgust, does NOT mean that students at IC are automatically 'bad eggs'. That is classic prejudice, and I expect there are rules in the constitution banning that.... which brings me on to: Union disciplinary procedures exist for 'bad eggs' - and can be used.

In the meantime, Scc, sort it out! after all, you had to fight (but not unreasonably) to get your clubs going as well, didn't you??

31. Becky   
Feb 06 2003 18:05
 

This is way too complex for me. From where I see it, it's all in the name. Why give your society the same name as societies with bad reputations if you don't want to be associated with them? Change it. Without "Justice" in the title I don't think there would have been a problem. First impressions count. Why ask for trouble?

Maybe regulations said one thing, but I'm guessing there is some room for interpretation.

So you can talk about them all you like, but for most people here, I imagine the idea of people trying to get justice for palestine conjures up images of buses blowing up. That's what we've grown up seeing. It makes people uncomfortable and noone is going to be happy if the idea makes them feel uncomfortable, which is going to affect the way the regulations are interpreted. So this is a kind of justifiable prejudice. Not necessarily right, but justifiable. It's human nature. (read Jane Austen!)

Starbuck - Do you ever do any work?

Feb 06 2003 18:39
 

1. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY - The JPS's representative said at the meeting that the document of Aims and Objectives that it submitted via email to all members of the SCC before hand was taken from the same template as those groups that exist at UCL and the LSE. Secondly, the JPS's aims and objectives stated that they were going to work in conjunction with other JPS groups that existed outside of imperial.

Proof (for me at least) that it was part of the same franchise that was responsible for causing trouble at LSE and UCL, and that were we to allow the society to exist the potential danger to students (of Jewish origin in particular) would be to great to justify the creation of the society.

2. A REGULATORY BODY - However recognising just how vital it is that the plight of the Palestinian people is fairly represented on campus - members of the SCC suggested working in conjunction with either Islamic soc or IC Amnesty - and to directly counter Mustafa's point - having a representative from either of the above two mentioned societies working in a supervisory capacity in a ' working partnership' is an entirely viable proposition... all that I had in mind (and I am not sure if this was what fellow members of the SCC envisaged) was that a trusted representative from either IC amnesty or Islamic Soc took on a regulatory role within the JPS. This would have the effect of setting members of the SCC minds at ease - and the JPS would benefit from having someone on board with a vast array of contacts at Imperial and access to national organisations who could help in terms of resource provision and general advice. In other words the ' aims and objectives ' of both societies would defiantly not be compromised.

NB: Do infer from this that members of the SCC want for the society to exist - and that they are not therefore prejudice and that all we want to do is to take measures to ensure students at imperial are not harmed in anyway - and I have stated an alternative that i feel would allow for the JPS to be created - and the onus is now on JPS to amend its proposal

3. THE NEW FAD - I have no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who supports the idea that JPS should not be created because it would leed to the creation of a multitude of humanitarian societies - the only basis that this argument has relates to the division of resources and it is entirely selfish when we consider just how vital the causes in question actually are.

SECTION 4 - I would like to make it clear that I respect everybody on campus's right to freedom of speech and expression - but that is not the central issue here.

Tom said that " Banning the formation of JPS on the basis that they might not abide by regs when they said they would is ridiculous " well the point is I have already signposted the evidence that strongly suggests JPS would not abide by the regulations - and on the basis of that I still feel that it was not appropriate for the SCC to sanction the creation of a society on that occasion.

But note: Nobody is doubting just how vital it is for the plight of the Palestinian people to be recognised on campus - but all I am saying - and I am not the voice of the SCC, merely a member - is that certain measures must be taken before hand to ensure the well being of people on campus.

33. Gerry   
Feb 06 2003 21:26
 

I think it is time we set up a Students for justice in Ireland Society. We shall talk about the British genocide of the Catholics, we shall send our support (and union funds) to our friends in Derry and we shall organise outings to Canary Wharf to see the achievements of our brothers. Our society would also be able to help Students for the PLO as indeed we have historically had good relationships with other such societies. Indeed we even used to have many such ties in the 1980's as some of you will be aware. I wonder also if my dear friend stefanos would be intersted in setting up a Students for justice in Turkish Cyprus society?

34. Nick   
Feb 06 2003 21:38
 

Stefanos is so right, I mean how can setting up a society that believes in the destruction of a country and the ethnic cleansing of millions of Jews be dangerous to students at IC? Indeed you are right that democracy is the key, I for example believe in the setting up a Students for Justice in Britain Society that will talk abou the terrible foreign settlers in this country...

We could abbreviate our name to the Big News Platform BNP and we would have open and frank discussions about repatriation of all foreigners. We of course would represnt no threat at all to any students (well at least those who are male white and protestant) by our vicious rhetoric and our lies and distortions. We would actually be a service to all students. Indeed Stefanos is right, why should we care if Students who support homicide bombers should be set up on Holocaust day - in fact that is the very day that I wish to form my new society...

Feb 07 2003 01:18
 

Tom,

"That is classic prejudice, and I expect there are rules in the constitution banning that.... which brings me on to: Union disciplinary procedures exist for 'bad eggs' - and can be used."

eh?

I didnt think you liked that sort of thing? least thats not what i heard anyway.....

Feb 07 2003 08:10
 

Nick's comments are -at best- those of a City University student, so they're better left unanswered. So much for ICs entry standards...

Gerry, OF COURSE I would support a Justice for Turkish Cyprus Society. Although we are getting side-tracked here, I might as well clear up a few things.

I am guessing you brought up Cyprus in the hope that I would be contradicted in some way. Do you actually think there is violent conflict in Cyprus right now? But even if there was, what makes you think I would be against a society promoting the interests of Turkish-Cypriots (or Turks for that matter)? As long as they don't go around beating up or harassing other students, it's THEIR RIGHT to exist. Even if they hated my guts, I have no right to tell them they can't fight for their rights. The point here is that I don't ASSUME that they will harm anyone before they are formed. Pre-emptive action seems to be the buzzword these days.

Now for a tutorial on Cyprus.

Cyprus is joining the EU with or without the occupied part. It makes no difference! Their economy is booming and the standard of living is high. I happen to believe that it would be unfair for the Turkish-Cypriots not to reap the benefits of EU membership. Unless the island is re-unified, this will never happen and they will be left in limbo (recognized only by Turkey - as it stands today). They will either be incorporated into Turkey, or establish a (UN recognized) sovereign nation. Either way, their socio-economic situation will not improve. I would like the Turkish part of Cyprus to join with the rest, but I think this will be very hard to achieve. The Turkish-Cypriots (not the settlers who have been given land from ousted Greek-Cypriots) want re-unification, and that is why 60 000 (more than HALF the Turkis- Cypriot population) demonstrated in the streets recently, against their leader, Denktash. In this sense, not only would I support a Justice for Turkish Cyprus Society, I would ALSO JOIN IT. Re-unification and EQUAL rights for the Turkish Cypriots in a unified state - Perfect.

You see, the division of Cyprus was a combined effort of the CIA-backed Greek military junta, the Turkish government, and a certain Henry Kissinger. Although I wasn't alive then, there were Greek nationalists suported by the military regime that carried out Turkish Cypriot massacres. The same is true of the Turkish extremist paramilitary group, the name of which I can't remember right now. In any case, I am against such brutal action - it's against my principles. It is nationalism that caused the Cypriot split in the first place.

I am anti-nationalist, anti-war, and I have made dozens of Turkish friends in the UK. Turks and Greeks (and Cypriots, both Turkish and Greek) have so much in common culturally, you would wonder why there was so much conflict in the PAST. Nowadays this has changed a lot- in the recent Copenhagen summit, Greece was virtually alone in arguing FOR Turkey to join the EU. A position not shared by the vast majority of the traditional EU powers.

I hope this answers your question, dear Gerry. I would support ANY such society, as long as it does not hurt others (and I wouldn't assume it would beforehand).

Feb 07 2003 08:12
 

After writing for 20 minutes, I realized I was answering people with fake emails. Guys, use your real names and emails, we are civilized people here having a civilized discussion on an important issue.

Feb 07 2003 11:41
 

So now this discussion has been going for nearly four days - does anyone actually know if the original proposers of the society are going to bring this proposal back amended or try a different route?

My email address is real, I may not check it so often as my ic, sorry imperial one, but it is real.

Do I ever do any work, becky..........erm..........

39. Becky   
Feb 07 2003 12:02
 

I have always assumed that the purpose of this site is so that i can say things and dissuss important issues as an anonymous person. If I wanted to put my name to stuff i would go to meetings. If random people can say random thing, important and sensible things without worrying about it haunting them in another guise, then that's a good thing. Who needs proper names for a sensible discussion?

40. tom t   
Feb 07 2003 13:52
 

Yes, but becky, if I were to always contribute anonymously, then instances of blatant hypocrisy as highlighted by little birdy *holds hands up* would go unnoticed - to the detriment of actual democracy and sense. If you have an opinion - which is perfectly reasonable in itself - why should you not attach that opinion to your true identity?

Maybe fears of not being able to stand up to closer scrutiny in light of your comments scares people??

Ms. birdy - In defence thereof: IMHO making ruddreless union more rudderless not useful. Hypothetically, condemning racism if it occurs is more important, is it not, in terms of protecting the student body...

Feb 07 2003 16:18
 

Tom,

"Ms. birdy"

Last time i checked i was a "Mr."

I thought your reasoning was "boredom"

Feb 07 2003 18:11
 

Next time the Turks massacre a few thousand or so Greeks, Stefanos don't complain, after all they are only good Muslims fighting the infidels on "their" land, they are only taking a leaf out of the book of their brothers in the PLO...

As to the one who thinks Justice for Israel is about helicopters, perhaps he should consider that Justice for Israel will come when Jewish men,women and children stopped being brutally murdered in their own land, perhaps justice for Israel will come when the 22 Arab states with their hundreds of billions of petrodollars stop funding murder, inciting genocide and inciting against the Israeli people's unquestionable right to their homeland.Perhaps justice for Israel will only come when the myth of Palestine (a country that has never existed, and is simply a tool for continuing the Arab version of the Final solution)is dispelled. Perhaps justice will come to the Middle East when European antisemites cease their centuries old hatred- typified here by such people as stefanos...

Feb 07 2003 20:06
 

Starbuck, of course I didn't mean you! I meant the two posts by "Nick" and "Gerry" (they may even be the same person).

I was even going to praise your posts (I forgot) for not being hateful and inflammatory, in contrast to the those of the trolls.

Yehoshua - I have jewish, mulsim and christian friends. Unlike yourself, religion isn't an issue for me.

Feb 07 2003 20:17
 

Becky,

Obviously I don't mind that you don't use your real email - you're making your points without attacking anyone.

But "Nick", "Gerry" and Yehoshua are hardly stating "important and sensible things".

If you're going to make a ridiculous and unfounded attack by calling someone an anti-semite, at least have the balls to do it with your real identity...

45. walid   
Feb 09 2003 22:21
 

i support the freedom of speech of the sjp.

i have made a poem to motivate the palestinian people at this time

o palestine

you are mine

in tel aviv and haifa

i have 2 wife

46. tom t   
Feb 10 2003 14:03
 

look birdface

How can I tell what frikkin sex you are when you refuse to put a name to your 'insightful' comments??

Quit this damned anonymity c***, please, or are you in flight of the IRA or something??

tom, male, 23, wears a hat

47. tom t   
Feb 10 2003 14:06
 

Yehoshua

'after all they are only good Muslims fighting the infidels on "their" land, they are only taking a leaf out of the book of their brothers in the PLO...'

spot the difference:

'after all they are only good Jews fighting the infidels on "their" land, they are only taking a leaf out of the book of their brothers in the USA...'

this is why we continually get gridlock in the peace process

48. tasp   
Feb 10 2003 15:15
 

I was at the SCC meeting where the decision that sparked this debate was made. What alarmed me most was the series of completely illogical accusations that were made by a member of the faith group that felt 'most threatened' by the SJP Soc implying that the formation of such a Soc would lead to the incitement of Islamic fanaticism (he used the term repeatedly while accusing the new soc of being anti-semitic!) which would lead to the establishment of an Al-Qaeda cell at IC which would threaten the lives of all 'peace loving people', particularly his faith!

And such a ridiculous argument was swallowed by quite a few members of the meeting, and then issues were raised abt the security fears etc.

In addition other ridiculous points were made such as the fact that the soc could be infiltrated by block-voting Islamic fundamentalists which it was clearly pointed out cld happen to any soc anyway- comes with being democratic and respecting individual freedoms and all that.

Regarding the Islamic and Amnesty socs being able to handle the issues, the Islamic soc rep clearly made the point that it was tough enough for them to cater for the welfare of their members, which is their primary aim, and he would welcome an SJP. Amnesty soc has abt 20 members and the rep when asked if they wld ever be able to give the issue of Palestine justice replied in the negative.

In the end what happened was that most of the SCC were afraid to support freedom of expression and just vote in a perfectly legit soc based on the absurd and misplaced fears of a minority. So what if lots of other little 'political' socs are formed? everyone should have the right to express their views provided they aren't offensive (which the SCC chairs can moderate anyway- they do operate on a democratic basis). Isn't uni the place where one explores his/her principles and values? Isn't that part of yr education? At least it would mean IC students being active and taking an interest in something apart from their next c'work or interview with a strategic marketing consulting company - What do they do anyway?

Feb 10 2003 15:19
 

i think you all need to go and dry off in the sun, i really don't want you here in the flat any more. eveything that happened between us last night turned suddenly to be bad. i thought it would be like the garden of eden. you thought that you'd caught a wave. we had a brief love, but you became a source of sorrow. yalla, go home matthew, thanks and good bye, and please don't call me, i won't answer. if you call me from down below, i'll cal the police. so get a life coz you have no choice.

Feb 10 2003 15:26
 

much as i empathise with the poetry of the last submitter, please could people only enter sensible entries, god willing.

51. John   
Feb 10 2003 18:45
 

[Quotation from a deleted post.]

Poorly spelt, juvenile caricatures of posters put up by unknown parties in their names.

OK, any of you guys from the israelinsider talkboards? You seem so familiar.

J.

52. jacob   
Feb 10 2003 20:29
 

yes,

i am from the israelinsider talk board. how did you break my cover?

Feb 10 2003 20:42
 

The SJP society was vetoed for the following reasons:

1. All the honest people at the meeting could see that it was just a front for The Islamic Soc extreme elements- they hadn't even bothered to change the constitution properly!

2. The manifesto spread by the society was a tissue of lies and obnoxious anti-semitic diatribe-eg "Israel is carrying out genocide"

3. The representative when confronted with the inflammatory nature and wild accusations contained in the aforementioned document was unable to give a credible response.

4. The representative present was herself an executive for Amnesty and it was clear that both Amnesty and Islamic soc Spend most of their time attacking Israel and spreading the obnoxious Arab propaganda line that it was unneccessary to start up yet another society.Indeed Hindu and Sikh Soc drew attention to Islamic terror in other parts of the world and promised to form a cascade of claims for such one issue societies if the PLO soc was approved.

All of the Arab apologists on this forum talk about democracy yet bemoan the fact that SJP, with its racist edge and inflammatory slur was democraticall(and rightfully)thrown out by the SCC.

5. Jewish students have indeed been physically abused and one was even stabbed by such thugs stirred up by the rhetoric of similar SJP societies at other universities- I know tasp does not care- I mean what's the safety of a minority "faith group" to you!

OK now for some facts- esp to you tasp (or should i say tasteless) and steffy driss.

1. The land of Israel- later called "Palestine" in 1917 when the British took over composes modern day Israel(20%) and Jordan (80%).

2.there has never been a self governing country called "palestine" and their never has been such a people as "palestinians" in fact the term was coined by the British to describe the Hebrew people living under the mandate!

3. There are 5 million jews in Israel a country the size of Wales fighting 280 million Arabs with 500 times the land,75% of the world's oil-

4. the PLO is a terrorist organisation ressponsible for the murder of thousands of men women and children-

5. The Palestinians have given the world hijacking and suicide bombings and were and continue to support and collaborate with Alqaeda

6. Al qaeda terrorists/supporters have been recruited from th campuses of london universites.

Feb 10 2003 23:37
 

abu hamza is wrong. we all know that sharon is commiting genocide. genocide, as defined by internation law is (basically) killing with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. sharon said he would do this in his manifesto and if we don't stop him by setting up the sjp he will succeed. we must stop this madness. sharon could never invade the west bank in london. he could never close an naja university if we had swapped students with them. therefore we must all go to nablus to swap with the an najah students and they can come here and learn engineering. then we can hold a forum to discuss our psychological issues.

Feb 11 2003 11:23
 

whoa whoa whoa valentina

I beleive this debate is about the formation of a society that is part of Imperial College Union. Your debate isn't. So kindly don't post it in this forum. Write a separate article or something if you wish to discuss it.

56. Xhris   
Feb 11 2003 11:48
 

Wow, this is all awfully interesting stuff, just perfect for procrastination.

I'd like to reply to the few correspondents who seem to be suggesting that this society seems to be supporting terrorism. Unless (and I very much doubt this) there was any clause in the aims of the society to take part in such highly illegal activity, this implies that you feel it's not possible to be in support of a peaceful road to self-determination.

As a pacifist I want both Palestinans and Israelis to be happy and live in peace. Yet I'd certainly join SJP. Why? Because I feel that the onus is on the Israelis to act to stop the situation in Palestine being such that Palestinian terrorism is effectively inevitable.

Is that an anti-semitic view? Does that make me a supporter of bin Laden? Of course not.

And as for the "overlapping with other societies", it's worth noting that Amnesty (according to the Amnesty UK website) " does not support or oppose any government or political system." So what about those people (and there must be a few) who could not take part in any group activities due to their fears that they'd be putting too much of a specific slant on things. Islamic Soc is a religious society, I thought- forgive me if I'm wrong but doesn't taking a particular view for the (eventual) purposes of securing world peace transcend religious boundaries. The idea of having such a rule of societies aims not being the same should surely not be used to make it difficult for students to take part in student activities. SJP would increase the range and volume of activities that students can take part in.

Hmm, that was fun. I love student politix.

Feb 11 2003 13:29
 

Starbuck - I think you missed Valentina's sarcasm!

Xhris- "the onus is on Israel"

why?

The Arabs have huge lands and money (you know the billions of petrodollars that abu hamza talks aboout)

and are the perpretators of thousands of terrorist atrocities-surely only when they stop their genocidal moves ("we will throw the Jews into the Sea" etc..)

then there is a chance of peace. I too believe in helping the Palestinian Arabs but this will not be achieved by encouraging terrorism, by setting up support groups for the PLO -which as the biggest terror organization is responsible for most of their suffering. There are in fact 280 million Arabs all of whom live under dictators who suppress them. The lebanese have been under Syrian occupation for 20 years- 200 000 lebanese christians were murdered by the muslims, the Algerian wars have claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, the Saudi governmentopresses women (they aren't even allowed to drive) and continues to ban the pratice of any other religion than islam in their country, the Sudanese Arabs continue to enslave over 100 000 black christians amd then there is Saddam...

It therefore strikes me as rather strange why the only Arabs they want to help are those who live in the land of Israel- the only free democratic nation in the middle east-particularly when their conditions of health ,wealth and standard of living is the highest in the middle east.

SJP was rejected, partially at least, because we could see through its hypocrisy- they didn't even bother to temper down their manifesto-and we saw them for what they were -namely an activist group dedicated to furthering the terrorist propaganda line including some of the most despicable racist slurs.

Feb 11 2003 14:03
 

No - i didn't miss the sarcasm. You've missed my argument. Read all the above , if you have time, and you may understand.

Feb 11 2003 16:39
 

how dare people tell me, an opressed palestinian woman, what i should and shouldn't say.

before i came to imperial i lived daily under the israeli occupation. whenever we try to get into israel to work etc they ask for our papers. do you know how humiliating this is? they search everyone, whether they were terrorists or not. it's like going to an airport and suddenly being asked for your passport. this is so humiliating and it would never happen in england. the likud party (which means "hurt the enemy now" in israeli)wants to make sure there will be no palestinian state. this is why when Barak offered us one we called his bluff by refusing to show that we know what he's really up to.

if it is legal for an israeli to travel freely in tel aviv, why not for a palestinian too? this injustice must stop. we must sing a song for peace.

people ask why there are suicide bombs but you must understand that if the israeli army has weapons, so should the palestinians. you can not tell an opressed nation how to resist. sharon has a plan to invade jordan, libya and egypt and to annex them and to expel their populations. the west bank is just the forst stage. i know this because it was on the likud party website.here is the song for peace i wrote,

i want peace, a piece of this and a piece of that, i want to carry my gun in the street without being arrested. i want to use my fredom of speech to educate my children that the jews have no rights to israel and that they made up all that stuff about their history and their past without being called a racist.

i want to live, to cry, to laugh in the land of my fathers, tel aviv had 3 000 000 arabs living in it till they were expelled in 1948, and now we want to go back, to live in peace, with just this piece and that piece and maybe a bit more

did anyone know that arabs in israel cant vote, and it is even ilegal for them to drive cars on the right hand side of the road. they have to drive on the left which is really dangerous.

this is why we need the sjp, to campaign for all of this and to get peace in the middle east.

I WANT THE freedom to experiment with whatever chemicals i like in my home without the israeli army coming round to stop me,

60. Xhris   
Feb 11 2003 16:51
 

Benny- "Xhris- "the onus is on Israel"

why?"

Because it's so much easier to expect Israel- a sovereign state with a proper democratic (except within Palestine) structure- to respect the right of people within it's current boundaries and treat them at least partly as equals, than for Palestinians who live under the conditions Valentina describes to just sit back and obey Israel. Under the current situation can anybody be surprised that there's a "catch-22" circle of violence. Only Israel can act to stop that and they don't seem to want to. Once that's happened we can begin the harder task of trying to decide which land should go to whom.

61. laura   
Feb 11 2003 23:23
 

if xhris is suggesting that israel should simply not react to terror attacks it has done this repeatedly and the attacks just keep on coming. israel has been facing terror since its birth in 1948

62. john   
Feb 11 2003 23:59
 

[Quote from deleted post discarded - Ed.]

...and another one- for Christ's sake grow up people, if you disagree with Fuad or any of us at least have the decency to debate like an adult.

And all these trolls only appeared the minute we started discussing Palestine. What a bizarre coincidence...

J.

63. Editor   
Feb 12 2003 00:50
 

A fraudulent post has been deleted from this discussion thread.

While Live! encourages and supports free speech we do not tolerate false impersonation of other students.

64. Seb   
Feb 12 2003 15:10
 

It's worth noting that if Britain had responded to terrorism by extreeme Jewish factions in mandated palestine the way that Israel responds to terrorism, then there wouldn't be an Israeli state.

The actions of the Stern gang, to name one action, would under Sharon doctrine, surely allow for the imposition of curfews, road blocks etc.

Yes, by any fair judgement, Israel is allowed to protect itself from terrorism. But does that extend to denying an entire people self determination? Look at it this way, should the RIRA's actions justify a military crackdown on Northern Ireland and the revocation of civil liberties for Northern Irish? Granted the RIRA's actions are nothing like as severe as the Al-Aqsa brigades, but on the other hand when Edward Heath suspended home rule, the situation in Northern Ireland was comparable to the early stages of the current infatadeh. The very justification for imposing rule from Westminster was because the Northern Irish Parliament was using the IRA as a pretext for a general crackdown on Irish Catholics.

It's all well for Flamenka to make sarcastic posts demanding for Palestinians to have the right to walk freely in Tel-a-viv, but what about being able to walk freely across the entire west bank?

Feb 12 2003 18:20
 

Seb you clearly need to learn a bit more histroy. The lehi "stern Gang" were treated abominablby by the british who hung tens of Jewish freedom fighters.The British subjected them to inhumane treatment (including denial of Kosher food) and solitary confinement. The British did not put any limits on Arab immigration (in fact most of the "palestinians" arrivd during this period of Zionist revival)but limited Jewish immigration to a mere 70,000 during the entire second world war- thereby committing to death millions of Jews fleeing Nazi persecution who were barred from returning to their homeland!

Israel has never executed a single terrorist (unfortunately) and acts in self defense against beasts who blow themselves and women and children up. When the Arabs complain about the roadblocks etc no one ever mentions the fact that the WHOLE WORLD has to go through time delaying and expensive security check EVERY TIME YOU GO TO THE AIRPORT something that only arose due to the "palestinan" Arab terorists who invented hijacking and suicide bombing well before 9/11.

It takes Britain and the mighty USA and their dozen allies months and months to build up their preparations against 1 arab country - Iraq- yet Israel a country of 5 million has daily to defend herself from 22 such Arab states hell bent on her destruction and therefore those who describe Israel as the aggressor have serious moral and reasoning deficiencies.

Seb talks about the Palestinian Arabs right to self determination but any honest writer should know 1. they already have a state in 80% of pre-state Israel- namely Jordanand that thy have another 21 states to call home. and 2. They have NO RIGHT to commit genocide and replace The free Hebrew state of Israel with yet another totalitarian Arab regime.

Feb 12 2003 18:31
 

do not call me flamenka. i am valentina flamenka. i DO think palestinians should be allowed freedom of movement in the west bank. before 1948 there were

21 000 000 palestinians living in jerusalem and now they can't even go there without passing through checkpoints.m only a few terrorists a day would try and pass through the checkpoints. that's not a reason for having them - we're not all terrorists. in israel it is ilegal for an arab to wear blue or red or to speal hebrew with an israeli accent lest people think he's jewish. my family were some of the

123 000 000 palestinians living in palestine who were driven out in 1948 and told by the israelis to go to australia or alaska.

why cant i go back to tel aviv? why is that sarcastic?

love and peace to me and my friends, valentina

67. tom t   
Feb 12 2003 18:50
 

Wow, Zionism is alive and well!!! Suddenly Arabs have no right (in capitals) to live where they were living before 1948, because a book written 2000+ years ago, which has been translated and open to spurious interpretation hundreds of times, says (without including a map) that only Jews should live there!!! Right on!!

on a more technical point - Israel is currently in breach of UN resolutions - exactly the reason why the USA and her poodle (I can't think of any other allies I'm afraid) want to attack Iraq.

Exactly why should Palestinians not fight for the right to live on land that is rightfully theirs, even after 1948?? I'd be pretty pissed off if some chap kicked me out of the house I'm living in now, because his great great great great great great great etc grandmother might have lived in that house a long time ago.

Finally: 'those who describe Israel as the aggressor have serious moral and reasoning deficiencies'. Are you trying to say that those who believe that the state of Israel, pre-1965 or 63, was being totally non-aggressive by invading neighbouring palestinian lands are quite correct, and anyone who begs to differ is deficient??

what, really!!

68. tom t   
Feb 12 2003 18:53
 

And furthermore, Israel is one of only three countries which hasn't signed the Non Proliferation treaty, designed to reduce the number of nukes (or WMD as they're now known) around by obliging countries to decommission. Even the USofA has signed it (though no action seems to have been taken yet...) I wonder why palestinians feel threatened!

Feb 12 2003 19:09
 

I think you mean 1967 - tom t . Indeed ignorance runs right through your little piece. One Israel never threw anybody out in 1948 -6 arab armies invaded Israel and told their Arab brethren to leave so that they could finish off the Jews unhindered- fortunately they lost.

In fact the only people expelled from their Ancestral homes were the Jews from the Arab countries some 1 million in total (4 times the numbere of Arab "palestinans" who left israel). They were indeed thrown out because of some dubious religious text...

Today over 50 % of Israeli jews are children,grandchildren and great grandchildren of Jews expelled from the Arab lands.

Again you missed the most obvios point and are indeed morally deficient in that respect- namely that Israel a ciuntry the size of Wales(tiny) is surrounded by 22 hostile Arab dictatorships who wish to destroy her. These Arab states have 75% of the World's oil and 500 times the land. they also have the support of another bilion muslims and loads of European antisemites like yourself! Of course Israel needs Nuclear weapons you fool!

70. ..   
Feb 12 2003 19:18
 

"Of course Israel needs Nuclear weapons you fool!"

So do you think we should all be affected by Israel's problems when the weapons Israels so desperately need are used?

71. malcom   
Feb 12 2003 19:22
 

by that logic the UK shouldn't have any nuclear weapons either (on case others are affected if we ever have to use them)

72. ..   
Feb 12 2003 19:35
 

I agree with you. I'm all for getting rid of nuclear weapons from any state which may become unstable

Feb 12 2003 19:45
 

i am augustina flamenka, valentina flamenka's cousin. i'm not actually a student at imperial (i'm at ucl) so i hope it's ok to post on this forum. some people do not agree with valentina. that is ok - but you can not say that she is wrong or mistaken. in 1948 my grandparents were among 43 000 000 palestinians put on ships by israel and made to leave haifa by the israeli government. they said that israel would be a state for the jews and that they dodn't care that the other arab countries with little land and already overcrowded with the

12 000 000 refugees from the 1892 war of zion that the zionists caused by trying to invade iran, iraq and cyprus, would have to take them. israel is by far the richest nation in the world and much of its money was earned because it is still legal in israel to have arab slaves and pay them ?4 a week to feed their families whilst the average israeli, who controls the international media, earns around

?100 000 A YEAR. this must stop. we need the sjp to represent these students,

everyone of us must make a human chain arounf the whole m25 in protest at the israeli governments agressio in the face of yaasser arafat's peaceful policies

74. ..   
Feb 12 2003 20:23
 

Make a chain around the M25? That's only going to annoy the commuters to London. Look at how the fire fighters are doing with their strike. I think you should have mentioned that after the society is [possibly] formed because I don't think IC want to be associated with irritating the commuters to London.

75. ..   
Feb 12 2003 20:24
 

Not to mention that it's illegal to be a pedestrian on the M25

76. Seb   
Feb 12 2003 22:51
 

Abu:

"The lehi "stern Gang" were treated abominablby by the british who hung tens of Jewish freedom fighters."

Jewish freedom fighters that targeted civilians.

Yes, they hung people, after a trial. But then at least that was the same punishment meeted out to Murderers in Britain, where as Israeli Settlers get a substantialy different set of penalties compared to Palestinians.

"and solitary confinement."

what? Like whistleblowers on Israels nuklear programme get?

"The British did not put any limits on Arab immigration (in fact most of the "palestinians" arrivd during this period of Zionist revival)but limited Jewish immigration to a mere 70,000 during the entire second world war- thereby committing to death millions of Jews fleeing Nazi persecution who were barred from returning to their homeland!"

Their homeland? So these people were born in Israel, went to Germany, were persecuted by the NAZI's and wished to return? That's a rather flexible definition of homeland, one that certainly can apply to many people living in refugee camps today.

"Israel has never executed a single terrorist (unfortunately)"

Save extrajudicialy.

"When the Arabs complain about the roadblocks etc no one ever mentions the fact that the WHOLE WORLD has to go through time delaying and expensive security check EVERY TIME YOU GO TO THE AIRPORT"

Except of course, when I go to the airport I cross an international boundary, whereas there are hundreds of checkpoints dividing Palestinian towns on the west bank from other palestinian towns on the west bank.

"Arab terorists who invented hijacking and suicide bombing well before 9/11."

Arabs didn't invent either, and passports are older than the middle east issue.

"yet Israel a country of 5 million has daily to defend herself from 22 such Arab states hell bent on her destruction"

Egypt has signed a peace treaty, Jordan has agreed to a peace treaty. The only Arab states that present any real threat to Israel are Syria and Iraq. Less hyperbole please.

"1. they already have a state in 80% of pre-state Israel- namely Jordanand that thy have another 21 states to call home."

Right, so on that basis there should only be one state for caucasians? You know how Jordan treats Palestinians as well as I do. You also know that the West Bank was not part of Israel as declared by it's founders, but was subsequently captured. Are you trying to tell me that conquest of land should be deemed acceptable because the occupants belong to an ethnic group that has lots of land?

"They have NO RIGHT to commit genocide and replace The free Hebrew state of Israel with yet another totalitarian Arab regime."

The West Bank isn't part of the Israeli state. If it was, then perhaps the Israelis would see fit to supply gas masks to Palestinians in the west bank who are as much at risk to any last ditch use of biochemical weapons by Saddam.

"One Israel never threw anybody out in 1948 -6 arab armies invaded Israel and told their Arab brethren to leave so that they could finish off the Jews unhindered- fortunately they lost."

Not even Israel seriously takes that stance anymore.

There is an overwhelming amount of documented evidence that precisely the opposite happened. The Arab Legion specificaly demanded that Arab Palestinians remain, as a large flood of refugees would hinder the movement of their forces and make it hard to move forward. And what about Deir Yassin? All a lie, despite having plenty of Israelis willing to testify what happened there.

Anyway, I've been involved in far too many discussions on the Israel/Palestine issue, with people who can make a much better case than you can. I find the issue deeply teedious.

77. Seb   
Feb 12 2003 23:33
 

Tom t:

On a technical point, there are no chapter 7 SCR's against Israel (i.e. none of the resolutions are binding under threat of sanction), whereas Saddam is in breach of chapter 7 SCR's.

Now just why it should be that there is no binding resolution has ever been passed by the UN security council on Israel is another matter entirely. Certainly, such resolutions have in the past been tabled...

Feb 12 2003 23:46
 

but we MUST make a road block round the m25 to show people that we are serious.

israel has murdered 34 000 000 palestinians in one week in retaliation for the injury of a jewish child in a car crash and no one said anything. maybe if we surround the m25 THEN people will notice. ariel sharon once killed 345 men with his bare hands in one afternoon, and people say that he kept the remains in a glass closit in his negev ranch which is surrounded by a fence he made from cat's teeth that he extracted. arabs are not allowed to elect members to the israli parliament and if they do then the members are only allowed to speak on tuesday morning and if they speak on wednesday then they are fined a months salary but the salary for arabs is 6% of the jewish salary - what kind of democracy is this?

Feb 13 2003 01:43
 

Seb

What you don't seem to grasp is that the whole concept of "palestinans" as being a separate nation is all part of the greater arab myth to denigrate Israel . An arab who lives in Ramallah speaks the same language, prays to the same god and has the same culture as an Arab living west of the Jordan in say amman. The West Bank (ie the Hebrew territories of Judea and Samria - where in fact the namne Jewish comes from) were disputed territory- they indeed were ocuppied but not by Israel but by Israel but By Jordan in the first war of Arab aggression in 1948. They were then liberated by Israel in 1967 after yet another Arab initated war "to throw the Jews into the Sea". It is important to note that during all of that time between 1948 and 1967 did the "palestinans" call for an independent state in the West Bank . Indeed the PLO was founded in 1964 3 years before the territories were liberated by Israel. The very purpose of the organisation (as remains today) was to destroy Israel by stages through a bloody terrorist warfare- purposely targetting women and children- does anyone remember the 17 schoolchildren murderd in Maalot?The PLO did not care that the west bank was ruled by Jordan because for them Jordan was palestine and their goal and desire was to make the middle East Judenrein (free from Jews)as infidels cannot rule any territory in the middle east.

The "palestinians" love to have their cake and eat it;on the one hand Israel is an evil regime trying to commit genocide(!) and so they ask their goodl old friend Uncle Saddam to bomb Israel in her name and in the other hand they expect Israel to supply them with Gas masks. On the one hand they can murder and maim Israelis on adaily basis but on the other they must be allowed to enter Israel as they please without security checks so that they can earn money of the Israelis!

On the one hand they want peace(!) but on the other they call Israelis living on their own land "settlers" and believe in the ethnic cleansing of half a million or so such civillians!

As to Egypt's peace- they got Sinai on a paltter from Israel(with all its oil and tourism money)and billions of dollars in US aid. But what did Israel get- acountry that contiues to incite the most vicious antiIsraeli propaganda daily throgh its state owned media, a country that smuggles weapons through tunnels in Gaza,that builds up its forces in Sinai to levels above and beyond the peace treaty and which has even recalledits ambassador to Israel.With peace like that I'd rather have the Sinai back and a cold war anyday!

As to the Nuclear traitor- most other countries would have hanged him!

Feb 13 2003 01:53
 

By the way the LEHI "stern gang" NEVER targetted civillians. They only targetted british military and government installations that were responsible for the anti Jewish policies of the mandate government. Indee the King David hotel was the headquarters of the british military administration. the LEHI infact gave 3 telephone warnings before they blew up the hotel-which the arrogant British commander ignored.You will find that in fact the british record in the land of Israel was pretty disgraceful. Indeed it was the british who first helped sow the seeds of the cancer that is Arab nationalism.

Besides all of this is unneccessary as there were a few such underground groups figting a colonial power and cannot be compared to the murderous Islamists who blow up planes,buses and twin towers.

81. Editor   
Feb 13 2003 03:05
 

I have had to delete another impersonating post.

"Jacob" from "Israel Insider" (and Jesus College, Cambridge). Your contributions under multiple 'identities' are beginning to annoy us.

82. Seb   
Feb 13 2003 15:03
 

Abu:

Government administrators are, in fact, civilians. Or was the assassinated Israeli tourism minster a legitament target for freedom fighters? I think not.

Telephone warnings do not justify acts of terrorism.

As for nuclear treachery,

1. We havn't hung our nucler traitors? I didn't see norwood swinging from a yard arm.

2. That is the point though isn't it? If you would hang nuclear traitors, wouldn't you also hang murderers and terrorists?

Your denial of a groups national identity is, frankly, deeply racist and rather disgusting. But of course you are right. There are no palestinians. All people who claim to be palestinians are in fact, lying. Frankly, I feel the same way about the wogs and the paki's... they are all the same. <That is sarcasm by the way, for those who havn't spotted that yet>

"They were then liberated by Israel in 1967 after yet another Arab initated war "to throw the Jews into the Sea"."

Right, so you accept that the west bank was occupied by Jordan. In that case, you can hardly claim that the Palestinians are complicit in the war.

And in any case, this brings us the fundemental point: The west bank was conquered in 1967. It was not part of the land assigned to Israel or claimed by it in it's decleration of existance. It was populated almost exclusively by Arabs. Furthermore, International law forbids the aquisition of land by conquest. There is no justifiable claim to retain that land in perpetuity.

There may have been no claims to seperate the west bank from Jordan, but there was however revolts at Jordan's regime, who have always treated Palestinians (as we now call them) as second class citizens. You claim uniformity of Arabs from the Mediterranian through to the Euphrates, but that's no more true than to say all Europeans, by virtue of being white and christian, or indeed, that Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, America, Canada and England are all the same by virtue of being white, english speaking states with broadly christian populations.

"Besides all of this is unneccessary as there were a few such underground groups figting a colonial power and cannot be compared to the murderous Islamists who blow up planes,buses and twin towers."

The PLO isn't islamist, it's nationalist.

83. tom t   
Feb 13 2003 19:04
 

Hi Seb,

Good post - very enlightening. Somehow your arguments just hold more water that Mr. Hamza's. One small, anal, pernickety(?) point. Yard arms were only generally used to hang people from at sea, most normally being used to hang a square sail from.

Gibbets are what are needed if you want to hang a man in a landlocked country, or indeed in the UK! Coombe Hill still retains an example.

taraaa

tom

Feb 13 2003 21:20
 

I think the whole Arab-Israeli situation is wrong. To the settle the situation, i think we should nuke the WHOLE damn place and then start ALL over again so the rest of the world does not have to listen to ISRAELI defensive measure c**p/bulls**t nor vote for JUSTICE for PALESTINE society. Infact, I think holocaust should be revived and instead of JEWS we should have all israelis and palestinians put into one massive concentration camp to battle it all out. Its like spanish bullfighting. you know the bulls are gonna die so might as well entertain yourself while killing them . hehe! oh and nuke is a bad idea....i think chemical warfare is far superior...u just send VX in..kill everyone and then take over the infrastructure. :)

anyway, PEACE OUT ...!

ironically, i believe in WORLD PEACE but frankly , this is the ideal scenario in my mind.

85. Seb   
Feb 14 2003 00:53
 

Tom t:

I couldn't remember the word for a land bassed yard arm... gibbet. Must remember.

Anyway, I didn't mean to be pedantic, it's just not very widely reported that the resolutions Israel is in breach of are non-binding (i.e. no coercive measures attatched to them) so I tend to say it whenver the opertunity arrises.

Feb 19 2003 19:51
 

isn't it ironic how the Islamic soc, environmental soc, Amnesty and Arab soc have all held Anti - Israel events in the last few weeks since SJP was vetoed?

This just confirmss the scc decison was right!

87. Sam   
Feb 19 2003 22:33
 

Those events aren't Anti-Israel, they are Anti-Israeli-Policy.

Sorry to be pedantic, but most people don't attack the existence of Israel, they attack Israel's Policies. To be honest, I care very little about whether Israel exists or not, or how it was founded. I do however care about human rights... I am not an Anti-Semite, and I am definitely not Anti-Israel, i do however disagree with their occupation and treatment of Palestine.

88. tom t   
Feb 20 2003 11:37
 

Yes that's right, only the other day we held the 'Why Israel should be dug up and thrown into the Med' event, which was a great success and attended by hundreds of terrorists, and soon we're doing a workshop on 'How to murder Israelis on campus' - ALL WELCOME!! Martine, look forward to meeting you there?!

Feb 21 2003 10:09
 

Sam, you should know better by now. ANY criticism of the Israeli government is anti-semitism. If you say "settlements", they will reply, "holocaust".

Seriously though, the anti-semitism card is used so often that it has lost all meaning. I used to get upset when someone called me anti-semitic for wanting Palestinians to have their own nation, but now I just shrug it off. It doesn't matter - they will say it as long as you don't agree with Sharon et al.

90. Sunil   
Feb 21 2003 17:27
 

Stefanos: all very well but the vast majority of people around the world who rant away against Israel and/or Israeli policies (as pursued by its democratically-elected government) are certainly anti-semitic. The remainder who are simply anti-Israeli-policy do themselves no favours by allying with those who actively seek the destruction of Israel or the end of a Jewish State. Examples of this include attempts to explain the behaviour of terrorists and suicide bombers by blaming Israel for "bringing it all on to itself" etc etc.

91. Seb   
Feb 24 2003 15:12
 

Sunil:

There is nothing wrong with explaining terrorists behaviour. It's irritiaing that we should have to pretend that anything bad is also "mad". It is impossible to reconcile any conflict like Palestine, or for that matter Ireland, by refusing to adress the route cause of the problem. The route cause of the problem in the middle east is that the Israelis do not feel secure, and the Palestinians do not feel free. The Palestinians do not feel free because Israel has decided the only way it can be secure is to retain a degree of controll over the West Bank that no nation would tollerate.

Various reasons I have heard, over the year, of people arguing pro-Israeli policy have included things like "strategic depth", i.e. that without the west bank it is a half hour drive from Jordan to Tel-a-viv. This echos with Stalins "need" for a bufferzone between the west and Russia for fear of a resurgent Germany. Hardly a convincing argument for the partition and occupation of East Europe.

Anyway, this is turning into a ramble. To criticise Israel is not to ally yourself with fundementalists. If this is the perception, then I would sugest that there is no particular need for the critics to proove their non-anti-semitic credentials any more than a critic of, say, Thatcher or Heaths policy in Northern Ireland should have to proove that they are not out to murder protestants.

Israel perpetuates the current situation as much as the Palestinians, just as for a long time, Britain helped to perpetuate the conflict in Northern Ireland.

92. Sunil   
Feb 24 2003 19:04
 

Seb:

What Israel is doing to prolong its conflict is neither here nor there.

The charge of anti-semitism being applied to those protesting against Israel might be unfair in many cases. Still, the facts are:

  • these protesters are happy to march alongside known anti-semitic groups whose avowed aim is the destruction of the state of Israel as we know it, clearly without any distaste or revulsion.
  • these protesters refuse to condemn the acts of terrorism Israel is being subjected to with anything approaching the same kind of ferocity. This is plainly unfair.
  • ultimately, Israel is a democratic state and it can be safely assumed that anything Israel does, it does with the tacit approval of the majority of its citizens. Saying "I have nothing against Jews but I hate/oppose Israel" is then essentially an expression of dislike or distaste directed against the world's largest Jewish community. Such criticism can come dangerously close to being genuinely anti-semitic.

For historical reasons, the charge of anti-semitism is not a light one to bear in the western world. Protesters would be able to get their message across far more effectively if they were to rid themselves of every hint of any association with anti-semitism as best as they could.

As for resolution of the conflict, realistically the only hope is if the terrorist organisations acting against Israel call halt to their actions unilaterally and enter peace talks to broker a deal for a better future. As is happening in Sri Lanka right now with the LTTE (inventors of the sucide bombing technique).

93. Sam   
Feb 24 2003 19:49
 

oooh,

so i'm antisemitic because i refuse to condemn anti-israeli terrorism...

rubbish! that terrorism is itself anti-israeli, not anti-semitic. I would never ally myself with any terrorists, however arguing that by not condemning them i condone them is a little harsh.

I don't condone terrorism, whether state sponsored or not. I see no difference between Israeli foreign policy and Palestinian Terrorism, however there are many speakers against the latter, but very few for the former. All i do is add balance to the argument.

It all comes down to one thing. I do not believe the Israeli occupation of Palestine is just, therefore i condemn it; just as i condemn war against Iraq, and many other western sponsored wars in the past.

If a conflict is not "Just" it is wrong, and here is my fairly strict definition of just:

Criteria for a Just War: 1) The war must have a just cause, 2) It must be waged by a legitimate authority, 3) It must be formally declared 4) It must be fought with a peaceful intention, 5) It must be a last resort, 6) There must be a reasonable hope of success, 7) The means used must possess proportionality to the ends sought 8) Noncombatants must be given immunity, 9) Prisoners must be treated humanely, 10) International treaties and conventions must be honored.

come back when you've fulfilled all my criteria guys...

94. amram   
Feb 25 2003 01:19
 

Democracy in the Middle East

Scorecard: Israel 1, Arab States 0. That about sums it up.

Israel just had elections recently and three Arab-led parties won 9 seats in the Knesset - Israel?s parliament. Democracy, I was told when I was growing up, was majority rule with respect for minority rights. Israel, more or less qualifies. Let?s take a look at a few other examples.

Iraq not too long ago had elections and guess what, Saddam Hussein - running unopposed- was elected by 100% of the electorate. Even people in the hospital, ?deep in coma? came out to vote for him. Same thing for Syria?s Hafez Assad a few years ago, running unopposed, he garnered 99% of the vote. Gee, they sure love those Arab despots, don?t they?

Take Lebanon for example. Poor thing, they ?invited? Syria in to ?help? them during the civil war in 1976, and it never left. Sort of like an obnoxious guest who overstays his visit, not sensing when its time to leave. The Christians in Lebanon feel that way. That?s Syria, well-known ?champion of democracy?, respected member of the UN Security Council, and rapacious occupier of Lebanon in violation of UN Resolution 520 (telling them to get out, I might add).

Syria, that?s that country run by the Alawis (a heretical offshoot of S**te Islam), of which Bashir and the rest of the Assad clan are members. Although they make up only 10-12% of the population, about the same amount as Christians, and far fewer than the about 75% Sunni Muslim majority, they rule with an ?iron fist?. The Sunnis might be the majority, but when the now deceased Hafez Assad destroyed a town (Hama 1982) killing 20,000 people, to root out his political opposition (a few hundred members of the Muslim Brotherhood), well hey, so who cares about being a majority, right? Although about 90% of the population is ethnically Arab, with the remainder Kurd, Armenian, and others, Alawi affirmative action proves, minority rights are doing fine in Syria. Democracy is democracy!

Iraq isn?t much different. It?s run by the Tikritis. Sons of the town of Tikrit, as most everybody whose been following the Iraq adventure probably already knows. Saddam Hussein, his advisors, top Baath party leaders, and most military and security leaders all come from there, a town of about 100,000 out of a country of 23 million. Talk about a company town, this one?s a town-run country. Saddam and his cronies are Sunni Muslims, that make up only about 35% of the population, in contrast to the about 62% S**te majority of Iraq. Minority rights win again.

Or look at Jordan, that well-known ?modern? Middle East kingdom. Parliament was suspended and political parties were banned for over three decades. Political parties were first re-legalized in 1992. After years of promised ?creeping democratization? under the now deceased King Hussein (friend of Yitzhak Rabin, ?peace? and formerly, builder of latrines in Eastern Jerusalem out of Jewish gravestones), his son the enlightened, western educated King Abdullah II (who became king in 1999), suspended parliament in June 2001. Elections have been postponed ever since. Over 100 emergency regulations (i.e. anti-democratic laws) have been enacted, including the suspension of press freedoms. But, don?t worry, everything?s been done according to the constitution. Right?

The ruling Hashemite Dynasty, I remind you, decedents of Abdullah I, are natives of the Hejaz, not Transjordan. The Saud family booted them out in the early part of the 20th century. So, they moved to the Palestine Mandate area and, under British perfidy, established a new kingdom in Transjordan.

Then there?s Egypt, a nice place, as long as you?re not a Coptic Christian. For over 50 years, Egypt has been ruled by only three presidents. Nasser and Sadat were members of the Free Officers Movement revolt of 1952. Mubarak was Sadat?s vice president from the National Democratic Party that Sadat established in 1977. In Egyptian democracy, the president is nominated by the NDP dominated People?s Assembly, and then ratified (unchallenged) by popular referendum. Mubarak was re-elected in 1999 by about the same amount, 95%, as he?s ?won? for three previous 6-year terms. Surprised?

Elections might not be all that free in Egypt, but there is plenty of media freedom. That is, for anti-Semitism and Israel-bashing, all in violation of the 1979 peace treaty with Israel. But what can you do, democracy is democracy.

Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and several North African states don?t even try to pretend. They are honest in their opposition to western-style government. Usually taking the position that democracy, pluralism, and tolerance is alien to their Arabic cultures and Islamic inclinations.

All joking aside, with the upcoming war (if it takes place), the United States is promising a ?regime change? and a democratization process in Iraq. The Bush Administration wants to promote democracy throughout the Middle East; it just dedicated $145 million to a project called the Middle East Partnership Initiative. President Bush, for example, has called for democratic reforms in the Palestinian Authority before statehood. Taking the cue, Syria has recently publicized a withdrawal, ?cosmetic redeployment? to some, of troops in Lebanon. Even Saudi Arabia has hinted that after another Gulf War, reform is on the way. But for some thinkers in the US, the real question being debated is whether the US should forcibly export democracy to the Middle East, instead of waiting for the Arab regimes to institute it on their own.

There are plenty of minorities in the Arab world, North Africa and the Middle East that await real democracy. There are Lebanese who suffer daily occupation under a vicious Syrian regime. There are Kurds throughout the Middle East and Assyrians in Iraq, who aspire to independence. There are Berbers (the pre-Arab indigenous population) in North Africa, who after 11 centuries still resist Arabization. There are Christians in Egypt, who are attacked by Islamic radicals and persecuted. There are Christians and Animists in the Sudan, who resist slavery or Islamicization. And so on and so on, all are non-Arab or non-Muslim minorities, who long for the United States to bring regime change to their area, too (see Minorities in the Middle East: A History of Struggle and Self-Expression, by Mordechai Nisan, and The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam, by Bat Ye?or, to get a better sense of the problems).

Which brings us to the most serious measure of how committed to democratic reform in the Middle East anyone is, the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The Quartet (United States, EU, UN, and Russia) is promoting a ?roadmap? to peace, with the promise of Palestinian statehood. Recently, their Task Force on Palestinian Reform met in London, but only the US has been demanding any real democratic reforms in the Palestinian Authority, and only half-heartedly, at that. The Europeans seem to be more interested in financial accountability for their aid money than democratic political reform in the PA.

According to ?global common knowledge?, Jewish ?settlements? in the ?West Bank and Gaza? will have to be abandoned, and Jews transferred, voluntarily or forcibly, back to the new borders of the State of Israel.

I ask a simple question: Why?

Ethnic cleansing has been condemned throughout the 1990s. Bosnia?s power sharing government is a case in point. After the breakup of Yugoslavia and the war that followed, the EU, NATO and the US did not help to establish an exclusively Muslim state in Bosnia, but one where Croats and Serbs were included. The 4th Geneva Convention (meant to protect residents from forced expulsion) was adopted after World War II, with the Holocaust in mind. How could the US or Europeans be thinking of making parts of the historic Jewish homeland Judenrein?

If the Palestinian state in the making is to claim the mantle of democracy, then no better test of its tolerance of minorities would be the granting of citizenship to Jews who would choose to remain in their towns, villages, and homes in Judea and Samaria (the ?West Bank?), and Gaza. Without extending full, equal rights and privileges to Jews in Palestine, including the possibility to be elected to parliament and serve in the Palestinian government - rights Arab citizens of Israel have - democracy and peace become empty expressions.

So what will it be? Are we going to stop hearing calls for the closing down of Jewish ?settlements?, that is, Jewish cities, towns and villages? Are we going to stop hearing calls for the expulsion of several hundred thousand Jews from their homes? Or will we now know, that ?regime change? and ?democracy in the Middle East? are just empty slogans bereft of all meaning?

95. EP   
Feb 25 2003 01:37
 

Recent events at IC have been both Anti-Israel and Anti-Semitic. I have heard more than once in the past few days that the Jews control the world media, promotion of blood libels, and what a mistake it was to allow Israel to be set up.

The question must be raised that with all the conflict going on in the world, with people suffering terrible conditions (often far worse than those on the west bank) why people choose to attack Israel. The only reason I can think of is because Jewish people are involved. I read an article recently about the limb amputations that went on in Sierra Leone in the past few years, of which I had little prior knowledge. Why do people have so much more interest in what is going on in Israel, when other parts of the world need much more urgent attention? - and to claim that the issue is what is driving world terrorism by angering the Arab street is nonsense - what has happened in Sierra Leone, or indeed the 100000 Muslim deaths in Algeria have absolutely nothing to do with what Israel is or isnt doing. To their credit, Amnesty at IC do often focus on other areas, but those who do not have only themselves to blame for bringing about suspicions of Anti-Semitism.

Feb 25 2003 01:42
 

I love stefanos . I want his babies...

on another note he is so right- I mean how can supporting a terror organzation that seeks to ethnically cleanse 5 million bloody Jews and replace it with a good old arab despotism that the rest of the middle east loves and trusts be wrong?

97. editor   
Feb 25 2003 01:45
 

I have had to censor all further comments as I don't like you all.

I particularly hate Jesus from Oxbridge who keeps impersonating me.

98. Editor   
Feb 25 2003 01:48
 

Guys if you are going to impersonate me at least remember that it's Editor with a capital E. By the way I don't hate Jesus- I love him very much especially as he chose me to be his messenger here on Earth. I love you all even tomt..

99. Editur   
Feb 25 2003 08:44
 

Jesus went to Oxbridge? Jeesh, they've really tightened up there entry standards recently. I needed 3As at A-Level to get to Oxbridge, and that Jesus fellow got there with only a vocational qualification in woodwork.

ho hum.

100. Seb   
Feb 25 2003 17:03
 

"these protesters are happy to march alongside known anti-semitic groups whose avowed aim is the destruction of the state of Israel as we know it, clearly without any distaste or revulsion."

On what basis do you say this? For example, around a million people went on an anti war march in london recently, I'm sure there were a few people in that crowd that were supporting the destruction of the state of Israel, are you sugesting that having arrived at a protest, everyone should go home because a minority of the crowd support something radicaly different from the rest? It is simply wrong to assume that a majority of people subscribe to a minority position. And just as the Government isn't supposed to be able to stop peaceful protest, peaceful protesters are not equiped or able to prevent such people marching with them.

"these protesters refuse to condemn the acts of terrorism Israel is being subjected to with anything approaching the same kind of ferocity."

Not true, I know many protesters that do condemn such acts. (I should make it clear I havn't been on a march on this issue). I hardly think it is fair to generalise. Protesters that protest against Israel should not be inferred to support anti-sematism simply because they fail to condemn it loudly enough. For example, I'm also fairly certain that many of the pro-Israeli marches we saw last year didn't roundly attack the brand of zionism that many settlers openly support, that preaches a "greater Israel", and I really think the anti-capitalists haven't adequately distanced themselves from Stalinism (Certainly, when surveying the mess they made of Parliament Square three years ago, I saw several daubed hammer and cycils.)

"ultimately, Israel is a democratic state and it can be safely assumed that anything Israel does, it does with the tacit approval of the majority of its citizens."

Just because you do something democraticaly, doesn't mean it's necesarily legal or moraly good. If Israel is a democracy, then clearly it's occupying the west bank. If the west bank is part of Israel, then Israel is not a democracy, as the Palestinians on the West bank don't get a vote for the Israeli government(though the settlers do... interesting).

"Saying "I have nothing against Jews but I hate/oppose Israel" is then essentially an expression of dislike or distaste directed against the world's largest Jewish community."

So? In this case one would be criticising the worlds largest Jewish* community on it's record of human rights, which I belive, democratic or not, is perfectly legitament. It would be a different thing if one was to criticise it for being Jewish. However, as your scenario specificaly stated race/relgion was not the issue, I fail to see how this is "dangerously close"

to anti-sematism. Anyone who would extract that from the message is dangerously close to slamming the door on any kind of free speech. After all, the flip side of labeling certain races inferior is labeling certain races superiour or beyond criticism. The racial group of the community Israel encompasses is irrelevant to discusing it's human rights record and whether it is in breach of internationa law.

While it might be a nice idea for the minority of Palestininas to down arms as a possible resolution, this is not going to happen.

Some Palestinians are genuinely out to see the destruction of Israel. Giving a veto on peace to those with vested interests in war is precisely why Israel has been unable to mannage or end this conflict. Imagine, if you will, if Britain had made disarmament of all republican groups a precondition for restoring any independence in Ireland. For a while we operated such a policy, and it got nowhere.

Instead, we had to resort to a policy of bringing in the Provos and excluding the RIRA. Suppose the response to the Omagh bomb had been to break of talks with all Irish republicans?

In a particular problem, when Hamas did agree to cease commiting terror actions last year, Israel did not cease it's "targeted killings" of Hamas leaders (and the collateral dammage that went along with it).

Hardly a sensible policy for briging about a long term ceasefire and peace process: "Hold still while we get a lock on please"

101. Seb   
Feb 25 2003 17:18
 

amram:

If the sum total of our argument is that international law should be relative (It's okay to violate provided it, provided the victims are already suffering worse) then I have to respectfully disagree.

That is not how international law has been drafted, nor how I suspect it is intended to be interpreted.

Interesting to note you talk about the Christians in Lebanon, who actually carried out the masacres as Sabra & Shatila (which the IDF was helpfully complicit in, having handed the camps over to the Christian milita, and provided lighting for the event, and sent back those fleeing)

Which of course, Ariel Sharon, being responsible for the Lebanese invasion, was officialy condemend for by his own government.

Marginally worse than the Dutch comlitity in the Srebrenica masacre, but at least after a decade an entire Dutch government resigned to acknowledge their responsibility, whereas Sharon just got re-ellected.

Just because it's nigh on impossible to find someone in power in the middle east that doesn't have blood on their hands doesn't mean that we should decide to write off the people that populte this region as perpetual victims. In prticular, I think we should single Israel out simply because it *IS* a western regime, with rule of law, democratic elections and one of the Western liberal democracies. Getting the Syrians et al. to stop torturing people is going to require some fairly hefty reconsideration of national policy. For a start we could stop turning a blind eye to the fact that the Saudi regime is one of the most vile on the face of the planet.

EP:

"those who do not have only themselves to blame for bringing about suspicions of Anti-Semitism."

No they don't. They have just provided a nice, easy reason for others to dismiss them out of hand. You big Stalinist you. (Because I haven't seen you adequately distance yourself from Uncle Joe)

102. amram   
Feb 25 2003 23:14
 

Palestinians Don't Exist

The Myth of the "Palestinian" People.

[Text removed. It can be read at the above linked URL. -- Editor.]

103. John   
Feb 25 2003 23:43
 

Amram,

If you are going to post an entire article to a *discussion* site, you'd do pretty well to at least credit the authors (who I believe are Yehezkel Bin-Nun and Arial Nathan Pasko, since you asked) rather than simply plagiarising their work

What is it about discussing middle east politics that breeds bizarre obstructive behaviour, fradulent postings and unreasonable, often rabid attempts at debate amongst people I've never seen on this board before?

104. Sunil   
Feb 25 2003 23:47
 

Seb: I'm just trying to put across how many Israelis (and Jews) feel about much of the criticism of Israel. You will find the sentiments I expressed echoed day in, day out in the Jerusalem Post and Ha'aretz, even in the Jewish Chronicle. The Israelis are a beseiged people. There is still far too much mainstream criticism of Israeli policy that dissolves into rehashing the same tired anti-semitic drivel about Jewish media domination and so on, so it is hardly surprising if anybody sympathetic to Israel switches off straightaway at the slightest perceived hint of anti-semitism.

Your own personal criticisms may not seem to be anti-semitic in character but they might well be interpreted as such.

For instance, you talk about Palestinians in the West Bank or the Gaza strip not being able to vote in Israeli elections because they are not Israeli citizens. Now, most Israelis will interpret any call for these Palestinians

to be given the same rights as Israeli citizens as being inherently anti-semitic partly because this is a numbers game. If Israel ultimately has more non-Jewish citizens than Jewish ones, that will necessarily mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state. If calling for the destruction of the world's only Jewish state is not anti-semitic, tell me what is. To most non-Jews, especially those from secular states with largely liberal views, it seems nonsensical to imagine that envisaging an Israel with a Jewish minority could be seen as anti-semitic. Yet, for various reasons, that is not how most Jews would view such a call. You would immediately and unthinkingly (and almost certainly unfairly) have exposed yourself to being labelled anti-semitic, even by many non-Jews.

My point is simply that protesters need to take such sentiments into account if they are to have any kind of positive effect with their protests. [You're right when you talk about communists and anti-globalisation marchers - the same kind of conflation happens there too. And it could be avoided in exactly the same way if the protesters only cared.]

[On a separate note, whatever the Jewish settlers in the West Bank may have done, and however distasteful it may be, it pales in comparison with suicide bombing. There is a vast and substantive moral difference between militaristic territorial subjugation and actual terrorism.]

105. Seb   
Feb 26 2003 01:18
 

Palestinians do exist.

No other Arab nations recognises Palestinians as Jordanian, Syrian etc. Israel does not recognise them as Israelis.

To sugest that new nations can not come into being is absurd. After all, Americans of European decent must clearly have, at some point, ceased to be Brits/French etc. and started to be American.

I'm sorry, but claiming all the people that call themselves palestinains are in fact part of some massive conspiracy to do down Israel is as racist as declaring Jews to merely be the Christians that refused to see the light of the Lord and therefore all devil worshipers, heretics, infidels and the damned.

Citing flawed colonial censuses that rfused to count nomadic people (or indeed, anyone that got in the way of selling off land to the highest bidder) is equally absurd. The British and Ottoman censuses counted officialy recognised buildings (i.e. ones for which deeds existed) and the people living in them only.

Frankly, If your going to peddle such blatant codswallop, don't expect any responces. The palestinian people exist, they are clearly differentiated from neighbouring states in the same way I would find it very hard to pass myself off as a French citizen. As such they are a nation as much as the Jews are a nation that demanded and succesfuly recieved a state. What is more, even taking into account demographic movements of peoples in the 19th century (for which the majority of fair sikined Isrealies can be accounted for), the current palestinians are as much entitled to claim to be indiginous as all but the REAL semitic (i.e. arabic) Jews that existed in the Ottoman Empire prior Western European involvement.

Lets have none of this "Palestinians don't exist they are all lying" rubbish. It would be equally valid to say that Jews don't exist, and are ficticious, based after all on a text that is not universally accepted as accurate historical record.

106. Seb   
Feb 26 2003 02:10
 

"I'm just trying to put across how many Israelis (and Jews) feel about much of the criticism of Israel."

Well, given that plenty of my Jeish friends concur with my view, and in fact one good friends of mine (and I appreiciate this is annecodtal) believes that the current practice of the Israeli state undermines Jeudaism and Jews in general, I have to disagree.

If Jews beleive that by criticising Israel on clear, unambiguous issues of policy rather than race, could be interpreted as an attack on Jews in general, they are quite clearly wrong. What's next? We can't condemn Stalin for fear of being anti-russian? we can't condemn America for fear of being anti-Russia? We can't condemn Irish Terrorism for fear of being anti-irish? Condemning Mugabe's wholesale destruction of a democracy is colonialist?

It's an argument that is utterly hollow. I appreciate you may not have necesarily been suporting it, but it's nota valid argument.

"The Israelis are a beseiged people."

So were the Russians in the late 40's. Didn't give them the right to create a buffer zone out of Eastern Eruope, even if the West decided to reconsitute west Germany and allow it to build a powerful army.

"There is still far too much mainstream criticism of Israeli policy that dissolves into rehashing the same tired anti-semitic drivel about Jewish media domination"

Oh please, I've havn't heard anyone in this country seriosuly propose Jewish media domination. The only thing that comes close is the claim that there is a Jewish lobby in the USA, which is demonstrably true, because the Jewish Lobby is rather voiceforous in claiming their existance. Of course, it could be another part of armrams extreemely well cordinated conspiracy/ secret society that runs around pretending to be Palestinians rather than generic Arabs.

"so it is hardly surprising if anybody sympathetic to Israel switches off straightaway at the slightest perceived hint of anti-semitism."

It's hardly surprising that anyone that starts off even mildly critical of Israels clear violations of international law ends up comapring Israel (wrongly I should act) to NAZI Germany when you get the kind of stonewalling much of the Israeli media and society gives to critics. I'm sorry, I don't buy it. The majority of criticism of Israel involves clear references to documents, laws, treaties and events which are not disputed. They do not appeal to Jewish media conspiracies.

"Your own personal criticisms may not seem to be anti-semitic in character but they might well be interpreted as such."

Then the interpreter is being deeply stupid, and I care not one jot for his oppinion. Given that the Geneva convention, and UN cahrter, were drafted *prior* to the state of Israel existing, and are couched in general terms, I fail to see how I could possibly be singling out Israel.

"For instance, you talk about Palestinians in the West Bank or the Gaza strip not being able to vote in Israeli elections because they are not Israeli citizens. Now, most Israelis will interpret any call for these Palestinians

to be given the same rights as Israeli citizens as being inherently anti-semitic partly because this is a numbers game."

Excuse me, so what you are saying is that the following is a coherent argument:

To deamnd that Palestininians to have full civil rights is anti-semitic, but to demand Israel withdraw from the West Bank is also anti-semitic because Israel is under siege.

I'm sorry, but that is frankly a joke. It's a racist one at that. If Israel can not gaurantee civil rights for fear of loosing it's racial purity (and lets be clear, that is what the numbers game is about: Israel must be a Jewish state, which is about as convincing as the NF saying that we should "send back the darkies"), then it should accept that it is occupying the West Bank. As an occupying power, it has certain obligations:

Under Geneva convention, all palestinians not actively engaged in hostilities are defined as protected if they are not Israeli nationals (and if they are Israeli nationals and deprived the vote, then Israel is no better than Apartheid South Africa)

Israel is in breach of a hell of a lot of articles of the Geneva protocols. But that's okay, it's a nation under siege!

"because Israel is a nation"

Israel is a nation state.

A nation is a body of people, a nation-state is a a geopolitical entity.

"If Israel ultimately has more non-Jewish citizens than Jewish ones, that will necessarily mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state. If calling for the destruction of the world's only Jewish state is not anti-semitic, tell me what is."

Excuse me, but how is calling for racial/cultural purity anything other than the kind of ethnic policy that the NAZI's proposed? Israel is, constiutionaly, supposed to be secular. In any case, the West Bank was not part of Israel as declared by Ben Gurion et al, nor part of the land assigned to Israel by the UN, so if it chooses to annex that land, then it must face the consequences of that, or grant the Palestinians self determination.

"To most non-Jews, especially those from secular states with largely liberal views, it seems nonsensical to imagine that envisaging an Israel with a Jewish minority could be seen as anti-semitic. Yet, for various reasons, that is not how most Jews would view such a call."

And I'm sure plenty of other various groups have felt the same way. Certainly there were some groups in Rwanda only so far back as the nineties that felt this way. Mugabe feels this way about several ethnic groups (though of course, the press tend to only pick up on the white farmers).

If Israel doesn't subscribe to these views (i.e. that maintaining ethnic purity is an insufficient reason for depriving a group of people civil right), there is a simple reason: Israel isn't, in fact, the western liberal democracy it claims to be, and has no right to claim that those critisising it's policies are any other than enraged liberal, western, democrats.

There remains a simple solution: Openly admit that Israel is in temporary occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, acknoweldge the territorial contiguity of the lands over the green line, accept resposnibility for the settlers that, in breach of international law, Israel has allowed, and in some cases sponsored, to build on the wrong side of this land, and offer to work out a compensation deal with a soverieng Palestine (rather than offer "final, take it or leave it" deals at Camp David. Of course, it works both ways: a future palestinian state must grant full civil rights to any Israeli settler that continues to live in Palestine, just as Arabs in Israel propper are granted full civil rights.

Anyway, to continue to the point of protesters, how precisely do you stop a communist turning up to your march? The very laws that allow people to march through london also prevent them from stopping unwanted elements walking along side.

It's not possible to both protest and ensure that you have exclusive editorial controll on the protest.

As for suicide bombing, you say it is particularly distasteful, but on the other hand it remaisn a fact that between two and three times as many Palestinians have died than Israelis in this recent bout of conflict, and far more since 1973. Meanwhile, Israel has contrived to create facts on the ground by encouraging settlement, somethng we rightly confronted Milosovec over, has disenfranchised an entire people, ripped a whole straight through the geneva convention, engaged in an open policy of extra-judcial assassination, stolen mineral rights, engaged in colective punishment (Barak went up on newsnight and admitted to a policy designed to "squeeze" the Palestinian economy) and right now, on the brink of war with Iraq, while withholding the PA taxes raised in it's name, while fearing a gas attack on Israel, is refusing to even consider handing out gasmasks to Palestinians.

If you were to run through the American Decleration of Independence, or even the English Bill of Rights (1688/9), every single condition cited in both documents for overthrowing the existing regime has been met. It's a pretty tough argument to claim that something isn't wrong in the middle east when very conditions that prompted the (violent and very bloody) birth of western democracies are considered to be trifling matters. So no, Suidicide bombing may be illegal and reprehensible, but I draw the line at saying that it can be used to justify Israelis policies in some sort of relative framework of morality.

107. EP   
Feb 26 2003 02:16
 

Seb:

You didnt actually answer my point tho did you? - why the obsession with Israel? if you believe in human rights there are a list of countries the length of my arm to attack before coming anywhere near Israel.

I love it when people say "well, if Israel is a democracy with liberal western values it deserves to be judged more stringently" and then at the same time use Israel's freedom of speech against her : "Well, there are plenty of Israelis who oppose what is going on..." funny how you never hear dissenting Palestinian voices - most of them are too terrified to speak out, for fear of being accused of collaborating. This is the real tradgedy for me, because I believe there is a peaceful element within Palestinian society, but as long as Arafat is allowed to remain in power (and feted by the EU), their voices will never be heard. Israel can do nothing about this sad fact, except try (as Sharon has) to discredit Arafat as far as possible. But whenever hard evidence of Arafat's links to terrorism are exposed, it is decried as Israeli doctoring.

108. Seb   
Feb 26 2003 02:53
 

EP:

1. My belief is Israel particularly should be challenged on the basis that it is a functioning democracy in terms of those that live inside the Green Line, and one that claims to operate within the Liberal Western order of Democracies. It ought to be singled out particularly because it is one thing for a country like China to voilate international law What are you going to do? It's a communist oligarchy one party state. The best way to deal with totalitarian states is to open them up to western ideas and try to get their middle classes going. That's the best way to turn them into democracies (to marginal success in Russia and Serbia for example) and then you can start angrily demanding that they behave like liberal western democracies.

Then of course, there is the fact that "But he's doing it too!" (which is what this argument amounts to) is no excuse. Look, when genocide occured in Rwanda, the west failed to intervene. I'm hoping that the next time there is a genocide, and the facts are rammed down our throats by the worlds media, you will not be standing up asking to know why we should single out X for genocide when the Hutu's were allowed to get away with it. Certainly, I'll be calling for the western powers to follow the terms of the 1949 Prevention and Punishment of Genocide treaty.

Finally, there is the other issue: You don't need to question the motives of these people bringing the case: The case stands on fairly undisputed facts. International law and facts that not even Israel questions. Calling into question the motives of those bringing the case only highlights the fact that on almost all charges, Israel is resoundingly guilty.

For the record, I don't attack Israel alone. I think it was absolutely right we dealt with Serbia, except that instead of bombing we should have threatened a ground invasion from the word go. That way milosovec would have collapsed earlier, we would have prevented the wholesale destabalisation of the regions when his paramilitaries continued to ethnic cleanse during the bombing, and a great deal of infrastructure could have been preserved. I think it is right that we are dealing with Saddam, though having left it 12 years without any clear alternative policy, this was possibly the worst time to do it given the "clash of civilisations" problem. I think North Korea should be confronted (though a war must be avoided at all costs, the price in life in South korea is too high), Saudi Arabia must be forced to reform towards a constiutional monarchy than a jumped up little autocratic absolute monarchy. Egypt and Jordan need similar reform (but not nearly so drasticaly as Saudi does). Russia should be bought to heel over Checnya. Iran and China need a policy similar to Glashnost and Perestroika to encourage reform rather than allow the respective regimes to play the nationalist card to avoid the growing middle classes in these countries. Europe needs to accept the basic fact that there is a gaping democratic defecit that is best filled by opting for a truely confederat model (and no, the French/German axis should not be allowed to dominate). Zimbabwe needs to rise up and re-institue the rule of law, I don't know any way the west can really sort that out given the fundemental failing was that not enough Zimbabweans complained when Mugabe startd chipping at the blocks of democracy and a large number (reportedly) still don't think there is much wrong with excluding a minority group (and I'm not talking about white farmers either)...

Israel is not actually top of my rather long list of "how to sort out the world", it just happens to be the major topic of debate in this thread. I rather thought my oppinions on possible constiutional reforms in Saudi and the end of the appeasement of their whabbist funding, medievil "divine right", scapegoating, torturing, totalitarian Autocrats would bore you silly.

"I love it when people say "well, if Israel is a democracy with liberal western values it deserves to be judged more stringently" and then at the same time use Israel's freedom of speech against her : "Well, there are plenty of Israelis who oppose what is going on..." "

Freedom of speech? This is the country where two Arab Israeli politians got their arms broken by Israeli police, where the IDF refuses to allow the PA to even meet, where someone who dared to speak out about Israels procurment of nuclear weapons got put in solitary confinement for years. Either way, there is more to democracy than freedom of speech. The rule of law for example. You know, the idea that you put someone on trial before condeming him (and his neighbourhood, if your chosen method of execution is a 1000Lb bomb) to death.

"funny how you never hear dissenting Palestinian voices - most of them are too terrified to speak out, for fear of being accused of collaborating."

So It's fine to violate peoples rights if they are already being violated in some other way? when will you understand that this is not a valid argument.

"This is the real tradgedy for me, because I believe there is a peaceful element within Palestinian society,"

Oh really. How generous. 3million palestinans, a huge number bellow the age of 18, and a few thousand or so known terrorists and you generously conceede that not all of them are paid up members of the al-aqsa brigades.

"but as long as Arafat is allowed to remain in power (and feted by the EU),"

Interesting fact, Israel and the US asked the EU to back the PA in order to ensure that the Palestinians felt they had someone on their side. Of course, the EU funding the Gaza airstrip was clearly a massive boost for terrorism, and the IDF's decision to buldoze the runway was soley an anti-terror message that had enormous impact on Hamas's ability to send suicide bombers into Tel-a-viv.

"their voices will never be heard. Israel can do nothing about this sad fact, except try (as Sharon has) to discredit Arafat as far as possible."

If Israel were half as interested in palestinian voices being heared, it would organise a referendum on a free Palestinian state much like Britain did in Ireland.

"But whenever hard evidence of Arafat's links to terrorism are exposed, it is decried as Israeli doctoring."

It's a bit hard to link Arafat to anything going on right now when he is absolutely isolated in his headquarters and the PA isn't allowed to meet. Is it any wonder the terrorists are running the show on their own now?

109. Sunil   
Feb 26 2003 12:05
 

Seb:

If fewer Israelis have died in terrorist attacks than Palestinians have in reprisal, that is hardly for want of trying on the part of the terrorists. If a few civilians die when a known terrorist is taken out, what were the civilians doing accepting the terrorist in their midst? What was the terrorist doing with a base in a civilian area with civilians as human shields?

Blame it if you will on fear or on Israel, but there will not be peace until the 3 million silent suffering Palestinians break out of their silence and quit tolerating and offering their tacit support to brutal terrorism in their name. Opposing Israel does not have to go hand in hand with accepting terror.

Sri Lanka only found peace after its bloody, bestial civil war when the 3 million Tamils in the country (and other Sri Lankan Tamils around the world) put enough social and monetary pressure and their combined political weight on the LTTE to force them to disarm, declare a complete ceasefire and sit down at the negotiating table and accept autonomy rather than their original "liberation" aim. It's a worthy precedent.

110. EP   
Feb 26 2003 12:57
 

Seb:

I wasnt offering the "but he's doing it too" argument, far from it, I believe Israel's behaviour during operations in the territories is much more humane than people believe. I have a childhood friend currently in the IDF (anecdotal evidence - I grant you) who tells me of some of the lengths they go to in order to minimize civilian casualties, even losing their own soldiers, as was the case in Jenin. Israel could have simply bombed from the air as America did, but instead went house to house rooting out the terrorists, losing 23 soldiers in a booby trap.

Im not saying Israel's record is perfect, but no country is. I wasn't

attacking you personally for being obsessed with this topic, only that those who are, (in the name of human rights) without any reference to other countries deserve to be treated with suspicion. Hilary Rose is a prime example of this.

"The case stands on fairly undisputed facts. International law and facts that not even Israel questions"

Not true. If you are referring to the Security Council resolutions, they call for Israel to negotiate "lands captured in 67" - not "the lands". this is because it was recognised that pre '67 borders were not able to be defended. Furthermore, Israel need not comply as long as the Palestinians are in breach of their agreements, which they undoubtedly are. There is no resolution calling on Israel to unconditionally withdraw from the West Bank.

"Freedom of speech? This is the country where two Arab Israeli politians got their arms broken"

look, I can bring you examples from lots of democratic countries where freedom of speech is sometimes violated, (protesters against China's occupation of Tibet were conveniently shooed away in Britain recently), but overall you cannot deny that Israel is far more free than most countries of the world, where there are Arab MK's who have called for Israel's destruction.

"So It's fine to violate peoples rights if they are already being violated in some other way?"

no, that wasn't my point, all I was saying was that inherently Israel is at a disadvantage because there are a plurality of views among the population, where Left wingers can speak out against the govenment, whilst this is not true in the Arab world.

"Oh really. How generous. 3million palestinans, a huge number bellow the age of 18, and a few thousand or so known terrorists and you generously conceede that not all of them are paid up members of the al-aqsa brigades"

Well, a recent survey found that most of the population support the actions of Hamas. But this is mostly due to the education system in the PA, where there is no recognition of the state of Israel.

"Israel and the US asked the EU to back the PA in order to ensure that the Palestinians felt they had someone on their side...."

Well, perhaps a left wing Israeli government did - Peres also gave the PA huge amounts of arms which were then used against Israeli soldiers. Im not denying this was done in good faith, they stupidly believed that Arafat had changed, but now that it has become abundantly clear that he is a terrorist (whatever the Nobel commision thinks) it is time to get rid of him. Seb, are you really denying that Palestinians have been strung up for being "collaborators"?

Arafat is a terrorist, and therefore Israel has nobody to negotiate with. Allowing the PA to meet to discuss how they can possibly direct more EU money to Hamas without Chris Patten noticing is not the kind of free speech I would allow.

Feb 26 2003 14:39
 

Wow, this is the longest discussion yet. 111 comments is excessive! Also the length of some posts is unbelievable. Maybe an offline debate (ICU Debating where are you?) would be beneficial...

112. Effie   
Feb 26 2003 15:10
 

Seb

You are indeed right the Palestinina Arabs are indeed living under difficult conditions but it is directly as a result of their own actions. Israel is indeed a democracy, but for an Israelite like myself I am not too bothered whether European "intellectuals" believe so or not for my primary care is the survival of my nation and my people. Perhaps at one time like after 1967 it would have been possible to make the Arabs of Judea and Samria citizens of Israel- but now after years of violence and terror intended to destroy Israel they have negated this right. The Palestinian Arabs have become nazified.Their education system (!) teaches them to glorify a cult of suicidal murderes. Their media continues to brainwash them in the ways of hatred and glorify murder . Their school textbooks do not show Israel on the map, their heroes are murderes. There already exists an Arab stae in 80% of "Palesrine" namely Jordan and there is no need for another one- which will have planes and tanks instead of explosive belts and which will form alliances with nations like Iraq, Iran and Syria to finish Israel off. And indeed once such a state is formed and does attack Israel- again Israel will not be allowed to defend herself. I do not want to get drawn into your legalistic arguments which could ALL be refuted but would take too long, rather I want it understood that the morl case is clear Israel- is atiny stae beseiged by the Arab world as well as an arab population-by the way closer to 2 million not three as the PLO likes to claim- who happened to fall under her control after Israel was victorious in the 1967 war that was initiated by Arab aggression. These Arabs have negated their rights to live under Israel as their whole system has been dedicated to destroying Israel and because Indeed EP is right the majority of them do support homicide bombings. This calls for a difficult solution- but it is the Arabs- the perpetrators of 55 years of wars and agression against Israel who should compensate the Israeli people . It is not Israel the victim who has to pay. You love to talk about International Law, whose existence I tend to dispute, but seem to forget some of its basic premises. For example when a country is attacked in war and wins it has no bligation to return the territory to the agressor ever- (this is true whether or not the territories were always disputed and the cradle of Jewish civilisation and a centre for continuous Jewish life throughout the centuries).

The Arabs, therefore having negating their rights by their barbarity and their murdesome activites must accept the transfer of the 2 million Palestinans into their land (a few who wish to remain as loyal Israeli citizens may be allowed to do so dependet upon negotiations).They have enough oil, and land to do this without blinking aneye lid. This indeed will begiin to right the balance of the nearly 2.5 milion Jews in Israel today whose civilisations ibn the Arab world were brutaly destroyed 50 years ago and who were forced to flee, penniless to their new flegling tiny state. Indeed it was quite ironic how Saddam's scuds fellon Ramt Gan ,in the 1991 Gulf war ,which is atown of nearly 150,000 Jews from Iraq!

Transfer has worked Historiclally- for example 2.5 million Germans were transferred out of the sudetenland after world war two, millions of hindus and Muslims were transfereed in 1948 between india and pakistan etc.

You say Israel need to uproot hundred of thousands of "settlers" why? the only ones who should be transferred are the agressors.

113. Jesus   
Feb 26 2003 15:47
 

I have many more qualifications than woodwork. I have studied theology, Hebrew up to Key stage4. I even wrote a paper on the mechanics of surface tension in the sea of Galilee and was recognised by my college for having great interpersonal skills. As to you Editur i think you need to get your facts straight...

114. Editur   
Feb 26 2003 16:12
 

Ahh, but i suspect, like the Turin Shroud, all the certificates to back up your qualifications will appear to be a modern fake.

115. Seb   
Feb 26 2003 18:15
 

Sunil:

"If fewer Israelis have died in terrorist attacks than Palestinians have in reprisal, that is hardly for want of trying on the part of the terrorists."

And? Are you sugesting that Israel should only be held to account for the number of civilians it kills over and above the amount that Hamas decides it want's to kill (Which I think, gives Israel just enough to masacre the entire Palestinian population), or even the number of civilians Hamas kills? Generally, I thought that the law was objective, not relative, but hey, perhaps I'm wrong.

"If a few civilians die when a known terrorist is taken out, what were the civilians doing accepting the terrorist in their midst?"

Like they have SO much choice. And interstingly, most civilians killed in the infantadeh have died as a result of Israeli incursions into Palestinian urban areas and when the IDF fired into crowds, something that the UK rarely did in NI and which has resulted in a long running public inquiry. When the IDF shot up (for no apparant reason) a clearly marked BBC reporting team, over the Lebanese border, after the withdrawl, there was only a brief, closed military inquiry. So I think you can see why I do not believe that Israel can fall back on the "we are a democracy in a land of autocracies" argument.

"What was the terrorist doing with a base in a civilian area with civilians as human shields?"

Living. What are Settlers doing living on land which is recognised as not being part of Israel when the Geneva convention expressly forbids it? Lets face it, you simply don't drop 1000lb bombs in the middle of densely packed urban areas.

"Blame it if you will on fear or on Israel, but there will not be peace until the 3 million silent suffering Palestinians break out of their silence and quit tolerating and offering their tacit support to brutal terrorism in their name."

And just how are they supposed to do that? The framework Israel signed up to leaves the Palestinians dependent on the PA, and the conditions under which Israel requires for peace talks require that the Palestinians first ensure that there is not one Palestinian group willing to wage war. The PA is a bankrupt organisation which can't even police properly, because Israeli reprisals are targeted at their police infrastructure. Roadblocks and curfews make it impossible for their leaders to meet, so they couldn't even organise policy if they were inclined to. I point you again at the UK's policy with violent Irish republicanism. If two, rich, first world countries were unable to hunt down and destroy the RIRA and were forced to continue peace talks when under fire from one minor faction, don't you think that the condition that Palestinians unilateraly disarm (especially when the current Israeli government just entered into coalition including far right parties that outright reject the very concept of a Palestinian state) is a little unrealisitc?

"Opposing Israel does not have to go hand in hand with accepting terror."

One can equally say opposing terror doesn't go hand in hand with occupation, curfews, roadblocks, collective punishment and the wholesale destruction of the Palestinian economy.

"It's a worthy precedent."

Perhaps, but the Israel/Palestine situation is more geographicaly confused, and trust is at an all time low. Disarmament isn't going to happen, and ensuring complete disarmament is somewhat different than asking the single largest group to cease fire. And when Hamas and Islamic Jihad did cease fire, it's worth noting that Israel did not.

116. Seb   
Feb 26 2003 18:37
 

Seb:

"...house to house rooting out the terrorists, losing 23 soldiers in a booby trap."

Yes, on the other hand you have IDF soldiers openly speaking out about the use of Palestinian civlians as human shields in those operations. Lets face it, you can not guarantee you have got rid of the terorrists if you bomb from the air.

That's not going to lengths to avoid civilian casualties anymore than sugesting that if North Korea were to unleash an artilary barrage on Seul, it's going to lengths to avoid civlian casualties because they could use one of their nukes (assuming they have one). A humane campaign doesn't manage to kill 1500 people in a year and a half. A humane campaign doesn't invlove firing live rounds into a crowd, and no humane campaign deliberately targets the civilian economy "to Squeeze" Palestinian society (As Barak put it on newsnight)

"those who are, (in the name of human rights) without any reference to

other countries deserve to be treated with suspicion."

No they don't. A good argument is a good argument. Making ad hominem attacks on the person making the argument is not a counter argument, and it's even worse to sugest that such attacks should be the default.

"Not true. If you are referring to the Security Council resolutions, they call for Israel to negotiate"

Actually, I'm refering to the definitions of ethnic-cleansing and the numerous obligations of an occupying power laid out under the Geneva Protocols.

"this is because it was recognised that pre '67 borders were not able to be defended."

In other words, Stalins explantion of why he needed to occupy eastern Europe and set up soviet puppet regimes.

"There is no resolution calling on Israel to unconditionally withdraw from the West Bank."

Indeed there isn't, but there is standing international law oblidging them to grant certain civil rights to the occupants of the west bank, to protect them (which they are failing to do), and to prevent the movement of population from their country to the occupied lands (which, I think, the settlments clearly violate)

"look, I can bring you examples from lots of democratic countries where freedom of speech is sometimes violated, (protesters against China's occupation of Tibet were conveniently shooed away in Britain recently),"

Yes, but it's a little different from breaking the arms of the people supposed to represent a minority in Parliament. I think that's actually a form of treason in this country.

"but overall you cannot deny that Israel is far more free than most countries of the world,"

Ironicaly, so was Britain in the late 19th century and early 20th century, but convince any colonial subject that they were living under the rule of a free society and had no right to complain and I'll be very supprised.

"no, that wasn't my point, all I was saying was that inherently Israel is at a disadvantage because

there are a plurality of views among the population, where Left wingers can speak out against the

govenment, whilst this is not true in the Arab world."

Why should the Arab world come into it at all? The only way this nugget of information could have any relevance is if you believe that international law is subjective, which it manifestly isn't.

"Well, a recent survey found that most of the population support the actions of Hamas."

I'm not surprised actually. I think you will find most Brits in WWII supported the firebombing of Hamburg and Dresden.

"where there is no recognition of the state of

Israel."

And Israel doesn't recognise Palestine either. It consistently refuses to make even a statement commiting to a long term view of a two state solution with a soveriegn palestine. It'll agree to talks about a possible two state solution. Untill, like Britain in the Northern Irleand question, Israel acknowledges the right of self determination for that population, then I don't think they have a leg to stand on.

"Well, perhaps a left wing Israeli government did - Peres also gave the PA huge amounts of arms which were then used against Israeli soldiers. Im not denying this was done in good faith,

they stupidly believed that Arafat had changed, but now that it has become abundantly clear that

he is a terrorist (whatever the Nobel commision thinks) it is time to get rid of him. Seb, are you

really denying that Palestinians have been strung up for being "collaborators"?"

No, I'm not denying that at all. I'm saying that if you are going to start blaming the EU for palestinian terorrism then it's not going to work.

"Arafat is a terrorist,"

And Sharon's been indicted by his own government for war crimes and found indirectly responsioble and censured.

"Allowing the PA to meet

to discuss how they can possibly direct more EU money to Hamas without Chris Patten noticing is not the kind of free speech I would allow."

Right, so you want them to agree to peace, but you don't want them to meet to discuss peace. And so far there is absolutely no evidence that EU money has gone to funidng Hamas. EU aid to Palestine is tied, so the PA rarely sees it. It only started paying PA workers salaries when Israel decided to withold all funding to the PA (which it still continues to raise in taxes), and that's the only cash funding that the EU's ever given.

117. Seb   
Feb 26 2003 18:46
 

Effie:

Given you reject, quite casually, all international law, I fail to see why you complain about terorrist suicide bombers.

Surely, under a Hobsean world where "security" is the only issue, unlike the kantian one supported by those "left wing intelectuals" of Europe, rights are nonsense on stilts.

Surely you recognise that the Palestinians are entitled to find their security, and if they think they can find it in suicide bombers, without appeal to international law, it's just another one of those "might makes right" things and roll on the cycle of violence.

"For example when a country is attacked in war and wins it has no bligation to return the territory to the agressor ever"

That's not true. Firstly, Israel did not recognise Palestine to be the agressor, it recognised it to be under the occupation of Jordan (then Trans-Jordan). Secondly, it's actually not true: since the end of WWII, the aquisition of land by conquest has been ilegal (nominaly since WWI, but then you just called the conquered land a LoN Mandate)

The Settlers on the West Bank are agressors. The Geneva Protocol forbids the settlement, and even allowing the settlement of conquered lands.

118. Seb   
Feb 26 2003 18:47
 

Right, this is getting all too teedious again.

I shall avoid posting in this discussion untill after my corsework.

119. amram   
Feb 26 2003 23:14
 

Seb

"Given you reject, quite casually, all international law, I fail to see why you complain about terorrist suicide bombers."

While I for example do reject your hypocritical neo-colonialist pompous European definiton of International law I am able to make moral choices. For example purposefully blowing up innocent women and children is WRONG but defending yourself by attacking those responsible for terorism, attacking their infrastructutre, their chain of command and their suport bases is not only acceptable but a MORAL DUTY!

"Surely, under a Hobsean world where "security" is the only issue, unlike the kantian one supported by those "left wing intelectuals" of Europe, rights are nonsense on stilts."

This Europe of yours that is whiter than white that can preach to Israel is it not the same Europe that murdered 6 million of my brothers? Is not the Europe that continues to appease these despotic Arab regimes. That sells chemical weapons to Saddam, that arms Libya and Saudia- who are they to preach to us? Is it not Britain who abrogated her duty under the mandate to make all of "palestine" ie including Jordan a Jewish homeland? Is it not Britain who closed the door to Jewish (but not Arab)immigration to the land of Israel to the people of Israel in the white paper of 1939 and thus effectively sent thousands of Jews to their deathes in the gas chambers? Is it not Britain who first used Human shields in Jenin in 1927? Is it not the Britain where, after a couple of British soldiers wre kidnapped in Sierra Leone(what the hell were they doing in someone else's land again?)Blair sent in the SAS and killed over 40 militants? You love to compare Israel to Ulster well here's a NEWSFLAH 1-there still is no peace in Ulster today

2 the Irish have not commited a tenth of the crimes against Britain- you know like using ambulances to ferry suicide bombers,like massacreing olympic athletes, like mowing down 17 schoolkids (look up maalot), like lynching to death two young men and phoning their wives on their mobiles while they are being murdered and then showing your red stained hands to the mob while dragging their corpses through the town square,or purposely shooting a 10 month old baby (shalhevet pass) in the head. If they had Ulster would be an ashtray today- look at what GB did to Dresden!

"Surely you recognise that the Palestinians are entitled to find their security, and if they think they can find it in suicide bombers, without appeal to international law, it's just another one of those "might makes right" things and roll on the cycle of violence."

Surely not.

There is no "cycle of violence" there is no moral equivocation between victim and agressor . The Arabs have perpetuated the misey of both peoples. The Arab wars of agression are the source of conflict. The Arabs have no rights to "security" they have abrogated their rights. Their barbarism has reached all time lows and it is time that Israel defends herslef and a little bit of vengance is in order too! To compare homicide bombers to defenders of security is disgusting. It is the terorists who think "might makes right" and seek to scare Israel into submission. But unfortunately Israel is and has always been for the past 6000 years a fiesty little nation that does not bow down to tyrants whether Pharoah or Hitler or Arafat and will not commit suicide to please hpocritical European christians who have oceans of blood on their hands. If what Israel does isn't always perfect - well tough! Israel is dealing with beasts who want to throw us into the sea who teach their children to blow themselves up and massacre tens of innocents- we are allowed to defend ourselves and if one innocent Arab or two gets caught in the crossfire I won't loose any sleep as I know that thousands of innocent Israeilis have been

killed.

By the way more Nazi Germans were killed than Americans during WW2 does this make the NAZI case right? NO! just as more Arabs have been killed in the past 2 years (and anways there are nearly 300 million Arabs compared to 5 Million Jews so proportionately way more Jews have been killeed) doesn't make Arafat, Bin Laden , Saddam or Saudi Islamo-fascism any the more acceptable or moral!

" Firstly, Israel did not recognise Palestine to be the agressor, it recognised it to be under the occupation of Jordan (then Trans-Jordan). Secondly, it's actually not true: since the end of WWII, the aquisition of land by conquest has been ilegal (nominaly since WWI, but then you just called the conquered land a LoN Mandate)"

There never has been a state called "Palestine", there is no such people as "Palestinians" and there is no difference between Jordan and Palestine- if that were the case why didn't the Arabs wish to create a separtae state when Judea and Samria where part of Jordan eh- QED by your own argument above. These lands were always part of historic Israel and were illegaly occupied by Jordan ; in fact the Jordanian ocupation was only recognised by The UK and pakistan! Frabkly I am not even sure why Israel should accept Jordan or Syria or Lebanon as true states. These are artifical states drawn up by the colonialist French and British- why should we accept them when they continue not to accept us. Why should Israel give them land for peace when they are the aggressors? Why don't they give Israel some of their land or some of their oil for peace?

OR,here's a novel idea why don't they give Israel peace for peace eh? Why should Israel be on the receiving end if they don't want peace then Israel should give em war- and Israel will win!

"The Settlers on the West Bank are agressors. The Geneva Protocol forbids the settlement, and even allowing the settlement of conquered lands."

1.The settleents were all built after the land was liberated in a war of arab agresion in 1967 . Indeed the Arabs initated two major wars before this in 1948 and 1956 and a war of atrition between 1961-65 Israel is hardly the agresor eh?

2. The Geneva convention forbids the targetted attacks of civillians ie suicide bombings, the use of ambulances to ferry comabatants- the kidnapping of soldiers and civillians without acces to the red cross - all off these the Arabs are guilty of. Why the hell should Israel obey such a convention- it does anyway- when the Arabs ceratinly don't? Selective memory perhaps on your part eh??

3. They are not settlers- they are civillians living within the land of Israel. The land was government land previously occupied by the Jordanian government which became Israeli government land after Jordan lost a war they staretd against Israel. The civillian communities in Judea and Samaria then bought this land from the government which makes it their land. No Arab towns were razed, not a single arab village was uprooted, not a single arab was transferred to Jordan-so no land was confiscated- which Israel could have done- but rather it was such empty land that was allowed to be settled. Since that land is part of Erets yisrael (the land of Israel) there is no settlement of foregn land.

120. EP   
Feb 27 2003 00:47
 

Seb:

"on the other hand you have IDF soldiers openly speaking out about the use of Palestinian civlians as human shields in those operations. Lets face it, you can not guarantee you have got rid of the terorrists if you bomb from the air."

I think you'll find it was the Palestinian gunmen using their own people as human shields. And believe me, if Israel wanted to, it could get rid of all the terrorists quite easily from the air. Here you also tacitly acknowledge that Israel is targetting terrorists, rather than indescriminately killing everyone it sees. That is why there is no moral equivalence between what Israel is doing and what Hamas are doing.

"A humane campaign doesn't manage to kill 1500 people in a year and a half. A humane campaign doesn't invlove firing live rounds into a crowd"

do you not think that if Israel was routinely spraying bullets into crowds of people there would be more than 1500 dead in 2 years? (minus the 100 or so suicide bombings - oh I forgot, Israel is responsible for those deaths too).

"Actually, I'm refering to the definitions of ethnic-cleansing "

I went to an Arabic society talk recently where it was alleged that Israel practises ethnic cleansing by one speaker, and then another speaker went on about how difficult it was to leave the West Bank! - make youre mind up people! - if youre going to make unfounded criticisms at least be consistent.

"In other words, Stalins explantion of why he needed to occupy eastern Europe and set up soviet puppet regimes."

well, I didnt word the resolution - go ask your beloved UN why it was deliberately worded "lands" and not "the lands".

"Why should the Arab world come into it at all? The only way this nugget of information could have any relevance is if you believe that international law is subjective, which it manifestly isn't"

Sorry I dont understand what youre trying to say here. Again, my point is a general one, that most people will be swayed by arguments such as "look, even Israelis are attacking Israel..." when this is clearly an example of using Israel's freedom of speech as a weapon with which to hit her. Your very first comment testifies to this.

"No, I'm not denying that at all. I'm saying that if you are going to start blaming the EU for palestinian terorrism then it's not going to work."

how is that relevant to what I was saying? - why cant you admit that Arafat is a disaster for his own people.

"And Sharon's been indicted by his own government for war crimes and found indirectly responsioble and censured."

The point is that the Israelis change their leadership every so often. As I said before, as long as Arafat and his gang are allowed to remain, the peaceful element within Palestinian society will never be in the ascendent. you say that Israel is responsible for not allowing the PA to meet and govern. What Im saying is that Arafat is with the terrorists all the way, he has never demonstrated his will to lay down arms. Everyone knows that the Al Aqsa Martyrs brigade is an offshoot from Fatah, even the BBC have that on their website, for all their anti Israel reporting. The facts remain that the majority of Israelis are in favour of a Palestinian state, so how come Sharon has a huge majority? - because the people can see that as long as Arafat is in power, by default there wont be a Palestinian state, and what Israel needs is security, and Sharon is the only man to deliver it.

121. Jesus   
Feb 27 2003 23:44
 

greetings to you all. I thought i would test the heavenly swearing filter you moterfukers.....s**t

122. amram   
Feb 28 2003 00:32
 

From Their Own Mouth!

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle? against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism."

PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein,

123. Seb   
Feb 28 2003 10:23
 

Amram:

"While I for example do reject your hypocritical neo-colonialist pompous European definiton of International law"

Right, so you claim you acting out of a moral objective base. The Terrorists believe that it is a moral duty to blow up those that support the occupation of their land.

You may as well hit your head repeatedly against the wall. Funny you should call me a colonialist when it's Israel thats setting up colonies on the west bank. Your argument might hold some shred of consistancy were it not for the Settlment programme, as the Settlment programme has nothing to do with eliminating terrorist threats and everything to do with appropriating land.

"This Europe of yours that is whiter than white that can preach to Israel is it not the same Europe that murdered 6 million of my brothers?"

1. I'm not German.

2. Very few Europeans who were alive and supported the Holocaust are alive.

Besides which, if we go off biblical record, the Jews were busy commiting genocides when the Saxons were still in the stone age.

If the best you can come up with is "We are beyond criticism" then that is, frankly, pathetic.

"Is not the Europe that continues to appease these despotic Arab regimes. That sells chemical weapons to Saddam, that arms Libya and Saudia- who are they to preach to us?"

And didn't Israel sell nuclear technology to South Africa, and advanced missile technology to China?

"Is it not Britain who abrogated her duty under the mandate to make all of "palestine" ie including Jordan a Jewish homeland?"

The Balfour Decleration does not pledge a Jewish state. A Jewish homeland and a Jewish state are too distinct things.

"Is it not Britain who closed the door to Jewish (but not Arab)immigration to the land of Israel to the people of Israel in the white paper of 1939 and thus effectively sent thousands of Jews to their deathes in the gas chambers?"

Like anyone knew about the Gas Chambers in 1939. They hadn't been built yet.

"Is it not Britain who first used Human shields in Jenin in 1927? Is it not the Britain where, after a couple of British soldiers wre kidnapped in Sierra Leone(what the hell were they doing in someone else's land again?)"

They were part of a contingent of troops requested by a democratic government that was being overrun by a group of canabalistic, despotic murderers supported by Charles Taylor of neighbouring Liberia to destabalise Sierra Leone to allow Liberia to benefit from the Diamond trade.

"You love to compare Israel to Ulster well here's a NEWSFLAH 1-there still is no peace in Ulster today"

Less peace than the middle east? Please...

"2 the Irish have not commited a tenth of the crimes against Britain- you know like using ambulances to ferry suicide bombers,like massacreing olympic athletes, like mowing down 17 schoolkids (look up maalot), like lynching to death two young men and phoning their wives on their mobiles while they are being murdered and then showing your red stained hands to the mob while dragging their corpses through the town square,or purposely shooting a 10 month old baby (shalhevet pass) in the head. If they had Ulster would be an ashtray today- look at what GB did to Dresden!"

On the other hand Britain hasn't committed a tenth of the crimes on Ireland in the whole history of the Troubles that Israel has committed against the Palestinians. Britain gave Ireland a vote on independence, Britain has a standing recognition of the right to self determination for Northern Ireland, Britain hasn't responded to terrorism with a policy of extrajudicial assassinations, it hasn't driven tanks, demolished houses, re-occupied northern Ireland, shelled the capital of the Republic of Ireland indescriminantly. It hasn't robbed Irelands mineral wealth, taken controll of vital water supplies, imposed curfews and roadblocks over the entire territory, blocked access to hospitals. It hasn't had a policy of firing live rounds into crowds (even the Bloody Sunday shootings were targeted at specific people, and even that has resulted in the longest running inquiry). It hasn't imposed colective punishment, it hasn't suspended Northern Irish civil liberties, it grants the right of Northern Irish citizens to vote in national elections.

If Britain followed the kinds of policy that Israel follows, then Ireland would be far worse than it is now. If you give power of veto on peace to those with no interest in peace at all, then the community will rally round the terrorists because they have no other hope for peace than to win the conflict.

Israel's government won't even make a binding commitment to an eventual Palestinian state, even without a timetable.

"The Arabs have perpetuated the misey of both peoples."

The Arabs. Great, like the Europeans, one single people. Rights are held by individuals, so an individual, indeed the majority, of Palestinians should not be collectively punished any more than I should punish you if an Israeli or a Jew were to commit a crime against me.

"we are allowed to defend ourselves and if one innocent Arab or two gets caught in the crossfire I won't loose any sleep as I know that thousands of innocent Israeilis have been

killed."

I think that effectively sums it up. Was it Lenin, that famous democrat, that said "To make an omlett, one must break eggs."

So tell me, if you are so convinced you have a moral duty to kill one, or two innocent lives to save a thousand Israelis (Rather than the 3:1 / 2:1 ratio the other way that is, in fact, reality), you must have some sort of idea how to end this conflict? Genocide perhaps?

"There never has been a state called "Palestine", there is no such people as "Palestinians" and there is no difference between Jordan and Palestine"

Well, that may be your oppinion, but the West Bank was recognised as being under occupation from transjordan. And if Transjodan doesn't exist, then neither does Israel (at least as a geopolitical entity) because mandated Palestine was split into Israel, Transjordan and a proposed Palestinian state that was immidiately annexed by Transjordan and recognised as occupied by the Israeli Government.

"1.The settleents were all built after the land was liberated in a war of arab agresion in 1967."

So? That doesn't alter the fact that to repopulate a land is ethnic cleansing.

"2. The Geneva convention forbids the targetted attacks of civillians ie suicide bombings, the use of ambulances to ferry comabatants- the kidnapping of soldiers and civillians without acces to the red cross - all off these the Arabs are guilty of."

A state can commit war crimes, terrorists can arguably commit war crimes. An entire people can not. I should watch that line of argument, because it's precisely this line of argument that anti-semites use to attack all Jews.

"Why the hell should Israel obey such a convention- it does anyway- when the Arabs ceratinly don't?"

For the same reason you obey the law of the country, despite the fact that there are murders every day.

"3. They are not settlers- they are civillians living within the land of Israel."

No they arn't.

"The land was government land previously occupied by the Jordanian government which became Israeli government land after Jordan lost a war they staretd against Israel."

Israel is a member of the UN, as such it signed up to a charter that forbids the aquisition of land by war.

"No Arab towns were razed, not a single arab village was uprooted,"

This is not true. Israel simply refused to acknowledge that land was ever occupied. This has been documented by the Red Cross (obviously an evil branch of hamas)

124. Sebq   
Feb 28 2003 10:53
 

EP:

"I think you'll find it was the Palestinian gunmen using their own people as human shields."

No, it's documented, and the IDF explained it's procedure was to ask civilians (at gunpoint) to open doors because they would be less likely to be shot.

"And believe me, if Israel wanted to, it could get rid of all the terrorists quite easily from the air."

Not without heavy bombers, and Israel hasn't got them.

"Here you also tacitly acknowledge that Israel is targetting terrorists, rather than indescriminately killing everyone it sees."

I never sugested Israel kills everyone it sees, however, when you fire live rounds into a crowd, you are killing indescriminantly.

"That is why there is no moral equivalence between what Israel is doing and what Hamas are doing."

Once again, the law is objective, not relative. You do not need to have moral equivalence between Hamas and the Israeli governments policy for them both to be wrong.

"do you not think that if Israel was routinely spraying bullets into crowds of people there would be more than 1500 dead in 2 years?"

No. You don't need to be using an UZI to fire into a crowd.

"(minus the 100 or so suicide bombings - oh I forgot, Israel is responsible for those deaths too)."

That figure doesn't include the suicide bombers.

"I went to an Arabic society talk recently where it was alleged that Israel practises ethnic cleansing"

The settlement policy does indeed count as ethnic cleansing under the Geneva Protocols, but given that ethnic cleansing and genocide tend to be confused, and when the term is used with think of what happened in Bosnia, it's best not to invoke this.

"and then another speaker went on about how difficult it was to leave the West Bank! - make youre mind up people!"

Have you ever heard about the right to freedom of movement? Are you sugesting that you should be restricted to either staying in one place or being forcibly ejected? I sugest you go live in somewhere like North Korea a bit until you appreciate some of the rights we take for granted.

"well, I didnt word the resolution - go ask your beloved UN why it was deliberately worded "lands" and not "the lands"."

Because the American envoy to the UN threatened to veto unless the wording was changed from "the lands" to "lands", it was the last ammendment made to the resolution. This highlights the flaws in having veto power in the UNSC.

In any case, the UN already forbids the aquisition of land by war. Israel is oblidged to negotiate, but Israel won't even undertake to commit to an eventual state, only talks on the possibility of an eventual state. Tell me, what is the possible justification of that other than a desire to retain lands?

In any case, your argument was about the right to self defence (and how if that requires the occupation of a people, self defence comes first). Tell me, was it right when Stalin did it?

"Sorry I dont understand what youre trying to say here."

Israel isn't commiting crimes against Joran, it's commiting crimes against everyone who lives in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as individuals. You can not justify this by talking about what the Arab world says, does, did, anymore than it would be right to attack any individual Israeli for Israels governments policy.

"how is that relevant to what I was saying?"

Because you started complaining about the EU funding terrorism, when there is absolutely no evidence that it has, when Israel had a hand in setting up the mechanisms for transfering funds (i.e. any potential loop hole that allows for funds being transfered was orrigionaly approoved by Israel anyway).

"why cant you admit that Arafat is a disaster for his own people."

Oh, I admit that he is a disaster. When did I sugest otherwise?

"The point is that the Israelis change their leadership every so often."

In this case, to a man totaly unable to bring peace, to a man discredited by his own government for being involved in a war crime, to a man who has in the past repeatedly stated he is against the very idea of a Palestinian state.

"As I said before, as long as Arafat and his gang are allowed to remain, the peaceful element within Palestinian society will never be in the ascendent."

As long as Israel demands that there be no crimes committed in the name of Palestine by anyone (i.e. treats Palestinians as one, uniform, united faction), then it doesn't matter who the leader is. Arafat is held responsible for Hamas, which is in open rebelion against Arafat and which rejects the responsibility of the PA, and Israel has effectively destroyed the PA's ability to take on Hamas. So what does it matter who runs the Palestinian Authority when the people that have power to veto peace are the ones with every interest in maintaining war and no desire for peace? So, if you are a Palestinian, and you just want independence and peace, do you sit on your hands and wait for hell to freeze over, or are you going to be convinced the only way the conflict will end (especialy when Israel won't give a binding commitment to the idea of a Palestinian state) is if you win it?

"you say that Israel is responsible for not allowing the PA to meet and govern."

It is.

"he has never demonstrated his will to lay down arms."

Excuse me, at one point he managed to persuade Hamas and Islamic Jihad to engage in a cease fire. For one week, there was no major incident. And then Isarel shot up one of Hamas's leaders with a Helicopter gunship and broke the cease fire. Without a commitment to some form of Palestinian state, the only word for laying down arms is "unconditional surrende".

"Everyone knows that the Al Aqsa Martyrs brigade is an offshoot from Fatah, even the BBC have that on their website, for all their anti Israel reporting."

Yes, it's an offshoot from Fatah, largely run by those that want to replace Arafat and stop talking. If Arafats a disaster, these people are a catastrophe.

"The facts remain that the majority of Israelis are in favour of a Palestinian state, so how come Sharon has a huge majority? - because the people can see that as long as Arafat is in power, by default there wont be a Palestinian state, and what Israel needs is security, and Sharon is the only man to deliver it."

And has he? It's now wose than under Barak, and Barak was forced into a take-it-or-leave-it strategy that didin't actually offer a viable state because the Israeli public wouldn't stand for ongoing negotiation.

125. Sunil   
Feb 28 2003 15:25
 

Seb:

A ceasefire is intended to be a lasting one. I see no reason why Hamas had to break off its ceasefire if its intentions were genuine in the interests of peace simply because Israel took the opportunity to rid the planet of a most odious terrorist leader.

Israel has clamped down on the PA because it has repeatedly failed to try and seriously rein in Palestinian terrorist leaders. It isn't like they haven't had the opportunity to have done so or to have actively sought the help of and co-operated with Israeli defence forces in doing so. Blaming it on a lack of trust is not a good enough excuse. The point is not so much that the PA has failed but that it has never appeared to have had the will to actually have done so.

You know you are dealing with the lowest of the low in terrorism when even the bestial LTTE expresses utter contempt for the Palestinian terrorists saying "we do not go for kids in Pizza Hut".

When you consider how narrow Israel is geographically and realise how vulnerable it is to attack from the West Bank, say from hand-held rocket launchers or in terms of attacks on water supplies and so on, it is completely unrealistic to expect Israel to irresponsibly unilaterally release its stranglehold on the region without firm guarantees of security. Now that is something Israel has never enjoyed in the entire history of its existence.

126. amram   
Feb 28 2003 16:14
 

Amram:

"Right, so you claim you acting out of a moral objective base. The Terrorists believe that it is a moral duty to blow up those that support the occupation of their land."

Wrong. It is not moral to PURPOSEFULLY target civillians. It is not "their" land - it belongs to the people of Israel. If the Arabs ever want peace they will have to realise that the Israeli people will not evacuate Jerusalem- the Jewish capital for 3000 years and a city that has ABSOLUTELY NO religious significance to Islam save for the presence of a mosque- but then London has a mosque and has a lot of Arabs living here - so should we grant them a ministate in london. Israel will not relinquish the cradle of Jewish civilisation namely Hebron - the city of the Patriarchs and the second holiest city to Jews- you know like Mecca and Medina are to muslims-except no "infidel" is even allowed in those 2 places!

Hebron for example had a continous Jewish presence for 3000 years up to 1929 when the Arabs massacred 65 Jews and so the remaining Jews fled to Jerusalem. Hebron was later occupied by the Jordanians between 48 and 67 and then liberated by Israel after the Arba initiated a war in 1967. Thus it was under Arab rule for 19 years and has been under Jesih rule for 36. If we are not allowed to claim Hebron because Jews were ethnically cleansed there in 1929 then why should the Arabs claimn it because they oocupied it in1948? where back in history do you go? If jews who have been living in Judea and Samria for two or three generations are settlers then why aren't the arabs who have, mostly, been living there for a hundred years only settlers? Indeed most of the Arabs came as a result of the Zionist revival of the land. You should know that Arafat their murdersome leader was actually born in Egypt!

"Israel thats setting up colonies on the west bank. "

No it is your skewed Europen view on what is happening. Because your people had a colonialist past you assume what Israel is doing is the same-it's not! The Jews are free to live where they like in their own land- and as said before no Arabs (despite their constant agression) have been displaced.

"the Settlment programme has nothing to do with eliminating terrorist threats and everything to do with appropriating land."

No. The land belongs to Israel it doesn't need appropriation.

"1. I'm not German.

2. Very few Europeans who were alive and supported the Holocaust are alive."

So what. You are part of the greater european christian civilisation. You are British- and well look at how the British barred milions of Jews entering Israel during the Holocaust. If they didn't know of the gas chambers in 1939 they certainly knew Hitler's intentions- it's pretty clear read Mein kampf (or maybe you already have?) written in 1923! Anyways even if that was the case they certainly knew it by late 1941-early 1942-why didn't let the Jews come then eh? Because they were appeasing the Arabs just as they are today-"look we'll attack Iraq" they say "but if your'e good little Arabs and keep quiet now we'll force Israel to commit suicide by giving you guys half her country afterwards."

"Besides which, if we go off biblical record, the Jews were busy commiting genocides when the Saxons were still in the stone age."

The Jews were a highly literate and developed nation, who developed the principles of Justice and morality while the Europeans were barbarians.

"If the best you can come up with is "We are beyond criticism" then that is, frankly, pathetic."

No but neither are you. It is very easy to talk about the UN's ( abody comprising 56 muslim members of which 22 are Arab staes and which has consistently not barred Israel from joining a grouping and thus the Security Council) ridiculous dictates against Israel, when Britain can just veto anything it doesn't like!

"And didn't Israel sell nuclear technology to South Africa, and advanced missile technology to China?"

So did Britain.

"The Balfour Decleration does not pledge a Jewish state. A Jewish homeland and a Jewish state are too distinct things."

legalistic bulls**t.

"They were part of a contingent of troops requested by a democratic government that was being overrun by a group of canabalistic, despotic murderers supported by Charles Taylor of neighbouring Liberia to destabalise Sierra Leone to allow Liberia to benefit from the Diamond trade."

The IDF is fighting for A democratic governmnet against despotic murderers supported by Assad, Mubarak,Saddam and Khamenei - neighbouring despotic regimes- you hypocritical fool! By the way Israel polishes diamonds best.

"Ulster

Less peace than the middle east? Please..."

I am showing that your analogies are invalid as much as they are twisted. The Irish problem is less severe and yet the British reaction would be much harsher than Israel as seen in Sierra leone- Serbia, Falklands etc. By the Way I am not attacking British conduct in these coflicts rather I am saying that Israel is just as entitled to self defense and her conflicts pose a much much greater existential threat.

"If Britain followed the kinds of policy that Israel follows, then Ireland would be far worse than it is now."

I agree. If Britain had acted in such an ultra humane way the terrorists would be much stronger. The idiotic governments of The left are partially responsible -as they gave Arafat and his henchmen guns and credibilty.

"If you give power of veto on peace to those with no interest in peace at all, then the community will rally round the terrorists because they have no other hope for peace than to win the conflict."

True the only way to end a conflict against Hitler/Arafat like fascists is to to win the War and receive an unconditional surrender. It is not to seek out one terrorist here and there but to declare war on the Nation that is producing them and has declared war on Israel. By the way Israel does have bombers that are capable of reducing Jenin and its murderous inhabitants to smithereens but the Israeli government has so far lacke d the will or clarity of vision to do the right job.

"Israel's government won't even make a binding commitment to an eventual Palestinian state, even without a timetable."

Even if I accepted your misplaced notion that there are "palestinians" separate from the greater Arab nation.Why should Israel commit to anything before a negotiation process has started. Since the Arabs are the agressors they should offer Israel land for peace- Israel should not bribe them by giving away her heartland.

"The Arabs. Great, like the Europeans, one single people. Rights are held by individuals, so an individual, indeed the majority, of Palestinians should not be collectively punished any more than I should punish you if an Israeli or a Jew were to commit a crime against me."

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle? against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism."

PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein

read it again.

"

I think that effectively sums it up. Was it Lenin, that famous democrat, that said "To make an omlett, one must break eggs."

Churchill on the other habnd said that we must fight them on the beaches , on the shores , in every place etc- ie a total war against fascism like that espouses by the Arabs.

So tell me, if you are so convinced you have a moral duty to kill one, or two innocent lives to save a thousand Israelis (Rather than the 3:1 / 2:1 ratio the other way that is, in fact, reality), you must have some sort of idea how to end this conflict?

Yes.one Israel must reoccupy all of Judea Samria and Gaza. Two all terrorist leadership to be tried- and given death pebnalty if found guily.

three- give Arabs the choice-stay here or go to Jordan.four the Arab governmnet will pay in a once off payment for the resettlment of their brethren using 2% of their Annual petrodollars.five the Arab governments will recompense the Israeli people (over 50%) disposessed from their lands.six the Arab governments will recognise Israel as an entity that is permamnet and will realise that any futre attack on her will result in a swift and painful destruction at the hands of the IDF .seven the UN will finally allow Israel onto the Security council and will seek through the US to democratise the backward Arab nations.

"There never has been a state called "Palestine", there is no such people as "Palestinians" and there is no difference between Jordan and Palestine"

Well, that may be your oppinion,"

No it is a fact.

the Israeli Government.

"1.The settleents were all built after the land was liberated in a war of arab agresion in 1967."

"So? That doesn't alter the fact that to repopulate a land is ethnic cleansing."

one. there is no ethnic cleansing. two I was responding to your claim that Israel was the agressor.

"Why the hell should Israel obey such a convention- it does anyway- when the Arabs ceratinly don't?"

For the same reason you obey the law of the country, despite the fact that there are murders every day."

Incorrect convention on engagement in Battle must be followed by both sides or are rendered meaningless.

"3. They are not settlers- they are civillians living within the land of Israel."

No they arn't."

Well history proves you wrong again . Erets Yisrael -or the land of Israel encompasses all of what is Judea and Samria today.

Israel is a member of the UN, as such it signed up to a charter that forbids the aquisition of land by war.

the land was never part of any other country so it wasn't acquired rather it was liberated. At best you could call these parts of Israel "disputed territories"

"No Arab towns were razed, not a single arab village was uprooted,"

This is not true."

Name one arab village uprooted by Israel since 1967?

127. amram   
Feb 28 2003 16:17
 

afterthought.

If Hams actually declares a ceasefire then maybe Israel will respond but your argument that they were going to have one and then Israel upset them agains shows that they never had any true intentions of peace. Besides the period you refer to as one of Relative quiet- ie no suicide attacks did include literally hundreds of infiltraion attempts,drive by shootings amongst other minor offences!

128. tom t   
Feb 28 2003 17:27
 

"No Arab towns were razed, not a single arab village was uprooted,"

This is not true."

Name one arab village uprooted by Israel since 1967?

then you go on to say immediately afterwards:

. Besides the period you refer to as one of Relative quiet- ie no suicide attacks did include literally hundreds of infiltraion attempts...

Well if no villages were uprooted, then surely the land would be palestinian, and therefore attempt to gain entry couldn't be classed as infiltration.

Sort out your arguments, please!

cheers!

129. amram   
Feb 28 2003 17:50
 

tomt

if you had bothered to read what i wrote you would have seen how i refuted the myth of "palestinans" as oppose to Arabs . I thus showed that the land does indeed belong to Israel and therefore can be infiltrated by hostile foreign forces- such as the fedayeen. These forces are infiltrating since they are entering territory that is not theirs with the intention of carrying out terror atrocities. If you

130. amram   
Feb 28 2003 17:53
 

tomt

stop posting anal comments that belie ignorance coupled with arrogance and a slight degree of immaturity.

131. tom t   
Feb 28 2003 18:32
 

Amram

By your logic, if you lived in that part of the world, you must also be arabic then? Is this true? Also, i think that this is the best 'refutation' I have ever seen:

"There never has been a state called "Palestine", there is no such people as "Palestinians" and there is no difference between Jordan and Palestine"

Well, that may be your oppinion,"

No it is a fact.

OK then, I'll just go with your assertion. Talk about arrogance......

132. Seb   
Feb 28 2003 21:32
 

Sunil:

"A ceasefire is intended to be a lasting one. I see no reason why Hamas had to break off its ceasefire if its intentions were genuine in the interests of peace simply because Israel took the opportunity to rid the planet of a most odious terrorist leader."

He was a Hamas leader. The thing about a ceasefire is that you cease firing. Suppose we sent the RUC off after Good Friday to arrest a prominent IRA leader involved more in the political side of things. How long do you think that cease fire would last?

"Israel has clamped down on the PA because it has repeatedly failed to try and seriously rein in Palestinian terrorist leaders."

Hardly helped though, when the PA is in a precarious position, largely because Israel won't make a commitment to a soverieng palestinian state, even with conditions. How on earth are you suposed to turn round and persuade militants to turn into moderates when you can't even hold out the promise of independence?

"It isn't like they haven't had the opportunity to have done so or to have actively sought the help of and co-operated with Israeli defence forces in doing so."

Sunil, they have. Part of the problem is that Israels general response to a terror act is to attack something straight back, and in the early days of the infantadeh it was the infrastructure of the PA.

"Blaming it on a lack of trust is not a good enough excuse."

It's not a good excuse? If it isn't, then what is? Are you sugesting that the obvious strategy for gaining independence from a state that has shown willingness to engage in collective punishment, occupation, which enters into coalition with parties that espouse the idea of a greater Israel, are ideologicaly opposed to a Palestinian state and deny the existance of your race,

is to unilateraly disarm, roll over and play dead, even when said government refuses to even agree to do anything other than hold discussions about the vauge posibility of independence?

"The point is not so much that the PA has failed but that it has never appeared to have had the will to actually have done so."

You still ignore the fact that Israels strongest ever commitment to a Palestinian state has been the promise to talk about it.

"When you consider how narrow Israel is geographically and realise how vulnerable it is to attack from the West Bank,"

Talk to Stalinists, I don't buy this "our security outranks your freedom" argument.

"say from hand-held rocket launchers or in terms of attacks on water supplies"

Interesting how many Israeli settlements conviniently controll almost all of the aquifers in the west bank.

"and so on, it is completely unrealistic to expect Israel to irresponsibly unilaterally release its stranglehold on the region without firm guarantees of security."

It's ridiculous to expect all Palestinians to agree to peace when there is no firm gaurantee of independence.

133. Seb   
Feb 28 2003 22:17
 

amram:

I don't very much care for your morality. I think any morality that alters depending on the race of the people in question is pretty defunct actually. I certainly don't subscribe to it, and I hope many people feel the same way as I do.

I certainly don't believe in ancient, discontinuous historical precedent as a good reason to draw up territorial boundaries.

Cerainly, while there was a continuous Jewish presence in Hebron until the 20th century, it was no majority, so I think we can throw your own rhetoric back at you regarding London.

"The Jews are free to live where they like in their own land- and as said before no Arabs (despite their constant agression) have been displaced."

The point about colonialism is that the colonial power decides the land belongs to them.

"The land belongs to Israel it doesn't need appropriation."

1. Israel when it came into existance did not extend into these territories, nor did it claim rights to these territories.

2. Israel is a member of the UN, thus it signed up to a declaration agreeing that the aquisition of land by warfare is not permitable.

3. Israels government, after the '67 war actually earmarked that land for a Palestinian state, subject to peace deals with neighbouring arab states.

The West Bank is not Israels.

"So what. You are part of the greater european christian civilisation."

Really. What an astoundingly arrogant and, frankly, racist sugestion.

"You are British- and well look at how the British barred milions of Jews entering Israel during the Holocaust."

Well, by your own arguments the land belonged to us (we won it in a war), so surely, just as Israel feels entirely justified in refusing the right of return to Palestinians that lived in that land (also for a long, continuous period), I fail to see why you are complaining. Unless of couse, you are willing to accept that your argument are ludicrously ethno-centric.

"The Jews were a highly literate and developed nation,"

Indeed, The NAZI's had one of the highest literary rates and were arguably more technicaly profficient than the UK. Didn't stop them planning industrial slaughter. The same records that "proove" Jews have a right to Israel also quite clearly record several genocides and a couple of cases of ethnic cleansing. On top of that it makes pretty similar claims to being a master race that one might find in... oh.. Mein Kampf. Best not to look for present day political legitimacy in a bronze age text.

"So did Britain."

And indeed, so did America.

I'm not the one relying on these gross stupidities to provide some sort of vauge notion of support for my argument.

"legalistic bulls**t."

Not at all. Ben Gurion set up a government which, at best, tolerated the presence of, but did not include any Arabs. In other words, he set up a Jewish state. Balfour's declaration did not encompass this, only the right for Jews to emmigrate to Palestine and be granted full civil rights.

"The IDF is fighting for A democratic governmnet"

It's not. It's sitting on top of land that is, depsite your assertions, not recognised as being part of Israel, on the bequest of a government that has no mandate from those people. It isn't even respecting the obligations of an occupying power. If it's really Israeli land, as you claim, then Israel is an Apartheid state.

"The Irish problem is less severe"

Because Britain has consistently followed a policy of de-escalation. When the current Infantadeh started, suicide bombings didn't being immidiately. First their were riots, to which the IDF responded with .22 snipers picking out "trouble makers" and helicopter gunship assassinations at the assumed political leaders of the targets. Then mortaring, drive by shootings and sniping started, and Israel started to respond with missile attacks on prisons, and since then it's got progresively worse. Now, perhaps you remember that the IRA shot several members of the British government, tried to blow up the cabinet, mortared downing street, and then you have omagh. Not once, not ONCE has the UK responded with the kind of assassination policies that Israel has, not once has it resported to tit-for-tat reprisals. If, in the 70's, the UK had decided to respond to bloody friday by demolishing houses, and collective punsihment, then Ireland would be every bit as bad as the situation Israel finds itself in now.

"and yet the British reaction would be much harsher than Israel as seen in Sierra leone"

No civlians were killed in Sierra Leone, no land was taken.

"Falklands etc."

Again, no civlians were killed or land taken. Serbia did result in civilian deaths, blame Clintons refusal to threaten land invasion.

"Churchill on the other habnd said that we must fight them on the beaches , on the shores , in every place etc- ie a total war against fascism like that espouses by the Arabs"

He also said:

"jaw jaw is better than war war"

and supported the use of gas bombs on civilians in order to keep Iraq under controll of the empire.

"If Hams actually declares a ceasefire then maybe Israel will respond but your argument that they were going to have one and then Israel upset them agains"

No, learn to read. They DID have one. They declared a cease fire, and for a week there was no terrorist action linked to hamas, islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa et al. Then an Israeli helicopter shot up a car carrying a hamas leader.

So who had no intention of ceasing fire?

Do you seriously think that every single event in the low intensity war is being planned by a central committee? There are going to be shootings (as there still are in Ireland) for a long period. To expect a cease fire to result in an immidiate cease of hostilities is absurd. Shall we count the odd crime Settlers commit against their neighbours to be actions for which Sharon is liable?

"True the only way to end a conflict against Hitler/Arafat like fascists is to to win the War and receive an unconditional surrender."

Oh please!

"It is not to seek out one terrorist here and there but to declare war on the Nation that is producing them and has declared war on Israel. By the way Israel does have bombers that are capable of reducing Jenin and its murderous inhabitants to smithereens but the Israeli government has so far lacke d the will or clarity of vision to do the right job."

I think I'm waisting my time. Why don't you get back to playing Command and Conquer eh?

134. EP   
Mar 01 2003 21:16
 

Seb:

"Not without heavy bombers, and Israel hasn't got them"

how do you know what is in Israel's a**enal. And if Israel was using human shields, how come they lost 23 soldiers in a booby trapped house? Rather the evidence is that the Palestinians have been using human shields, with gunmen frocing their way into civilian buildings to fire on Gilo, firing from rioting crowds, and hiding among a civilian population.

"Have you ever heard about the right to freedom of movement? Are you sugesting that you should be restricted to either staying in one place or being forcibly ejected?"

No, I was simply pointing out that there are many who are so blinded by their hatred of Israel, they can't get the indictments out fast enough, even when they are contradictory. If Israel wants the Arabs to leave why is it so difficult to leave the territories? Ergo Israel wants them to stay. Israel does not engage in ethnic cleansing, as witnessed by the million or so Arabs who live within the '67 borders - many of whom live very well.

"I sugest you go live in somewhere like North Korea a bit until you appreciate some of the rights we take for granted."

Dont patronise me.

"This highlights the flaws in having veto power in the UNSC."

And I suppose having despotic countries like Syria and China on the SC is not a flaw. What right do those countries, who dont represent their people, have to decide International law that threatens Israel, a thoroughly democratic country? As Malcolm Rifkind (by no means a friend of Israel) said, International law is in no way comparable to the law of an individual country, because the whole thing is based on politics. Is it any wonder that there are so many edicts against Israel when there are numerous (virulently anti Semitic) countries at the UN?

" but Israel won't even undertake to commit to an eventual state, only talks on the possibility of an eventual state."

Why should Israel commit to a state if it will be used as a bridgehead for war? Israel has demonstrated its willingness to swap land for peace, if (as you claim) Israel has territorial ambitions in the region, why did she relinquish the Sinai? and why did she just withdraw from Lebanon (where, even now rockets are constantly being launched into northern Israel).

Israel definitely does not have territorial ambitions, but has every right to defend itself and demand borders that are defensible.

"In any case, your argument was about the right to self defence (and how if that requires the occupation of a people, self defence comes first). Tell me, was it right when Stalin did it?"

No, it wasnt right, but then Russia is slightly bigger than 9 miles at its narrowest point. After numerous threats to her existence what exactly should Israel have done? Lets say Israel would have relinquished the lands after '67, do you really think she would have survived the '73 war? In fact the '73 war was the one that Israel came closest to losing.

"You can not justify this by talking about what the Arab world says, does, did, anymore than it would be right to attack any individual Israeli for Israels governments policy.

"

the Palestinians are part of the Arab world tho, in which there is no toleration of freedom of speech. Again (for the third time) the point I was making was that it is not right to use Israel's freedom of speech as a weapon against her, as is frequently the case.

"you started complaining about the EU funding terrorism, when there is absolutely no evidence that it has"

well why have more than a quarter of MEP's asked for an investigation into it then? I wasnt suggesting there is a deliberate policy on behalf of the UN to fund terrorism (as Oxfam did), but there is evidence that it is being used for those purposes, Israel has found numerous documents proving it.

"In this case, to a man totaly unable to bring peace"

oh I see, it was Barak's fault that camp David fell through. hmm. Its interesting to note that the parties to the left of Labour admit they would like to see Israel dissolved in favour of a one state solution. Frankly if I were Israeli id find it insulting that you suggest its morally right that I vote for my own destruction. Indeed, even Peres in his book "the new middle east" suggests this is the way he would like things to be.

"As long as Israel demands that there be no crimes committed in the name of Palestine by anyone (i.e. treats Palestinians as one, uniform, united faction), then it doesn't matter who the leader is."

Yes it does. Israel will negotiate with those who are not compromised by terror. In fact Israel did negotiate with Arafat, which turned out to be a huge mistake.

"Excuse me, at one point he managed to persuade Hamas and Islamic Jihad to engage in a cease fire. For one week, there was no major incident"

What does it mean for an organisation who have written into the constitution to demolish Israel through armed struggle to claim ceasefire? nothing. Besides, the attacks didnt stop, if there were no major incidents it was because Israel managed to stop them.

"And has he? It's now wose than under Barak"

thats a bit like saying Gordon Brown is a good chancellor because he hasnt messed up the healthy economy he inherited. Its documented that the Intifada was planned months before Sharon came to power. Surely even you recognise that the rate of suicide bombings have come down dramatically in the past few months, which is directly related to the blockades and operations in the west bank and Gaza.

135. amram   
Mar 02 2003 01:22
 

Seb:

"I don't very much care for your morality. I think any morality that alters depending on the race of the people in question is pretty defunct actually. I certainly don't subscribe to it, and I hope many people feel the same way as I do."

It is you who are morlly deficient for you believe that the Jewish people are not entitled to the basic right of self defense and security within their homeland. It is you who says that Israel must be judged on different standards to her neighbours. Why is it that you do not see fit to even give one sentence of your tedious replies to condemning Islamo-fascism as practised by Arafat Saddam,Assad etc ?

"I certainly don't believe in ancient, discontinuous historical precedent as a good reason to draw up territorial boundaries."

Boundaries are indeed drawn up om the basis of historical and cultural lines you fool!

"Cerainly, while there was a continuous Jewish presence in Hebron until the 20th century, it was no majority, so I think we can throw your own rhetoric back at you regarding London."

There is an Arab majority in Edgware Rd so why cant they set up an independent state there? There is a muslim majority in Bradford- can they have a state there too???

"The point about colonialism is that the colonial power decides the land belongs to them."

No, history international law, justice say the land belongs to Israel.

"1. Israel when it came into existance did not extend into these territories, nor did it claim rights to these territories."

Not true, for example Israel always claimed both East and west Jerusalem- which have had a Jewish majority- save for 19 years of Arab occupation, since 1880.Hebron was always claimed by Jerusalem. Indeed even parts of the Gaza region were claimed by Israel in 1948 including Kfar Darom which was built before Israel was made independent!

"2. Israel is a member of the UN, thus it signed up to a declaration agreeing that the aquisition of land by warfare is not permitable."

Sadly, the PLO has had a delelgation at the UN for nearly 30 years. The Arabs have 22 other members. Why do they not abide by the UN's declarations?? Because they are evil fascist regimes who have the ability to produce destruction -no more.

"3. Israels government, after the '67 war actually earmarked that land for a Palestinian state, subject to peace deals with neighbouring arab states."

well let's throw your argument back at you sebby. If Israel had a poor government-it doesn't mean that the people of Israel were to be blamed for their leaders folly. The people of Israel -never gave up on their heartlands and certainly not on their eternal capital.

"The West Bank is not Israels."

Even your terminology is suspect. The term West bank was invented in 1948 by the Jordanians to say- here is the part of land we have (illegally) occupied west of the river. It was therefore given that name because nobody then doubted that Jordan was Palestine -in fact 80% of it. Indeed they changed their name from Transjordan to Jordan as they were no longer the bit of Erets Yisrael (palestine) acroos "trans" the river. You previously argued that the West Bank was not Jordan's but if that is the case-which it is indeed- then Israel is not occupying it- as there was no other sovereign power there previously.

"Really. What an astoundingly arrogant and, frankly, racist sugestion."

You are the racist. You assume that I am Jewish from my name but I am not allowed to assume that you are a bloody european from yours? I use bloody in both senses. Perhaps you take offence for you feel that there is indeed a mark of shame of the past (and i would say current) treatment of the people of Israel by the europeans?

"Well, by your own arguments the land belonged to us (we won it in a war), so surely, just as Israel feels entirely justified in refusing the right of return to Palestinians that lived in that land (also for a long, continuous period), I fail to see why you are complaining. Unless of couse, you are willing to accept that your argument are ludicrously ethno-centric."

No, Britain illegally occupied the land of Israel. Indeed many Jewish soldiers-led by Jabotinsky himself -from Israel fought with the British in WW1 and helped them take Israel back from the turks. The British then promised the Jews to leave and allow a Jewish "homeland" to be made. They made this promise during the war when they neede Jewish support-especially in America- and then completely broke their promise afterwards.You are the ethno centric one who always compares Israel to the Irish question etc.

"The Jews were a highly literate and developed nation,"

"Indeed, The NAZI's had one of the highest literary rates and were arguably more technicaly profficient than the UK. Didn't stop them planning industrial slaughter. The same records that "proove" Jews have a right to Israel also quite clearly record several genocides and a couple of cases of ethnic cleansing. On top of that it makes pretty similar claims to being a master race that one might find in... oh.. Mein Kampf. Best not to look for present day political legitimacy in a bronze age text."

funny how you chose NOT to quote my next sentence which said that the Jews established the principles of Justice and morality while the Saxons were mere cave dwellers eh? The nazis, had much more in common with their ancestors from saxony ...

"And indeed, so did America.

I'm not the one relying on these gross stupidities to provide some sort of vauge notion of support for my argument."

you are using them as a stick to bash israel with.Again it's alright for you but not for the Jews?

"Not at all. Ben Gurion set up a government which, at best, tolerated the presence of, but did not include any Arabs. In other words, he set up a Jewish state. Balfour's declaration did not encompass this, only the right for Jews to emmigrate to Palestine and be granted full civil rights."

He gave Arabs the vote and all equal rights. If he had given them the boot though Israel's problems would have been less today. Of course people like you would still attack Israel but at least Israel would have acted in her survival intersts rather than acted in a "democratic" way that got her no credit from the likes of you.

"It's not. It's sitting on top of land that is, depsite your assertions, not recognised as being part of Israel, on the bequest of a government that has no mandate from those people. It isn't even respecting the obligations of an occupying power. If it's really Israeli land, as you claim, then Israel is an Apartheid state."

Maybe. but so is saudia,egypt,syria iraq,iran, etc. Perhaps if you really cared about the Arabs ou would realist that only transfer will lead to peace.

"The Irish problem is less severe"

Because Britain has consistently followed a policy of de-escalation. When the current Infantadeh started, suicide bombings didn't being immidiately. First their were riots, to which the IDF responded with .22 snipers picking out "trouble makers" and helicopter gunship assassinations at the assumed political leaders of the targets. Then mortaring, drive by shootings and sniping started, and Israel started to respond with missile attacks on prisons, and since then it's got progresively worse. Now, perhaps you remember that the IRA shot several members of the British government, tried to blow up the cabinet, mortared downing street, and then you have omagh. Not once, not ONCE has the UK responded with the kind of assassination policies that Israel has, not once has it resported to tit-for-tat reprisals. If, in the 70's, the UK had decided to respond to bloody friday by demolishing houses, and collective punsihment, then Ireland would be every bit as bad as the situation Israel finds itself in now."

actually Mrs. Thatcher sent in the SAS to assasinate members of the IRA. The reason Ulster's problems are less severe is because the Irish teroorist don't have the support of 22 oil rich states and because their idealogy is not as bloodthirsy and destructive as radical Islamism is.

"No civlians were killed in Sierra Leone, no land was taken."

you will find that there were nearly 40 killed were they all terrorists? What about the people of kandahar were they all terorists. Come on in war enemy civilians die. If some Arabs die it is not Israel's fault rather it is the fault of their leaders who purposefully use their civillians as human shields to illict intrnational support. oh yeah no land was taken in serbia you say eh? well I think you'll find that Kosovo- an integral part of historic Serbia is still ocuupied by Nato troops.

"No, learn to read. They DID have one. They declared a cease fire, and for a week there was no terrorist action linked to hamas, islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa et al."

simply not true- there has not been a single day of quiet since october 2000. They simply did not send any homicide bombers but drive by shootings did continue. FYI they never actually declared a ceasefire and so Israel was well within her rights to kill the mass murderor Shehada.Besides even if Hams were to declare a ceasefire this doesn't mean that terrorist like shehada with hundreds of crimes on his hand will go unpunished. He and others like him will have to learn that Jewish blood is not cheap . As a terrorist organisation- they are simply by international law an extension of an organised crime squad and as such do not have to be treated as an army- indeed they do not follow the rules of war eg, use of ambulances to ferry terroists,targetted attacks on civillians etc, and so cannot enjoy the priviledges afforded by such conventios. A ceasefire with the Nazis did not do and indeed that is why Rudolph Hess spent his last40 years in an English prison. With such Nazis as Hamas/PA/PLO etc the only acceptable solution is a complete and utter surrender.

"Then an Israeli helicopter shot up a car carrying a hamas leader."

pity Israel didn't send the heavy bombers in like in Kandahar and klilled Shehada and taught future bombers a lesson too?

"Do you seriously think that every single event in the low intensity war is being planned by a central committee? "

Yes. Arafat even has a special accounting service to pay off each and every terroist thug .This was well documented when the moccata was raided by the IDF.

"There are going to be shootings (as there still are in Ireland) for a long period. To expect a cease fire to result in an immidiate cease of hostilities is absurd."

OK, until they stop shooting than Israel will continue to defend erself as neccessary-period.

"Shall we count the odd crime Settlers commit against their neighbours to be actions for which Sharon is liable?"

A. I assume you mean the Arabs as they are the only setlers.

B. If you mean the Israelis who live in Judea and Samria- well they haven't commited any crimes.

"True the only way to end a conflict against Hitler/Arafat like fascists is to to win the War and receive an unconditional surrender."

Oh please!

"It is not to seek out one terrorist here and there but to declare war on the Nation that is producing them and has declared war on Israel. By the way Israel does have bombers that are capable of reducing Jenin and its murderous inhabitants to smithereens but the Israeli government has so far lacke d the will or clarity of vision to do the right job."

I think I'm waisting my time. Why don't you get back to playing Command and Conquer eh?

136. amram   
Mar 02 2003 01:24
 

why don't you read a book or two about the history of the middle east rather than repeating the Socialist worker's prpaganda line?

137. dog town   
Mar 02 2003 02:28
 

interesting. Seb, would you agree that all the Germans kicked out of surrounding countries have a right of return? - what about the millions who went either way during the partition of India and Pakistan - do they all have a right of return too?

138. John   
Mar 02 2003 13:18
 

"Name one arab village uprooted by Israel since 1967?"

Although the most famous Palestinian village to be destroyed was Dayr Yasin (in 1948), since 1967 the Israeli government has never directly destroyed an entire village (although houses, shops and an entire swathe of arabic areas of Hebron are recent casualties).

However last October the residents of Yanun, near Nablus were forced to leave after a string of attacks by settlers from nearby Itamar, including shooting animals, beating villagers and olive farmers. The final straw came when the electricity generator was set alight and water tanks tipped over, and the villagers finally gave up and left.

This was not a direct action by the government (Yanun was not connected by the government to any attacks), but the kindest interpretation given that to the best of my knowledge no-one from Itamar has even been questioned about the attacks is that the government is turning a blind eye to these attacks.

And of course, given the earlier logic that any violence carried out in the

name of the Palestinians is the responsibility of the entire population and government, applying that argument here as well means that Israel as a whole is responsible for the death of this village. Or does the doctrine of collective responsibility apply only to arabs?

139. Erik   
Mar 02 2003 13:26
 

like Seb I believe un the right of return. My ancestors were kicked out by the saxons and the Normans this will not do. I wish to return. I believe that London is an integral part of Denmark. I want compenstion. I also want India to allow 2o million muslims the right of return too. This is the only way to receive peace. Indeed in kashmir the muslims did think about having a ceasefire for an afternoon too just like Hamas. They then decided against it cos it rained and they felt the y wanted to kill a few hindus- which is all the fault of sharon. everyone knows that Israel also controls India too. Infact the indian settlers are just jews in disguise

140. amram   
Mar 02 2003 13:35
 

john.

So by your own admission no Arab village was uprooted by the Israeli government since 1967.

The Arab governments did of course uproot ancient Jewish communities in Yemen, Egypt,Iraq, Syria, Morocco,Algeria,Tunisia,Lebanon and Libya. The Arab governments destoyed communities that had existed for 2000 years. They expelled nearly i million men womne a nd children .

As to the hamlet of Yanun, what is your source? It is funny how you condemn the Jewish residents of Itamar for "shooting animals" but don't condemn the Arab residnets for their complicity in the murder of tens of Jews in Itamar and the area?

As to Deir Yassin- that was in 1948 and I strongly recommend that you read the facts- try Shmuel katzs Battle ground- available online at www.eretzyisroel.org

which shows that a) no massacre occured

b)the village was a base of attack against Isreal during the war

c) how the Israeli's gave loudpseaker warnings telling the civillians to leave and

d) how the Arabs used the myth of Deir Yassin as part of their propaganda and war of lies against Israel.

141. Seb   
Mar 02 2003 19:17
 

Amram:

Actually, I'm considered to be a bit of a Tory (though last election I decided they were all bloody useless). A socialist worker would hardly support War on Iraq now would he?

All of my arguments are based on independent research.

142. Seb   
Mar 02 2003 19:44
 

dog town:

That's interesting.

One argument is that there have been subsequent agreements that have waived the right of Germans to right of return, but then that can be called into question on the basis that such rights are individual, and can not be sigend away by a government.

Then there is the issue that in a years time, such people have a right of return de-facto (some already have) due to the EU's freedom of movement.

Ultimately though, I think the case that the Poles et al. can use is that the right of return applies to refugees, and I don't think any of the Germans are registered as refugees, or would do so.

If the situation were similar to that of Israel then yes, I think they should.

However it wasn't, the Iron Curtain was the demarcation line, and freedom of movement for East Germans was the least of their worries. Germany was a coherent national entity willing to take the Germans, Jordan, despite some peoples diatribes, is not a Palestinian sate and views Palestinians as different. Whether that has any basis in genetics/race is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is they do.

You have refugee camps full of people that have been displaced (whether right of return extends to their children is more complicated. I'd say right of return extends to dependents unless you want to gaurantee extreeme messinees the world over) who are both uncompensated, have no proper nationality.

That is the argument for a Palestinian state rather than declaring Jordan a Palestinian state (And the PLO already had a go at that, remember, Arafat got booted out)

The laws regaqrding refugees changed after the war, I'm not sure if there was a right of return prior to WWII, if there was then people certainly had the right to move (and ought to have been afforded it)

I doubt many people wanted to take up the right to move from west Germany into the soviet block anyway.

Unlike Israel, the situation is more or less resolved now. Germany was, recently, demanding a revocation of certain laws in Bulgaria (I think it was) that allowed such deportation in the first place.

Meanwhile, for any people still wishing to return, those who want to return will soon be able to.

Erik:

Forgive me, but you never lived in London, and the Geneva protocolls are a thousand or so years too late, and if we are going to backdate, the Danes were invaders anyway and the Celts have the valid claim.

Isn't right of return the basis for Israel (unless you support the UN, in which case right of return as defined in international law is beyond question) in the first place?

And why do you have such a hard time accepting that a ceasefire generally requires both sides to... cease fire?

I'm betting your just amrams alter-ego anyway.

143. Erik   
Mar 02 2003 19:58
 

This is not true i am no alter ego. I think therefore I am. I have lived in london during my ERASMUS year. I enjoyed Rowing in Thames river it is just like our fjords....

ah I remeber the glorious smell of the mech eng building....

I remember linstead hall- you know I live in lindenstadt a town not unlike this linstead of yours. As a poor refugee I still have the keys to my home in "Britain". I want the right of return. I would like my son to be a martyr...

I hate these Anglish settlers. I love Scandinavia. I want Oslo too..

144. dog town   
Mar 02 2003 20:03
 

and what about India and Pakistan?

145. reason?   
Mar 02 2003 20:22
 

Geez lads and lasses, take a break please!

No amount of sniping and bitching and arguing on this message board is going to make a blind bit of difference to World Politics. I think there's always a good reason for having a sensible debate, but it strikes me that some people really don't want to concede that perhaps someone else has got a point that is different from theirs, but is equally valid, or even more valid than their own.

I hate to say this (and will probably be accused of being anti-something or other, but I don't care because I know what I think and no amount of accusation and reproach on Live! is going to make me feel bad or 'teach me the error of my ways'), but it does appear that the person/people who are new to this board and keep posting under multiple aliases in order to give their arguments some semblance of legitimacy are wasting everybody's time. If you have to lie about who you are and you have to try and deceive people about the support your views have, then perhaps you need to rethink what you are saying and the support you claim your views have.

What really pisses me off is that we're going round in circles here. Which is the exact problem with most unsolved conflicts such as Israel/Palestine, Ireland/UK etc. Get some sense of perspective please! Just because politicians are happy to continue bickering amongst themselves, does not mean we should copy them. I would argue we could do a lot better by not copying politicians.

Give up, go away, learn about TOLERANCE...it's the only way we can avoid making a greater mess of the world than it is already in. People have their differences, in opinion and outlook. Just because they don't agree with you, don't condemn them...that's what bullies do.

Grow up!

146. regis   
Mar 02 2003 21:22
 

anyone for a game of "who wants to be a mujahideen?"

147. bycullah   
Mar 02 2003 21:37
 

Eugene V. Rostow, Sterling Professor Emeritus of Law and Public Affairs and a former dean of Yale Law School, has commented on the legality of the "occupation":

"Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of state for political affairs between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until a just and lasting peace in the Middle East is achieved. When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces from the territories" it occupied during the six day war...which included the Sinai desert, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip". (The New Republic, Oct 21 1991)

This resolution is far from one-sided. Those who insist on Israels withdrawal also should make the Arabs make peace. This has not yet been done. The Palestinian National Covenant, drafted by the PLO, affirms that "Armed Struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine" and this is still in effect. This is why they reject any peace moves and incited the current intifada.

Rostow defends the legality of the settlements as well as the Israeli Administration. The first one is from the League of Nations Mandate 1922, article 6:

"The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."

Oh yes, you say, that was terminated in 1947 so it is irrelevant. Right? Wrong! Rostow continues:

"Many believe that the Palestine mandate was terminated in 1947, when the British government resigned as the mandatory power. This is incorrect. A trust never terminates when a trustee dies, resigns, embezzles the trust property, or is dismissed. The authority responsible for the trust appoints a new trustee, or otherwise arranges for the fulfilment of its purpose... In Palestine the British Mandate ceased to be operative as to the territories of Israel and Jordan when those states were created and recognised by the international community. But its rules still apply to the West Bank and the Gaza strip, which have not yet been allocated either to Israel or to Jordan or become an independent state. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank in 1951, but that annexation was never generally recognised, even by the Arab states, and now Jordan has abandoned all its claims to the territory". (New Republic, Apr 23 1990)

As for the Geneva Convention, article 49, Rostow states that:

"Article 49 provides that the occupying power 'shall not deport or transfer part of it's own civilian population into the territory it occupies. But the Jewish settlers in the West Bank are volunteers... Furthermore, the Convention only applies to one signatory carried out on the territory of another". The West Bank is not the territory of a signatory power, but an unallocated part of the British Mandate west of the Jordan river. Even if the convention could be construed to prevent settlements during the period of occupation, however, it could do no more than suspend, not terminate, the rights conferred by the mandate. Those rights can be ended only by the establishment and recognition of a new state or the incorporation of the territories into an old one".

Remember that the Arab states rejected the 1947 partition plan, whereas the Jewish people accepted it. This is what left the "West Bank" unallocated. And why did Israel take control of this? It was a defence against a pan-Arab attempt to destroy the Israeli state.

As for the Palestinians, Efraim Karsh, History professor at University of London, stated clearly:

"As is well known, the implementation of the UNs partition plan was aborted by the effort of the Palestinians and of the surrounding Arab states to destroy the Jewish state at birth. What is less well known is that even if the Jews had lost the war, their territory would not have been handed over to the Palestinians. Rather, it would have been divided among the invading Arab forces, for the simple reason that none of the regions Arab regimes viewed the Palestinians as a distinct nation. As the eminent Arab-American historian Philip Hitti described the common Arab view to an Anglo-American commission of enquiry in 1946, "There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not". (The Review, What Occupation? August 2002)

148. Seb   
Mar 03 2003 10:11
 

bycullah:

Ah, some sensible arguments.

I think however, the arguments are unreasonable.

1. The Palestinians don't get to controll how Syria behaves. Sugesting that Palestinian self determination should be contingent on Syria making peace is about as reasonable as invading Belgium because France declares war.

242 does call for a peace settlement, but Israel has yet to make a firm commitment to an eventual withdrawl, and parties that are totally opposed to any Palestinian state drift in and out of government in coalitions.

Rostow may defend the legitimacy of settlements, but the fact is that the settlements are considered ilegal by almost any other power, are superceded by more fundemental laws than those he sites and in any case, are used to justify the witholding of land.

Citing a league of nations mandate as permission for immigration on the technicality that neither Jodan nor Israel definitively own the West Bank and Gaza is laughable. Incidentaly, doesn't that mean that in the event of a Palestinian state, the Settlements will become Jewish enclaves in a palestinian state rather than carving off said territories into Israel?

149. bycullah   
Mar 03 2003 11:05
 

well, the laws the law...

you cant go on about international law and then claim that its unreasonable.

150. Seb   
Mar 03 2003 13:39
 

I didn't say the law was unreasonable. I said his arguments were unreasonable.

The laws the law, but here you have two conflicting sets of international law: The Pre-WWII LoN framework and the post WWII UN framework, and the additional protocols to the Geneva convention.

Rostows arguments are that the West Bank and Gaza exist in some sort of nebulous hole in time, and remain subject to international law of Post WWI great power politics, and that these outrank the post WWII laws:

I.e. the LoN mandate that requires the encouragement of Jewish settlement, while the Geneva Convention additional protocol forbids it, and the LoN mandate should apply because there is a question over who owns the land, but not the Geneva Convention. On the other hand, the UN has laws regarding land that is in question. These he does not apply. (The obvious solution would be UN Trusteeship leading to a Palestinian state).

However, it's worth noting (and Rostow doesn't) that the LoN mandate for Palestine enshrined the civil rights of Palestinians, and the Settlements on the West Bank are closed to Palestinians, are treated as part of Israel proper.

He also neglects to mention that subsidies were offered to immigrants to Israel, and immigrants encouraged on the basis that they could move into the west bank. Rostows argument that as the population transfer was voluntary it is not illegal under the protocols are not as sound as he makes them, and in any case, they do not add up to an argument for partitioning the West Bank.

Basically, Rostows arguments are a case of special pleading for Israel, using a dubious argument to apply post WWI imperial law over modern international law, and conviniently ignoring the fact that the settlements are actually in breach of the LoN mandate.

151. Sunil   
Mar 03 2003 15:05
 

Seb:

I find it appalling that you think the suggestion that a group of 3 million people should stand up and strive to eliminate the use of terrorism ridiculous. The point is that terrorism has no place in the context of a freedom struggle, full stop. Nobody is suggesting they have to give up their wholly legitimate struggle for self-determination or have to accept Israeli domination forever.

I fail to see why they should need any guarantees of independence to make clear to terrorists that they do not want to follow such means in their struggle! It would in fact be yielding to the blackmail of terrorism on Israel's part were it to actually make such guarantees - and think of the precedent that would set to terrorists and suicide bombers all around the world.

Was it so ridiculous for the Sri Lankan Tamils to have put precisely that kind of pressure (with no guarantees) on the LTTE in a climate defined by almost as much mutual distruct and hatred?

152. Seb   
Mar 03 2003 15:32
 

I don't find the concept ridiculous, I find the idea that this should be a condition for peace ridiculous. I find it abhorent that the individual civil rights of a collection of people should be held hostage on the action of a minority, that, by definition, are better armed than the rest, and, thanks to Israel's decision to eliminate the PA as a viable instiution, there is no way of the Palestininan population at large removing the terrorists.

Put simply, you don't imprison the family of a criminal. You don't hold a society accountable for the action of a minority of terrorists, especialy when you actively remove from that society any tool it might have for policing itself.

"The point is that terrorism has no place in the context of a freedom struggle, full stop."

And the supression of self determination has no place in an anti-terror campaign, which is my point. The reason there is a big block in any peace process in the middle east is that Israel refuses to decouple Palestinian civil rights from terorrism. The reason there is a peace process in Northern Ireland is because civil rights are decoupled and treated as a boradly seperate issue from the random acts of violence inflicted by the IRA, it's splintergroups, or the Unionist Paramilitaries.

We do not hold the Northern Irish population in general reponsible for the security of the united kingdom. Israel, on the other hand, holds the general population of the west bank and Gaza responsible for the security of Israel. Israel isn't prepared to talk about Palestinian statehood unless all terrorists have been neutralised.

"Nobody is suggesting they have to give up their wholly legitimate struggle for self-determination or have to accept Israeli domination forever."

Really? And what does unilateral disarmament with no gaurantee of some form of indpendent state, or even civil rights amount to?

Do you think the American revolutionaries would have downed arms if Britain promissed just to discuss possible semi-autonomy (with no national waters, subject to British Garissoning of the ports and borders), and not even agree to definitely implement them... I don't think so.

Now, what that means in practice is that the PLO is going to have to renounce terrorism. That's going to require trust building measures, and neither side trusts each other. When Hamas and IJ agreed to a ceasefire, Israel decided it was a ruse and used the opertunity to get rid of a key member of Hamas. That points very much to Amrams "total defeatand unconditional surrender" policy, yet the point about an unconditional surrender policy is that there are no conditions, not even of soveriengty. Israel needs to make a clear, unambiguous statement that it will permit a fully indpendent, fully sovereign Palestinian state. Without that minimum, there is no way that those Palestinians that just want freedom will be free to concentrate on the terrorists. After all, the primary concern of Palestinians is always going to be the security of Palestinians first, then the security of Israel. At the moment, Palestine has no security and is occupied.

So definitely, terrorism is disgraceful. However it is just as disgraceful to engage in wholesale repression and collective punishment. Unfortunately, I can't show you picture of a burnt pram, just as I can't point to England when I'm standing in Trafalgar Square.

"It would in fact be yielding to the blackmail of terrorism on Israel's part were it to actually make such guarantees"

Oh please! Israel should not need to be blackmailed into agreeing to acknowledge a peoples freedom, and if it really needs blackmailing to acknowledge that, then roll on the blackmail, preferably a threat of UN sanctions.

"and think of the precedent that would set to terrorists and suicide bombers all around the world."

Think of the reverse precedent: ALl you need to legitamise an occupation and colonisation policy is someone to resist you with force. Milosovec should be let off free, as calling off his campaign of ethnic cleansing would have been to bow down to the blackmail of the KLF, a group that untill 1997 was a registered terrorist organisation in Britain and America which has committed plenty of attrocities on it's own (and would be the stuff of headlines were they not eclipsed by the Serbians crimes)

"Was it so ridiculous for the Sri Lankan Tamils to have put precisely that kind of pressure (with no guarantees) on the LTTE in a climate defined by almost as much mutual distruct and hatred?"

The Sri Lankan Tamils had a political organisation able to do that. As long as Israel treats all Palestinians as one group and punishes the innocent, the majority and moderates for the crimes of the minority terrorists, then there can not be any progress. All Israel achieves is to make a criminal of herself and perpetuate the status quo.

Mar 03 2003 16:59
 

there are no 567 000 000 palestinian refugees. when will israel answer to this? there is plenty of empty space for them in israel and they wouldn'talter its demography

what is this madness.

there can be no peace

there can only be grease

unless we compromise

and realise

that we are all one

like a ton

of bricks

in a mix

with weetabix

now we can see how much space there really is if we just take a break for one second and look for it a little

Mar 03 2003 17:01
 

space really for everyone in the world exists

  • it's notso hard to find if you just look
155. amram   
Mar 03 2003 17:16
 

The Fundamental reason for the conflict in the Middle East is the fact that the Arabs cannot recognise a non arab non muslim hebrew state- no matter how tiny and no matter on what borders- in the sea of Islamic despotism that is the rest of the middle east. The Arab goal has always been, whether in the 5 conventional wars or in the proxy terrorist war to "throw the Jews into the mediterannean sea" as Nasser and then Arafat put it. The Arab regimes see Israel as a convenient scapegoat to throw their backward oprressed peoples as a good way of diverting their attention's from their own ills and repression. Seb's legalistic arguments are based on several misconceptions 1) that the Arabs want a state in the West bank and Gaza alone, 2) that Israel must give them one and 3) that their people are totally innocent when it comes to the actions of their terrorists or military.

The Arabs don't want a state in the west bank and gaza-indeed no greater proof of this is the fact that they rejected 98.5% of it at Camp David, rather they want to destroy ALL of Israel- indeed their newspapers,TV, Radio and schoolbooks don't even show Israel on the map. Arafat publicly stated how he saw Oslo as part of the greater "plan of stages" whereby the Arabs would get as much land by negotiations and then finish Israel off when they were strong enough.

As part of the Arab war the myth of a separate people was created for those Arabs living under Israeli sovereignty. Indeed the PLO was fouunded in 1964 - 3 years before any of these territories were liberated by Israel. The PLO did in fact try and overthrow the Hashemites in Jordan because Jordan is indeed 80% of historic palestine.

The actions of the Arab leadership and the atrocities commmited has received much support from the Arab residents of JSG- (Judea Samaria and Gaza regions) and the indoctrination of hatred that has occured over the past 10 years leads them to be unfit as partners of peace. The Arabs have indeed negated their rights to a state through their actions which have revealed their true colours. Since Israel is fighting for its very survival it will have to make some tough but neccessary decisions. Every country is entitled to self defense- and all the checkpoints etc are just that. Ultimately, since the Arabs have been the Aggressors,if there is going to be a transfer of populations it will not be of the 500,000 Israelis living over the Green Line but a transfer of the nearly 2 million Arabs to their 22 states in whose name they have waged 5 wars against Israel. Indeed such a trnsfer has secured peace before- see Greece and turkey 1920's (in fact the author of this idea got the nobel peace prize) as well as India and Pakistan. Israel will not commit suicide in order to please the likes of Seb whose skewed morality is always camouflaged in legalistic trite.

Mar 03 2003 18:01
 

Man, I wish all those pesky aggressive Arabs, with all their helicopters and Al-samud missiles, would stop trying kill the good ol' Jewish militia who are just trying to eek a meagre living out of their desolate country, which was rightfully given to them in 1967 by God. Haven't these well-to-do, westernised Arabs got some other country they can go and live in, instead of trying to dominate the most humble, humane, peaceful people in the world. I mean, come on now, can't you just see now how unfair this is on God. He can't bear to see his chosen people having to constantly defend his patch, and maintain an army. What a hassle!

157. amram   
Mar 03 2003 18:19
 

Dear nutty,

much of what you say is correct even though you think you are funny. The Arbas don't just have Al samoud missiles, they also have scuds- which saddam fired at Israel, they have katyushas- which the syrian sponsored Hizballah fire against Isreal from lebanon. A country that was deolated by Syrian invasion, mass murder of hundred of thousands of the indigenous christians by the muslims supported by the PLO and Syria's 30,000 man occupation force. The Arabs are responsible for the enslavement of 100,000 black chrisitans in Sudan, the murder of 150,000 at the hands of islamist "militants" in Algeria. Then there is Iraq with its love of human rights etc...

Israel is not a deolsate country as the Jews have put their blood sweat and tears into it for the past 100 years- they had no oil to sit on their asses and get rich with. They have given to the world more in the fields, of science medicine, arts, music and all humabn endeavour a thousand times more than their numbers and have received nothing but contempt and opression from peasents like you!

It is interesting to note how Britain imports medical technology from Israel, how more books per person are published in Israel than anywhere else. You find it of interst to note that the Jewish people who constitue less than 0.1% of mankind represent over 33% of nobel laureates. Indeed how many nobel laureates are Arab???

The Arabs need to modernise, secularise and compensate the world over-(notice no mention of 9 11)

Mar 03 2003 18:40
 

hook, line and sinker

'The Arabs need to modernise, secularise and compensate the world over-(notice no mention of 9 11)'

2 words: nutty fundamentalism.

Isn't it Jews who have just erected a 6 mile fence in NW london to keep gentiles out? At least 'bloody Christians' are welcome on Edgeware Rd.

159. Seb   
Mar 03 2003 19:13
 

amram:

Just so you know, I don't think there is going to be any point in debating with you. We clearly disagree on a very fundemental level on human rights and international law.

Nutty Fundementalist:

The Eruv isn't to keep anyone out, it's just a religious demarcation. It's not that different from the gates over China Town in terms of a barrier to people moving around.

It may seem, perhaps, a little bit wierd to you, but then so are many other things to many other people (such as why the ?2 coin that celebrates British engineering has 19 cogs locked into a loop) and it hurts nobody.

160. Seb   
Mar 03 2003 19:19
 

As a general point,

the camp david deal didn't offer 98.5% of the land, a sizeable chunk of that land was desert in exchange for Israeli settlements (which happen to include most of the water). Furthermore the west bank was to be devided into cantons by military roads which were to remain soveriegn Israeli territory. Palestine was to have no national airspace or waters, no right to make treaties with other states, no military (fair enough) but equally Israel had no obligation to defend Palestine (not fair at all). In short, what was offered at Camp David was not a soverign state, nor a viable state, and left it utterly dependent on Israel for access to the wider world and it's own mineral resources (particularly water).

What is more, it was Barak that tabled the deal as a take-it-or-leave-it offer and said that no negotiation would be entered into.

161. bycullah   
Mar 03 2003 19:23
 

Seb:

you claimed earlier that Jordan considers the Palestinians to be a separate entity. but you faild to address my point (or rather that of Karsh and Hitti) that had the invading armies won they would have simply divided it up between themselves, therefore it is clear that only whilst Israel is in existence are the Palestinians considered a separate entity, to further a political end, namely the destruction of Israel.

162. Seb   
Mar 03 2003 20:37
 

"that had the invading armies won they would have simply divided it up between themselves,"

Right, so I'm supposed to take the whim of an absolute monarch and two stalinist dictators as representative of the Palestinian peoples best interests? It's a pathetic argument.

"therefore it is clear that only whilst Israel is in existence are the Palestinians considered a separate entity, to further a political end, namely the destruction of Israel."

The Palestinians may be considered a serparate entity by the various autocrats that run many middle eastern countries as a convinient tool, but are you seriously telling me the Palestinians are all lying about their claimed identity? That they are, in fact, sitting and waiting for the day when they can once again call themselves Jordanians, keeping up the lie that they are Palestinians?

What's more, given that Israel existed prior to 1967, I don't see how giving back the land they took from the Palestinians can be considered destroying Israel irrespective of whether you take them to be a national group or not. And I think it's pretty obvious they are a national group given that no other Arab nation will accept them as citizens, nor for that matter, will Israel.

Arguing historical "what if's" doesn't seem particularly relevant either. For example: if in the 1760's, the British Parliament hadn't taxed America, by Benjamin Franklin and Jeffersons own admission the American colonists would not have sought indpendence. Therefore, Americans do not exist as a national group, and should be re-integrated back into the UK?

However, the reality is that they were taxed (and the Palestinians are regarded as an individual group, and while they were not called Palestinians, the Arabs that lived in what became mandated Palestine were singled out for different treatment under the Ottoman Empire, being exposed as they were to a combintion of different cultures and religions), they fought a war of independence and self define as a seperate nation (as the Palestinians do). This isn't a game of risk you know. It's not some single Arab player rolling the dice and deploying his pieces. We are talking about a large collection of individuals, and the state players in this sorry game (asside from Israel) are not acting out the direct will of their people. Making war with Israel was a convinient scapegoat in order for the wannabe Pan-Arab leader of the day to try and stamp his authority on the rest of the world, very similar to the way that European leaders in the dark ages launched crusades not so much to gain riches in the middle east as to gain authority within Europe, or indeed, in modern Europe the governments (as opposed to the peoples) position on war with Iraq seems to be more about manuvering for power within the EU rather than Iraq itself.

Pan Arabism seems to have died a death now. Even the "great" Colonl in Libya has turned his attention to trying to unite Africa as a platform to stand on and posture.

The only Arab nations that pose a threat to Israel are Syria and Iraq. Iraq is not much of a threat and will be gone shortly, Syria wouldn't stand a chance and knows it. Saudi and Jordan are both far more interested in peace, and Egypt couldn't mount an invasion if they wanted to (and they don't), simply because their supplier is America and they would run out munitons and spare parts before crossing the border and their economy would implode as the tourist trade dried up.

So this strategic depth that the West Bank represents is only relevant in the case of an attack through Jordan, which has already made peace. I can see the merit in hanging on to the Golan Heights, but asside from that the only reason I can see is bloody mindedness, colonisation or a desire to asset strip the area.

None of those are convincingly moral.

Mar 03 2003 20:41
 

has everybody gone stark raving bonkers?

i went to the middle east recently,

very funny place you know

164. amram   
Mar 03 2003 21:16
 

Seb,

"What is more, it was Barak that tabled the deal as a take-it-or-leave-it offer and said that no negotiation would be entered into."

Simply incorrect again. Barak was ready to surrender (i can think of no better word) 94% of JSG in Camp David, they rejected it, he then offered them 96% and then 98.5 % at Sharm El Sheikh. He was only stopped by the Israeli electorate who saw fit to throw his perfidious and dangerous policies into the dustbin of history where they belonged. But to say that he offered a take it or leave startegy is a bare faced lie! Indeed he sacrificed (Thank god) his political career for the Arabs he so believed wanted peace but ungratefully shattered his naive illusion.

"Right, so I'm supposed to take the whim of an absolute monarch and two stalinist dictators as representative of the Palestinian peoples best interests? It's a pathetic argument."

Ah but it's ok to take Sheikh Yassin of Hamas or Yasser 100% of the vote Arafat as their representative? If those are there representatives no wonder 70% of Israelis support transfer.

You are the one seeking to impose solutions- 2 states within western palestine. The Israeli people don't want it and the Arabs don't. The Arabs want to destroy Israel. Until you accept this fact, you will remain unable to understand anything and indeed it may be pointless arguing with you. I suggest that you got to MEMRI.org and read translations of Arab writings from acoss the Arab World. Perhaps it is this ignorance that leads you to say that Israel can have 9 mile wide borders -since the Arabs don't want war. Egypt continues to incite vile anisemitic propaganda in its government controlled media, it continues to turned a blind eye-or actively help weapons smuggling into Gaza through its border, it continues to build up its military and has way more troops in Sinai than allowed by the camp David "peace" accord an Egypt a country that has a peace treaty with israel sees fit to imprison anyone who suggest normalising,cultural, social and economic relations- heck it recalled its ambassador more than 2 years ago!

I could bore you with how lebanon is a danger with its new longer range missiles as is Iran, etc..

It may be argued that the Palestinan Arabs now define themsleves as separate. But they share the same, language, history, religion and culture as the Jordanians and heck live in the same land just on differen banks of the river (a historical error that could be soon righted eh?) but even if they consider themselves as separate- it doesn't give them any right to set up a separate country within Israel, let alone a separate country that will replace Israel!

That takes me back to my Bradford analogy-just because the majority of people living there are Muslims doesn't give themn the right to break away from britain and set up an independent state.

If the war against the terrorists is won, and their leaders are enihilated, their weapons destroyed , their infrastructure of hatred and indoctrination destroyed and that's a BIG if(!) then it would be possible to allow those Arabs lving in post 67 Israel to become Israeli citizens as long as they were willing to be loyal to the state and giv their dues like any other citizen. Those who could not tolerate being under Israeli soverignity would be transferred to Jordan.

it is indeed a pity that you have to come up with excuse because you are unable to counter my points.

165. Seb   
Mar 03 2003 22:02
 

amram:

The land was the least of the issue. For a start, the percentages exclude east Jerusalem, what Barak offered of East Jerusalem for some sort of semi autonomous area were historicaly Arab areas that were seperate towns which Israel annexed into East Jerusalem after taking it over. A large chunk of the land (and each of the increase you refered to) was Negev desert in exchange for west bank territory. It's like saying that Israel could be rpleaced with 100% Israel, except that it would be being replaced by a chunk of territory in the Sahara.

On the other issues, which were also pressing, there was no willingness to deal.

166. bycullah   
Mar 03 2003 23:36
 

"The Palestinians may be considered a serparate entity by the various autocrats that run many middle eastern countries as a convinient tool, but are you seriously telling me the Palestinians are all lying about their claimed identity? That they are, in fact, sitting and waiting for the day when they can once again call themselves Jordanians, keeping up the lie that they are Palestinians?"

No, their aim is the destruction of Israel too, they'd sell their own grandmothers into slavery if they thought it would help to get rid of Israel. Hence the pride of the family of the suicide bombers.

"And I think it's pretty obvious they are a national group given that no other Arab nation will accept them as citizens"

well of course they won't - they want to prolong the weeping sore as a conduit to the destruction of Israel, and to use the Palestinians as a means of diverting attention away from their own detestable regimes.

"The only Arab nations that pose a threat to Israel are Syria and Iraq. Iraq is not much of a threat and will be gone shortly, Syria wouldn't stand a chance and knows it. Saudi and Jordan are both far more interested in peace, and Egypt couldn't mount an invasion if they wanted to (and they don't), simply because their supplier is America and they would run out munitons and spare parts before crossing the border and their economy would implode as the tourist trade dried up."

sorry but youre wrong. Saudi Iraq Iran and Syria all heavily fund and sponsor terrorist organisations. Assad was unashamed in his support of suicide bombers to Tony recntly, they are so brazen it beggars beief.

"So this strategic depth that the West Bank represents is only relevant in the case of an attack through Jordan, which has already made peace. I can see the merit in hanging on to the Golan Heights, but asside from that the only reason I can see is bloody mindedness, colonisation or a desire to asset strip the area."

the point is that all the Arab states would use a Palestinian state on the west bank as a bridgehead for war, continuing to fund the terrorists, under some pathetic pretext that although there is a Palestinian state, one quarter inch of Shebaa Farms are still occupied.

Anyone with any moral clarity can see that throughout the history of the region it is Israel who has consistently attempted to make peace, whilst the Arabs only wish for the destruction of Israel. Israel has the right to defend her citizens, and is under no obligation to give up the west bank until such time as the Arabs are willing to make peace, which has never been the case. Arafat has said on many occasions that oslo was only the "first step" - the final one being the dissolution of the Jewish State.

167. Seb   
Mar 03 2003 23:42
 

"Ah but it's ok to take Sheikh Yassin of Hamas or Yasser 100% of the vote Arafat as their representative? If those are there representatives no wonder 70% of Israelis support transfer."

No, it's not. I can't believe you extracted that from anything I've said. The whole point of my argument is that Israel is treating the Palestinain population as though they are directly responsible for the acts of a bunch of unleccted terrorists.

"If those are there representatives no wonder 70% of Israelis support transfer."

Interesting that, 70% of Israelis support ethnic cleansing.

"heck it recalled its ambassador more than 2 years ago!"

Over the Israeli responce to Palestinian riots... harldy a prelude to war. Withdrawing an ambassador is a fairly standard severe diplomatic rebuke.

"but even if they consider themselves as separate it doesn't give them any right to set up a separate country within Israel, let alone a separate country that will replace Israel!"

So why are the Jews a special case then? The west bank and Gaza are not within Israel, and a Palestinian state on the west bank and gaza strip will not replace Israel.

"it is indeed a pity that you have to come up with excuse because you are unable to counter my points."

It's you that hasn't come up with a counter for my points, largely because we disagree fundementaly about axiomatic points, such as whether international law is valid, and whether you can judge an entire race on the actions of a few people, and whether a race is the same as a nationality.

If you really want to declare you have won, go ahead, but the simple fact is that your argument is a self contained entity that is essentialy Hobsean. As such it could apply equally to Arabs.

168. Seb   
Mar 04 2003 10:59
 

"No, their aim is the destruction of Israel too, they'd sell their own grandmothers into slavery if they thought it would help to get rid of Israel. Hence the pride of the family of the suicide bombers."

Well, I know a few Palestinians and that doesn't seem to be their aim at all. A conspiracy of three million seems a little unlikely, and not all suicide bombers families feel pride, and for those that do... many families of soldiers felt pride in their sons that died in WWII, as they died fighting for the country. Israel needs to decouple the issue of Palestinian independence from the terrorism, and the way to do that is start laying out a path to a two state solution which is independent of the terrorists.

"well of course they won't - they want to prolong the weeping sore as a conduit to the destruction of Israel, and to use the Palestinians as a means of diverting attention away from their own detestable regimes."

Most Palestinans alive today were born Palestinians, they are not going to suddenly turn Jordanian any more than an American is going to revert to being a Brit.

"sorry but youre wrong. Saudi Iraq Iran and Syria all heavily fund and sponsor terrorist organisations."

1. Iran isn't an Arab nation.

2. The West Bank only forms a buffer zone between Jordan, so why is it necessary for defence, especialy given that, as you so rightly point out, the primary threat to Israel is of terrorists, not tanks?

"the point is that all the Arab states would use a Palestinian state on the west bank as a bridgehead for war"

SO you are saying that you believe the Arab nations are ready to go to war to occupy Israel?

"continuing to fund the terrorists, under some pathetic pretext that although there is a Palestinian state, one quarter inch of Shebaa Farms are still occupied."

So what you are saying is that it is right and good to hold an entire people to ransom because if they were free, a bunch of states may continue to do what you say they do already?

"Anyone with any moral clarity can see that throughout the history of the region it is Israel who has consistently attempted to make peace"

Israel has never offered a soverign, free Palestinian state. The closest that was offered by Barak wasn't soverign, wasn't free and wasn't viable. Every party in a war strives for peace, but some peoples terms for peace are different from others.

"Israel has the right to defend her citizens"

Undoutably, but it has no right to opress other peoples. You can't even explain to me how occupying Palestine is defending Israel, other than from a hypothetical attack from Jordan, which you didn't even include on your list of terrorist sponsors.

169.  
Mar 04 2003 16:13
 

p

Mar 04 2003 16:19
 

why can there be no society of justice for palestine? if people want to express their opinioins like we are doing here in this forum what can be the problem? there could also be a justice for israel society. me and my friend marwan would be interested in running it. then every body would be happy and i could sing a song (hopefully not, i should have retired by now) but not many people know that in July 1938, Douglas Corrigan, an experienced pilot, took off from New York bound for California. Twenty-nine hours later he landed in Ireland, claiming his compass had failed.

Celebrated as "Wrong-Way"Corrigan he became a hero and was given a huge parade when he arrived back in New York.

But Corrigan was no fool. Denied permission to cross the wide Atlantic in his rickety little plane, he went out and did just the opposite of what he proclaimed he would do.

There were, therefore, two Corrigans: the legendary one who headed in the wrong direction, and the clever one who lied about his intentions so he could go ahead and do what he wanted.

What a perfect metaphor for contemporary Arab politics!

There are the Wrong-Way Corrigans Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein, for example, along with hosts of Arab ideologues who propose and implement policies leading to disaster. Then there are the foxy Corrigans, like most Arab leaders, who demagogically proclaim their militancy and extremism and then follow cautious policies designed to keep themselves in power.

Three decades ago Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, who during his career played both Corrigan roles, sent a trusted aide to evaluate Libya's new leader, Mu'ammar Gaddafi. The assistant returned to Cairo and told Nasser the dictator was a disaster for Egypt.

Why? asked Nasser. Is he against us? No, much worse, answered the aide, he is for us but he really believes all the things we say!

Since then Middle East history has amply proven the catastrophe brought on by extremism, a rush to violence, and demagoguery.

At this moment there could be two peaceful, prosperous countries called Iraq and Palestine. Instead, the great majority of voices heard on these issues in the region simply repeat the endless calls to arms, the rhapsodies to murderers of both the mass and suicide varieties, the slander of enemies, and calls for still more bloodshed.

Meanwhile, of course, most Arab leaders are either accepting of or eager for Saddam's downfall. They cheer the Palestinians while doing nothing to help them, certainly not giving them the advice that would help them most: end violence, compromise, and make peace.

At least, though, by combining demagoguery and caution these leaders are acting out the Middle East version of rational self-interest. They pretend to set out for California, while deliberately steering a steady course for Ireland.

Unfortunately, however, there are many others who prove George Orwell's dictum that there are some ideas so stupid only an intellectual would believe them.

what about recent article in Al-Ahram Weekly by Joseph Massad, even more tragic in that Massad is not some scribbler living in fear of being fired or jailed by his local Middle East dictator but a professor at Columbia University in New York City.

Al-Ahram asks: "Why have the Palestinians lost so much international support, and what can be done to regain it?"

Massad answers by attributing the problem not to intransigence or terror, but to excessive moderation. In the past, he argues, "much of the world supported the dismantling of Israel as a racist settler colony."Now, however, "the only Palestinian right most of the world still seems to support is the right of West Bank and Gaza Palestinians (but not Jerusalemites) to self-determination, and the end of Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza (but not East Jerusalem)."

Why has this decline in support albeit somewhat exaggerated and wrong on the Jerusalem issue taken place? Because in the past "the PLO expressed a clear vision."Israel was portrayed as totally evil, and the solution was to destroy it (in Massad's words, with "a secular democratic state where Arabs and Jews would have equal rights").

The problem, Massad explains, was that "the PLO began to waver in its vision and mission and embarked on a path that recognized Israel's right to be a racist Jewish state"and negotiated with it. As a result, "the international friends of the Palestinian people have been thrown into a state of utter uncertainty."

Indeed, "the transformation of the views of Third World friends and allies, and of movements and individuals around the world, was brought about more by PLO concessions and transformations than by any other factor."

By making the conflict into a dispute over land instead of a conflict to destroy Israel, Massad argues, the Palestinians lost support. Of course, this argument neglects the fact that the Palestinians scored no material achievement during the decades they took a hard line.

Moreover, few of their friends outside the Arab world supported that doctrine, either in Europe, the Third World, or even the Soviet bloc. What they wanted was to persuade the PLO to make just the kind of deal concluded at Oslo for a two-state solution. And even their "allies"in the Arab world did little to advance the PLO toward its maximal goal. Other events the USSR's collapse, the Cold War's end, American power, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and more also pulled the rug out from under the PLO's old game.

All of this eludes Prof. Massad, and he is scarcely alone in his passionate advocacy of the very policies that put the Palestinians, and Arabs in general, into such a mess and keep them digging deeper into the swamp they insist on seeing as a great fortress.

Massad concludes: "I believe that Palestinians (and we are in the majority) who understood Oslo as a mechanism to liquidate the Palestinian national struggle against Zionist colonialism and racism can indeed make such demands on our allies,"who now "support an end to the occupation through negotiations,"rather than endorse Palestinian armed struggle and the demand that all refugees come to live in Israel.

These people, Massad warns in a rather threatening manner, "must be called to account for following in the footsteps of Arafat."

Corrigan, at least, made a good landing. But the kind of reasoning that, at least publicly, dominates most Arabs' intellectual discussion keeps them circling in the sky forever.

not only this but i think that what callaghan said is true. he said'The minority parties have walked into a trap," after losing the historic 1979 vote of no confidence that resulted in his ouster; "it is the first time in recorded history that turkeys voted for an early Christmas."

Non-ruling parties are indeed prone to do this kind of thing, and Israel is no exception. That is how, for instance, the far Right brought down Binyamin Netanyahu in 1999, only to consequently see Ehud Barak deliver not just a limited and conditioned expansion of PA-ruled lands, but the entire West Bank, east Jerusalem, the Temple Mount and some pre-'67 lands, too.

That is also how in 1984 a by-now forgotten ethnic party named Tami deposed Yitzhak Shamir's government, only to be altogether quashed in the consequent early election; and that is also how Labor's abandonment last year of Ariel Sharon's government was soon enough followed by an early election that resulted in its own disorientation, dislocation, and, in all likelihood, dismemberment.

Still, these and other such shortsighted early-election bravados were at least followed by some humility and introspection. Amram Mitzna has displayed neither.

The way he and several commentators - most notably Ha'aretz's Yoel Marcus - see it, Labor's original sin was joining Sharon's government. Had Labor gone to the opposition in the aftermath of Barak's spectacular trouncing at the ballots in February '01, goes that thinking, the public would have focused on terrorism's pain and blamed it on Labor's successors, for they would have been the sole incumbents.

In a way, one can't blame Mitzna, Marcus, and the rest of their ilk for this crooked analysis, since they voted Labor not only before, but also after the outbreak of the current war. Fortunately, we have with us a sample voter - this writer - who was one of the many thousands who turned their backs on Labor, after having voted for Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, and Ehud Barak, and even publicly endorsed them.

THE SAD but inescapable truth, Amram Mitzna, is that we Middle Israelis did not prefer your opponents because of circumstances, but because of substance. We did not opt for your competitors because your product was poorly packaged, marketed, or delivered. Our problem, and yours, was, and remains, with what preceded rather than followed the outbreak of the last two years' violence.

Never mind that unlike you, we not only found nothing wrong with Labor's joining Sharon's government, but backed it wholeheartedly. Never mind that unlike you, we not only saw no reason to blame Sharon for the bloodshed that took place during his premiership, but actually applauded the counteroffensive he waged on the enemy, which many of us had the occasion to personally join. And never mind that unlike you, we not only do not judge that effort a failure, despite our continued loss of lives, but consider it a success, since under the circumstances fighting back was, and still is, the most imperative thing to do.

What mattered to us more than anything else, Amram, was that all the grand tenets with which your party had led us to Oslo - the nonchalantly repeated assertions that the conflict had ceased to be about recognition and was reduced to a mere border dispute; that Yasser Arafat could be trusted; and that our neighbors were ready for regional harmony a-la Europe and America - were proven unfounded.

It took no genius to detect this sentiment of ours long before this election, but even if one was too aloof to initially get it, one could at least ultimately lend an ear to Labor's own members, when they effectively ousted Yossi Beilin and Yael Dayan from the Knesset in your primary election. Do you think your party members did that to protest Dayan's feminism or Beilin's monetarism? No, Amram, they did it because those politicians came to represent that conceited, elitist, and tragically baseless dogma that peace in our time was attainable, and that it was merely waiting for yet more Israeli concessions to be finally made.

Now thousands of Labor's former voters humbly concede that those who warned that Arafat was cheating us all along were right. In other words, we Middle Israelis did not abandon Labor because it was not loyal to its ideas, but because its ideas had failed. Otherwise, how do you account for Meretz's collapse at the ballots? Was that also because Fuad had joined Arik?

The good news for you, Amram, is that once you step down, as you should and in all likelihood will, your party will quickly learn that the rest of its would-be leaders are just as ill equipped to resurrect it.

In the landmark speech where he attacked Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev said the Soviet dictator had never admitted having made any mistake, "large or small."

In your party, Amram, the closest people come to confessing their grand mistake is in elevating the separation fence to the degree of an Aristotelian ideal, but even they fail to bravely say about their initial adoption of Oslo's tenets, what Stalin couldn't bring himself to say about his own historic errors of judgment: "I was wrong."

Mar 04 2003 16:33
 

i'll tell you why they voted not to have it. because you can't have a society who has racist goals at its center and supports terrorism. this is unacceptable. how can we guarantee the safety of the students at the university?

172. byculah   
Mar 04 2003 17:20
 

"Most Palestinans alive today were born Palestinians, they are not going to suddenly turn Jordanian "

no they are just going to be Arabs living on the land. You claimed that they are a separate entity because no other state wil accept them. but that argument is false for the reasons given above. Furthermore, I dont believe there to be a "conspiracy" of 3 million, but that is the power of education and propaganda - look at what Hitler achieved with it. Besides, conspiracy theories abound in the Arab world, with some huge percentage believing that it was a Zionist conspiracy to bring down the twin towers.

"The West Bank only forms a buffer zone between Jordan, so why is it necessary for defence, especialy given that, as you so rightly point out, the primary threat to Israel is of terrorists, not tanks?"

Just because the primary objective is the liquidation of Israel, that doesn't negate the other objective - that of killing as many Jews as possible. Now, most Jews live within the pre '67 borders, do they not, and it is obvious to anyone who looks at a map that it would be far more likely for there to be infiltrations into Israel if there were a Palestinian state in lands that are at the heart of Israel. This would lead to a huge rise in Jewish deaths.

"SO you are saying that you believe the Arab nations are ready to go to war to occupy Israel?"

not immediately. As Arafat says, this is the first step. Of course, once there is a state the terror will continue, under the pretext that Israel isnt agreeing to the right of return. The Arab states will fund this terror. Of course we all know that the right of return would spell the demographic end of the Jewish State.

"So what you are saying is that it is right and good to hold an entire people to ransom because if they were free, a bunch of states may continue to do what you say they do already"

a bunch of states and the Palestinians themselves. It goes on already, but as I have just said, its a slow process eventually leading to the destruction of the Jewish state.

""Israel has the right to defend her citizens"

Undoutably, but it has no right to opress other peoples"

well that is just your interpretation. I say that the surrounding Arab states could easily have absorbed the small number of refugees and there would have been no problem, but they chose not to for the reasons I have already given. therefore, they are the oppressors both of the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Mar 04 2003 17:40
 

the west bank is necessary for israel's defence simply because it cuts right into central israel and it's hill tops look down on the area of israel where 80% of its population live in a strtch only 10-15 miles wide. contrlling the jordan valley in the est of the west bank is a huge strategic asset as it is a brilliant natural early warning system, something that israel has unfortunately had need of several times. furthermore, the approach roads to jerusalem are all safe only when israel controls the hills either side of them, which incidentally are on the west bank

174. Seb   
Mar 04 2003 19:13
 

"no they are just going to be Arabs living on the land."

What, like I'm a European living in Europe?

"You claimed that they are a separate entity because no other state wil accept them."

No, I clames that having been isolated for a couple of generations, they are, de-facto, a seperate group. And in any case, they have individual right to the land they live on irrespective of whether you believe that all Arabs are one people and therefore need only one state.

"Furthermore, I dont believe there to be a "conspiracy" of 3 million, but that is the power of education and propaganda - look at what Hitler achieved with it."

Right, so you believe people have been educated into being Palestinian, that may be true. But then you expect them to immidiately revert to being citizens of Jordan. Unlikely, especialy given Jordans history with Palestinians. Besides which, one could argue that the Bible and the Jewish religious texts are precisely that: propoganda designed to create a national identity. I see that it is only valid if it is 6000 years old.

"Besides, conspiracy theories abound in the Arab world, with some huge percentage believing that it was a Zionist conspiracy to bring down the twin towers."

Believing in conspiracy, and talking about it so much, seems to me to be precisely the reason that I do not believe the concept of Palestinian nationality is a conspiracy.

"Just because the primary objective is the liquidation of Israel"

Sorry? I'm not sugesting Israel liquidate itself. After all, if Israel existed in 1960, why does reverting to it's borders in 1960- require liquidation, any more than when Ireland gained independence Britain was liquidised.

"that doesn't negate the other objective - that of killing as many Jews as possible. Now, most Jews live within the pre '67 borders, do they not, and it is obvious to anyone who looks at a map that it would be far more likely for there to be infiltrations into Israel if there were a Palestinian state in lands that are at the heart of Israel."

Ah, so you are essentialy saying that Israeli security concerns are more important than fundemental human rights for an entire people? In any case, surely these people are in the "heart of Israel" either way you look at it.

Unless you arguing for Ethnic Cleansing or Genocide, the facts on the ground in terms of secruity remain the same, except of course that a clearly defined border with adequate fencing would be better than what Israel has at the moment, except of course that Israel already has a policy of building a border network more or less on that line, and a similar policy has worked better at keeping out Hezbollah terrorist as occupying Lebanon did.

"Of course, once there is a state the terror will continue, under the pretext that Israel isnt agreeing to the right of return. The Arab states will fund this terror. Of course we all know that the right of return would spell the demographic end of the Jewish State."

Yeah, yeah. Ethnic purity, I keep forgeting. Anyway, how is the West Bank critical when the threat comes from terror, when Jordan is not a sponsor of terror anything like as much as Iran, Iraq, Syria or Saudi?

"well that is just your interpretation."

Really? so you would have no problem living as your average Palestinian does?

"I say that the surrounding Arab states could easily have absorbed the small number of refugees and there would have been no problem"

Except of course, that it would have been a case of invading and expanding territory. It would have been no problem for Albania to absorb the Albanian Kosovars either.

"therefore, they are the oppressors both of the Palestinians and the Israelis."

They may well be the opressors of the Palestinians (though of course, Israel, by not taking any Kosovan Albanian, Rwandan, Cambodian refugees etc. is also an opressor of these peoples), but to a lesser degree than the occupying power. Where did all the refugees in the 1948 conflict go to? The West Bank. Seems you just can't get away from ending up in Israel.

175. Yigal   
Mar 04 2003 21:45
 

I suppose Seb and all the other antisemitic insects think Israel was responsible for the Ricin found in Britain. Perhaps it was Israel that murdered the policemen eh?

The Arabs have been engaged in a Nazistic war against Israel for 50 years and the world has kept quiet. Well now the beats are after you too. Bali, twin towers, these were just the start. It is time you stop letting your hatred for the Jews cloud your vision of the threat the Muhammadans pose. As to Israel, she will be fine, she doesn't need the help of a backward nation that can't even run a train...

Thank the lord of Israel for Bush too cos he won't listen to little weasels like you, he will attack iraq, he will destroy alqaeda and america and the civilised world will win. You have a choice you can be with the french filth or you can be free.

As to the West Bank that's just the Start Arabs beware the IDF is coming....

176. Seb   
Mar 04 2003 21:50
 

If the best you can do is call me anti-semitic, well that's frankly laughable. Most of my longest, oldest friedns are Jews, and one of them is more critical of Israel than I am.

Israel may not need our trains, but how about the HUD's in F-16's that were the subject of recent debate?

177. Yigal   
Mar 04 2003 22:00
 

There was never an independent Arab state called Palestine. At best, Palestine was a backwoods Turkish province. Hence, there were no pilgrimages to the "holy" Al Aqsa mosque.

Jerusalem is not the third holiest site of Islam. Mecca and Medina are holy; Jerusalem was never mentioned in the same breath until the liberation of the Temple Mount by the Israelis in 1967.

The Palestinians and their political leadership bring war and instability to wherever they reside, be it Jordan, Lebanon or in the very territories Israel recently handed over to them. No one wants them as neighbors because they are too egotistical, hotheaded, selfish and immature o qualify as a responsible nation.

And no one would sign a meaningful agreement with any Palestinian leader because agreements are always broken. Israel learned the hard way, that the PLO's diplomats have no ethics and lie with impunity. They will always be diplomats of a terror organization, never of a nation, because nations must abide by their commitments.

There is no hope of the Palestinians ever honestly electing their leaders. At best, this ragtag collection of Middle Eastern peoples will accept whatever tyrant proves the most inscrutable and leads their tribe after Arafat.

The Palestinians send their children to their deaths to make media propaganda points. Real nations care about their young. The PLO and its allied Islamic organizations practice child sacrifice under the guise of martyrdom.

The PLO has no morals, national or otherwise. Their sole motivation is to instill hate from one generation to the next. The PLO has brought nothing but misery to its followers. The Palestinians know nothing of the creation of beauty, engage in no serious scholarship, and pass nothing of greatness down the ages. Their legacy is purely of destruction.

The Palestinian leaders and their factotums are totally corrupt, stealing every penny of public money they can lay their hands on. No one seriously accepts that financial aid will actually reach the people. And no one will make a business investment in the Palestinians because of the payoffs and bribes involved in setting up shop. And for what? A business that will be shut down or destroyed by terrorism and civil war? The PLO's strong-arm tactics have brought in just enough protection money to buy arms and pay the militias, but not enough honest funds to initiate a prosperous nation.

The PLO and its police torture people they don't like. They execute people without due process of law. Whatever Palestinian courts do exist, none do so to protect the rights of the accused. The PLO will not tolerate free expression and arrest and torture journalists who criticize the regime. The PLO offers no rights to women. Only among its followers in the Christian community, can women receive higher education and responsible jobs.

There is no Palestinian language.

There is no Palestinian religion.

Jerusalem is never mentioned in the Koran.

Mohammed never claimed he was in Jerusalem.

The Al Aqsa Mosque and Shrine Of Omar are built atop the ancient Jewish temples.

The Jews held sovereignty over Jerusalem for 1300 years; the Arabs, a mere fraction of the time.

There was never an Arab Palestinian nationalist movement until 1964.

The majority of "Palestinians" according to British demographic surveys arrived in Israel after 1917, seeking economic opportunities.

No one is offering to compensate the 800,000 Sephardic Jews whose assets were stolen when they were forced out of Arab countries in the 40s and 50s.

Israel took in their refugees, the Arabs kept their 500,000 in camps.

The Palestinians already have a nation, Jordan. There, the indigenous majority is ruled by Bedouin royalty from Saudi Arabia.

The Jordanians had control of the West Bank from 1948 to 1967 and never once offered it as a Palestinian state. Why not? The Egyptians held the Gaza Strip for much longer. Why didn't they create a Palestinian state if there were Palestinian people living there?

There is no ancient Palestinian history. There are no world renowned Palestinian artists, scientists, not one Palestinian literary masterpiece, no recognizable culture, no inventions... nothing that distinguishes Palestinians as a people.

They are neither a unique people, nor a separate people with their own history. The Palestinians do not deserve a nation because they are not a nation. Period.

178. Yigal   
Mar 04 2003 22:06
 

"some of my best friends are Jews" eh seb

That's what the nazis said.

The HUD's ?? what I bet your a northern spotted Union who does physics or aero eh?

Let's put it this way Britain buys loads of medical equipment and miltary stuff from Israel too!Israel is a first world country- ir doesn't just sell flowers and oranges. What do the Arabs export apart from terror eh Sebastian????

Mar 04 2003 22:11
 

i must take exception to this "what do arabs export". we export books and philosophy and airplanes and chemcials made in the bekaa valley and we would export more if israel let us

180. Yigal   
Mar 04 2003 22:21
 

some of my best friends are Jews" eh seb

That's what the nazis said.

The HUD's ?? what I bet your a northern spotted Union hack who does physics or aero eh?

Let's put it this way Britain buys loads of medical equipment and miltary stuff from Israel too!Israel is a first world country- it doesn't just sell flowers and oranges. What do the Arabs export apart from terror eh Sebastian????

181. Seb   
Mar 04 2003 22:25
 

Yigal:

HUD: Heads-up Display, yes I'm a Physicist, no, the NAZI's didn't say their best friends were Jews, but they did say things about the Jews as a group of people rather like what you are saying about the Palestinians. Talk about racial stereotyping

I know that Britain imports stuff from Israel, what of it? What do the Arabs export? Oil, perchance?

Bush is not going to crush the terrorists (though good luck to him if he can) in the long run, he's just going to increase global polarisation. I don't think anyone has yet succesfuly crushed terrorism by military means. If you want an example of a sucesful anti-terrorist campaing, I'd take a look at the Malayan Emergency, though granted this was easier given it wasn't within easy reach of the seat of government.

Mar 04 2003 22:27
 

We also sell lots of slaves too!

I think yigal has to get a life. So what if Israel is advanced technologially. what about the way they treat their women. Those sinful israelis aloow there women to drive, they even let them walk next to their husbands!

The repressive Zionist regime only allows a man to have on wife!this is not normal even in that deeply pro american country run by the Saud's a man can have two or three!

What next a woman prime minister! You israelis appal me it is your immoral "feminism" that will bring you down.

Did you guys know that the zionists even allow divorce!!

183. yigal   
Mar 04 2003 22:36
 

George- if that's really your name i bet your just seb's alter ego= you can't even spell one as in one wife.

Seb- so your a physicist ?

I wonder could you tell me how many jewish Nobel prize winners there are in physics? how many Arabs are there (answer methinks is only one and he won it when he was at IC...)

The Arabs export oil true.

But who found it- the british, who built the distillation and purification processes- the americans. Who invented the internal combustion energy that uses the oil- watt perhaps? What indeed have the Arabs contributed to humanity in the past hundred two hundred three hundred years. One thing - terrorism, hijackings, bombings, ethnic cleansing in short destruction. When faced with such an enemy there is little choice.

And by the way Goebbels is renound for saying some of my best friends are Jewish. If you are not antisemitic then ou are a fool- take your pick.

184. yigal   
Mar 04 2003 22:39
 

seb,

you have spun yourself a spider's web

you claim that you are not anitisemite

but it seems the jews you'd let the arabs smite

you say that you'd like to see emerge some piece

but you don't realise the arabs only want a piece

of jaffa, tel aviv and haifa

and to make the jews maary more than one wife

how will you guarantee israel's security

when it gives up its gains completely

to a bunch of terrorists intent on its destruction

who preach hate and violence for kids to act on

jewish blood is cheap to brits it seems

we sent them to cyprus when they were bursting at the seams

just to get to israel to build a new land

to be free at last, to plough the sand

but you want to send us back to the middle ages

back to persecution and pogroms and killing our sages

one thing you should remember is that we've suffered so badly

we've got nothing to loose in israel so fight we will gladly

it's our only chance to stay alive

we'll grab on to it with fingers five

people can write nonsense in england on the web

but this time we have no intention of being everyone's favourite victim, seb

185. Seb   
Mar 04 2003 22:41
 

I think you are probably taking the piss. The sad thing is that there are people that post most of what you say seriously on several other boards I post on.

186. Yigal   
Mar 04 2003 23:02
 

How dare you. My poem is art with a political edge. forget miss TNT .I am the voice of from Rosh haayin. The sound of Hebrew soul. You seb are just a spotted geek!

187. Seb   
Mar 04 2003 23:18
 

I am shamed by your barbed tounge and razor-sharp wit.

But I think I'll stick to Bremner Bird and Fortune for political satire, even if they are somewhat left leaning.

188. Yigal   
Mar 05 2003 00:03
 

why, thankyou...

189. bycullah   
Mar 05 2003 11:55
 

"Besides which, one could argue that the Bible and the Jewish religious texts are precisely that: propoganda designed to create a national identity. I see that it is only valid if it is 6000 years old."

well you explain to me your criteria for being a nation then. If me and my girlfriend decide we want to start a new people and we invent a new language and only eat lettuce on tuesdays, at what point are we a new nation? your argument that isolation makes you a separate people is absurd.

"Sorry? I'm not sugesting Israel liquidate itself. After all, if Israel existed in 1960, why does reverting to it's borders in 1960- require liquidation"

first, I wasnt saying it was your intention, but that of the Arabs.

Israel would not have survived the '73 war had they given away the west bank.

"In any case, surely these people are in the "heart of Israel" either way you look at it"

Israel has much more control now than it would if there were a state, principally over the movement of arms into the area from the surrounding nations.

"Yeah, yeah. Ethnic purity, I keep forgeting"

well you explain how the Jewish people have self determination if they are a minority in their own lands. Are you really suggesting that there would even be a place called Israel if there were an Arab majority in the country?

Mar 05 2003 14:04
 

I have avoided this thread, as it is a topic on which I know little. However, having just read through it, I can categorically say that Andrew Smith's constitutional changes are more enlightening and useful than most of the detritus above.

191. tom t   
Mar 05 2003 14:55
 

Well then andy, why don't you just stick to commenting on articles about these fascinating constitutional changes?

Mar 05 2003 15:14
 

Tom, I think Andy did just that :-)

Mar 05 2003 16:05
 

Testing database replication... d'oh!

194. ...   
Mar 05 2003 16:52
 

I'm so disappointed! I thought Andy knew everything.

:-(

I think I just heard my hopes and dreams being crushed.

195. dog town   
Mar 05 2003 17:37
 

this whole thread is irrelevant now anyway. Sen decided to overrule the democratic decision of the SCC and allow the Palestine soc, as advertised on posters all over college. Still, at least they've got one thing in common with the Palestinians, a total disregard of democracy....

196. Hussein   
Mar 05 2003 20:24
 

As a muslim I am totally disgusted to read how

today 15 Israeli civillians were massacred by subhuman Homicide Bombers. Next week we are set to see a "palestine" week that will seek to apologise for such scum. Why doesn't the Islamic soc have a week talking about the suffering of millions of Iranians under the repressive, barbaric primitive mullahs. why doesn't it talk about the suffering of the 280 million Arabs under vile dictatorships? why? because, to answer my own question, they see nothing wrong in repression of women, human rights, and Jew hatred. I think it is time we became a civilised union and booted them out...

Of course this won't happen as they control the Union anyway!

Islamic society was voted "society of the year" the year before last- what a joke. At IC we learn about intellectual honesty as this is the basis of a stable society and is neccessary for the fluorishing of Scienes and creativity. Yet the union chooses to honour a society that disseminates hatred on a regula basis, that advocates extremism and primitivism. This is not to say that most muslims, let alone most muslims in our college share their rabid views rather it is the core and vociferous minority who control their society that should be shunned, not honoured, by everyone, including Muslims who are embarrassed about the society that supposedly represents us!

197. Seb   
Mar 05 2003 21:47
 

"well you explain to me your criteria for being a nation then."

That's not an easy thing to define. I guess mostly it's about establishing a credible, independent identity and crucially recognition. The Kurds have it, the Cornish don't. The Israelis have it (though not on the basis of being Jewish: It is possible, after all, to be an Israeli gentile). Most people regard the Palestinians as being a seperate people, they regard themselves as being a seperate people, and we know what happened last time they were attempted to be incorperated into Jordan.

"Israel would not have survived the '73 war had they given away the west bank."

And if Russia had had eastern Europe as a buffer zone, Hitler wouldn't have got to Stalingrad and Moscow. What's more, Israels military lead is vast, and the only state that the west bank borders other than Israel is Jordan, which has made peace. Asside from a unified attack from all Arab states through Jordan (and Pan-Arabism is a doctrine that only Saddam has any real interest in), the West Bank is irrelevant, and even if it was, mass tank formations in the days of cruise missiles, smart bombs and maneuver based armour warfare are as obsolete as trench warfare. The strategic case for keeping the Golan heights makes sense, but not the west bank. Especialy if Israel is permited to police the Jordan/West Bank border, which is a reasonable deal that Arafat *didn't* challenge at Camp David.

"Israel has much more control now than it would if there were a state, principally over the movement of arms into the area from the surrounding nations."

Yet that hasn't stopped suicide bombers, what is needed is a strong border between Israel and the West Bank. So far, attempting to controll the West Bank has been as fruitful as trying to controll Lebanon.

"well you explain how the Jewish people have self determination if they are a minority in their own lands."

I belive this is an argument the BNP makes regularly. The Israeli constiution puts particular emphasis on Jewish rights.

"Are you really suggesting that there would even be a place called Israel if there were an Arab majority in the country?"

Well, demographicaly speaking, Israel has a problem. Israeli Arab's seem to be growing faster as a demographic group than the Jews are. That was part of the reason for enocouraging immigration into the West Bank in the first place. At some point this problem has got to be confronted. Are you in favour of imposing some sort of population controll on Israeli Arabs should their numbers increases to a majority through natural increase?

I don't believe that there is some sort of racial conciousness myself. The fact that there are Arab Israelis indicates the vast majority of the generalisation you have made about "The Arabs" are just that: Generalisations. This 90 year conflict needs to be brought to an end, the only real solution I can see is land for peace. Yes, one could have a go at crushing the Palestinians a little more to try and get to some sort of total defeat, but you seem to make out the long term security threat comes from Iran and the other Arab states. Someone made a comparison to Germany and Japan, but Germany and Japan were not incorperated into allied territory, and there was a quick return to some sort of local government and full sovereignty.

198. Seb   
Mar 05 2003 21:49
 

Mustafa:

Broadly, he did.

Mar 05 2003 22:30
 

well, 201st post then...

(those of you who don't read slashdot won't understand the irony here...

200. Sunil   
Mar 06 2003 12:37
 

I think there's a bug in the discussions system - a post I made yesterday lunch time showed up then but has magically disappeared since.

Then again, maybe that's a good thing. :)

Mar 06 2003 12:42
 

database replication issues... sorry Sunil, you were considered unimportant, whereas Heeps's insightful comment was restored ;o)

Mar 09 2003 15:24
 

Your smell is still on me from last night

And your taste is in my mouth

I want to know every thing from the beginning

What does it all mean

White butterflies fly to the light again

Like the songs the stories

Go into the soul

A leaf falls from the tree to the sand

And another grows

I want to paint a new world with a brush

With colors sweeter than honey

Still the same feeling

that it is worth while to continue

And that we can hold our heads high

Even when the sun sets

even when it gets dark

It is both of us you and me

White butterflies fly to the light again

Like the songs the stories

Go into the soul

203. marshall   
Mar 09 2003 15:36
 

May I have your attention please?

May I have your attention please?

Will the real seb please stand up?

I repeat, will the real seb please stand up?

We're gonna have a problem here..

Y'all act like you never seen a democracy before

Jaws all on the floor like sunil, like yigal just burst in the door

and started whoopin his bottom worse than before

they first were chemists, throwin acid over furniture (Ahh!)

It's the return of the... "Ah, wait, no way, you're kidding,

he didn't just say what I think he did, did he?"

And scc said... nothing you idiots!

the scc's overruled, it's locked in my basement! (Ha-ha!)

anit-israel students love justice for pal soc "Israel, I'm sick of him

Look at him, walkin around grabbin his you-know-what

Flippin the you-know-who," "Yeah, but he's so cute though!"

Yeah, I probably got a couple of screws up in my head loose

But no worse, than what's goin on in your parents' bedrooms

Sometimes, I wanna get on TV and just let loose, but can't

but it's cool for Pal soc to incite stuff

"there's rubbish coming out of your lips, there's rubbish coming out of your lips"

And if I'm lucky, you might just give it a little kiss

And that's the message that we deliver to little kids

And expect them not to know what racism is

Of course they gonna know what racism is

By the time they hit fourth grade

They got the bbc don't they?

"We ain't nothing but mammals.." Well, some of us chemists

who cut other people open like cantaloupes

But if we can kill all the animals and antelopes

then there's no reason that a man and another man can't learn maths

{*EWWW!*} But if you feel like I feel, I got the antidote

Women wave your safety specs, sing the chorus and it goes

I'm seb Shady, yes I'm the real Shady

All you other Seb Shadys are just imitating

So won't the real Seb Shady please stand up,

please stand up, please stand up?

204. irit   
Mar 09 2003 15:46
 

["irit", this facility is for discussions comments, not for cut'n'pasting of articles blatantly taken from other web pages. If you wish to draw readers attention, please put the URL of the relevant page in a comment. - Editor.]

205. John   
Mar 10 2003 11:21
 

Well, thanks to the last three protestors for elevating this discussion to new heights of irrelevance and rabidity. Irit, thankyou for living up to your name and Marshall, your well thought out post basically settles the argument.

Stuff like this has never happened on this board before. Yet again, I see a pattern emerging here.

206. georges   
Mar 10 2003 22:36
 

["georges", your post has been deleted to allow other users to participate in this discussion without the excessively long delay that your post was causing. Everything that was in your post can found at http://www.ptimes.org/current/articles.html -Editor]

207. mikhail   
Mar 11 2003 15:05
 

It is really disturbing how "georges" and all the pro Arab posters are trying to ruin this thread. It is just like the arab world with its 22 dictatorships that oppress their own peoples and use little Israel as a cynical scaspegoat to divert the attention pf the repressed masses. 300 million fighting 5 million! you guys should be ashamed.why don't you use your oil billions to do some good rather than fund terrorists??

208. georges   
Mar 11 2003 23:45
 

i'm not pro-arab

i'm just pro the truth

i belive in democracy and the senate was elected and therefore is entitled to allow the society

there are fre elections in many arab countires but theire cant be elections in palestine because israel has banned paper manufacture so the yasser arafat can't print the ballot slips

209. tom t   
Mar 12 2003 18:01
 

I think it's a real shame how all the pro-israel posters are trying to ruin the thread. Obviously this thread is a pro-arab discussion group, we really don't want oil-poor, repressed, ignorant people like mikhail butting in where they're not wanted. Blimey, why don't you take your US funded comments elsewhere?!?!

210. mikhail   
Mar 12 2003 19:34
 

to tom t

Britain and France were heavily funded by the US after the second world war. They saved your asses.

As to Israel- yes it does need some loan guarantees- it is fighting 300 million Arabs oil rich hellbent on her destruction.

As to me I'm not oil poor I'm from Kazakhstan where we have struck black gold recently!!

I hope we strike even morre black gold soon so that the Osama-Saddam-Arafat Neo Nazi fascist pigs and their friend like you can all go screw themsleves.

211. Seb   
Mar 14 2003 00:39
 

Britain didn't get any Marshall plan money. We did get to begin repaying of war debts though. The only money the UK got was IMF loans.

I havea relative who worked on the legal work for exploring Khazak oil. Should make Khazakstan very rich provided it uses the money wisely (I.e. not like how most Middle Easter countries spend their oil money). I hear that they are trying to annul the contracts though... so it may all blow up in everyones faces. Never screw the investors. Especially not when it's BP.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/us-russ.htm

(That's only the best site I could find in ten seconds on google by the way)

212. mikhail   
Mar 14 2003 15:13
 

the upcoming war on Iraq- thus the subsequent availability of Iraqi oil- as well as recent finds in kazakhstan and former southern soviet regions- will significantly reduce the Saudi and Gulf Arabs power to blackmail the rest of the world.

Seb two questions- if i may

1. did your relative work for chevron?

2. do you believe in global warming???

213. Seb   
Mar 15 2003 02:30
 

No, BP.

Yes.

214. mikhail   
Mar 15 2003 12:00
 

ah.

I thought so.

thanks.

215. bycullah   
Mar 16 2003 18:26
 

Seb, I suppose you think this new appointment of a prime minister is a positive step. never mind that he is a holocaust denier, we have to see the bigger picture right?

216. Seb   
Mar 16 2003 19:46
 

Is it a negative step?

217. amram   
Mar 16 2003 21:04
 

yes it is negative- at least for those who believe in freedom and civilisation.

Peace in Israel will not come by accepting non existent or cosmetic reforms in the Arab terrorist leadership. peace will only come by the destruction or complete destruction of such terrorist organisations. there indeed is a double standard in the middle east. The US and UK (reluctantly) can fight a war to effect regime change of an Arab fascist leader who poses a serious threat ( though not as serious or existential as the threat to Israel posed by the PLO murderers)but Israel must "negotiate" with these murderers and accede to their blackmail!

Peace will only come when the arabs democratize, renounce violence and not by the establishment of a 23rd arab dictatorship ruled by a nazi despot and his "cosmetic" reformer of a prime minister.

218. geoff   
Mar 16 2003 21:25
 

What is Media Bias?

["geoff"/"amram", you're cut'n'paste essay had been deleted. Any one who wishes to read it can go straight to the web site you copied it from: http://www.honestreporting.com/a/What_is_Bias.asp -- Editor.]

219. Seb   
Mar 16 2003 21:28
 

So there is no merit at all in the structual change towards a less autocratic system because of the political beliefs held by the principles.

So then, if the beliefs held by the principles are more important than the structure or process, why the eariler appeals to Israel being the only democracy when currently the Government is in a coalition that relies on a party that in principle rejects any idea of a Palestinian state under any eventuality? I'm going to get on with my work now, deadlines to meet.

220. amram   
Mar 16 2003 21:39
 

quick reply have coursework too!

1. there is no reform. tony blair would love to be elected by his best friend. arafat choosing his crony to be leader is not democratic reform- it is a joke.

2. the comparison between the democratic governmnet of Israel to a murderous terror gang is disgusting.

3. why the hell should the palestinans have a state. to reward them for terrorism. The arabs already have 22 states. Jordan is an Arab state in 80% of the land of Israel "palestine" if you like. it is perfectly legitimate to hold the opinion that peace will not be achieved by giving israel's heartlands to the PLO. it is not legitiamte to hold the view that the holocasut did not happen - as abu mazen has said!

221. Sunil   
Mar 16 2003 22:54
 

Amram:

Jordan is not the homeland of the Palestinians - indeed Jordan has renounced all rights to the West Bank area. Nor have the 20-odd other Arabic-speaking states any obligation to take in the Palestinians. There are huge ethnic and cultural differences between different Arabic-speaking peoples. It is racist to lump all Arabs into one ethnic grouping, and it is fascistic to demand that all Palestinians settle in Jordan to suit Israel's wants.

I agree entirely that Palestinian terrorism should not be rewarded with a state or indeed with any concessions, but to deny all Palestinian rights on for a homeland on this basis is ludicrous.

222. amram   
Mar 16 2003 23:34
 

Sunil

There is no difference between the Arabs of Jordan and the Arabs of Judea and Samaria. They speak the same language (and dialect), have the same religion, share the same history and even identify themselves as the same people. 70 %Jordanians identify themselves as "Palestinians". That Jordan has relinquished claims to the west bank does not negate the fact that 80% of mandate "Palestine" is an Arab Muslim country. with the remaining 20% being Israel -including the disputed territories see this page.

The Arab states have waged 5 wars and have had 55 years of aggression against Israel in the name of their brother "Palestinian" Arabs. To forget the past 50 years of atrocities, to forget the past 2 and a half years of unrelenting terrorism (supported by the 22 Arab regimes) and to create yet another Arab tyrannical state would be a grave injustice indeed. To allow the formation of a state that would then form alliances with Iran, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iraq (possibly...) would be suicidal for Israel. I do not deny the Arab civilians their basic human rights- I just do not believe that Israel committing suicide by allowing such an entity to form will be in the interest of any peace loving person, Hebrew or Arab. Therefore what has been suggested see: http://www.moledet.org.il/english/transfer.html

Is a transfer of the Arabs, unwilling to live peacefully as a minority in a Jewish state, to Jordan and the Arab world. Those willing to live peacefully will remain in Israel.

It should be noted that over 50 % of Israelis are Jews expelled from the Arab world. The oil rich Arabs have enough land and money to resettle the Palestinian Arabs- if they wanted to! The problem cannot be viewed as just a war between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs- it must be understood as a conflict between the entire Arab world, that has sent its armies and funds, against Israel. It is a conflict based on the Arabs racism to accept a Jewish presence anywhere in the Middle East. If the Arabs truly did accept Israel rights to exist than no transfer would be necessary.

223. geoff   
Mar 16 2003 23:56
 

to the Editor

1. I got my article from http://www.cfi.org.uk/stand.htm#ch3

  • clearly you weren't as talented as you thought- eh?

2. Live! claims to allow freedom of speech- but you continue to censor post that you don't like or think are too long (or too much of an opinion you disagree with -like poor old georges).

3. the tracing of the adress of the computer- if not against the freedom of information act- is a tool used to stifle free debate and is intolerable.

4. I am using amram's PC since he is out(holding discussions to form a new coalition with meretz...) and I find your use of speech marks for my name offensive.

5. If you censor articles- people will either give up on live- or worse- purposefully try to thwart you.

224. Editor   
Mar 17 2003 00:14
 

Frankly, we are being swamped by requests from our readers to shut this thread down because it is taking too long to load. People cuting and pasting huge amounts from web pages doesn't help.

We have never deleted posts and replaced them with URLs before. We only started when one of your posts was so long that the actual web server itself started timing out (due to the amount of data coming out of the database) so no-one could read the page.

Just post the URL. In future, we shall just be deleting long essays without bothering to attempt to find out where they came from.

225. geoff   
Mar 17 2003 00:20
 

editor:

I assume that you are using "you" as a plural because I did not post anything that would have caused the server to time out. You are able to see where the posts come from when you wish to censor a post but have a sudden memory loss when it comes to remebering that it wasn't me who timed out your server. As to you being swamped-(live and swamp one feels is a bit of an oxymoron) your "swampers" should note that it only takes a second to load this page. But then as in with any censor- truth is always the first casualty.

226. Editor   
Mar 17 2003 00:26
 

It just took me 15 seconds on Eclipse ADSL. Other ISPs may be faster/slower. Many users of this site are on dial-up. Response times are also much slower during the day when this site is much busier.

227. Editor   
Mar 17 2003 00:27
 

And yes, it was your friend at Cambridge who caused the server to time out.

228. geoff   
Mar 17 2003 00:45
 

so terminate the thread.

229. Chris   
Mar 17 2003 00:48
 

Two comments

"3. the tracing of the adress of the computer- if not against the freedom of information act- is a tool used to stifle free debate and is intolerable."

IP addresses need to be traced, else Live will be responsible for everything on the site. I wouldn't want Live to be sued for someone else's comment.

"5. If you censor articles- people will either give up..."

The discussion has somewhat diverged from the original article. I don't think any discussions about news articles have been censored...

230. Seb   
Mar 17 2003 10:19
 

amram:

As it happens I'm not overwhelmed with joy at the change. Of course, because I support the idea of a palestiian state I am actualy covertly cheering on the destruction of Israel. No doubt.

Anyway, the creation of another position of power is a mildly cheering. An oligarchy is a slight improvement on an autocracy.

In any case, I'm not comparing a democracy with a bunch of terrorist thugs

I'm questioning your rather dodgy set of double standards (a democratic procedure validates undemocratic policies in one case, a slightly more pluralistic system in another case is a step backwards)

In any case, Israel has no mandate or consent in the West Bank in any liberal, western democratic sense, I fail to see why we should consider it a democracy when talking about the west bank, anymore than a democratic government in Britain was a whitewash for say, ruling India.

231. bycullah   
Mar 17 2003 11:40
 

yes, it is a step backwards, because the sham that will be presented as "Palestinian reform" will be trumpeted and of course the US and Britain will be kneeling on Israel to provide counter concessions.

232. Sunil   
Mar 17 2003 15:30
 

Amram:

Don't be facetious. Palestinians have swamped Jordan since Israel was created to the extent that they form a majority there. That, however, does not mean that they belong there or that they have always lived there. They belong in Palestine and identify themselves as such. Any attempt to shove the remaining Palestinians into Jordan is nothing short of ethnic cleansing.

Any claims on Israel's part of creating a buffer zone for security needs by means of such ethnic cleansing completely lack credibility. This is because the land would be immediately resettled by "pioneer" settlers who would be subject to the same sort of threat present-day Israel faces.

And while many Jews were doubtless forced to flee Arab nations, many others chose to leave voluntarily or were persuaded to do so by Israeli agents.

233. amram   
Mar 17 2003 19:49
 

Sunil, with all due respect your point is simply factually incorrect. The 900,000 Jews who fled Arab countries for Israel- did not do so because Israeli agents persuaded them to do so- they did so because they were being persecuted by those Arab governments. For example, the Iraqis would randomly arrest Jews, banned them from workking in various professions- banned them from universitites and even killed a few every so often. The governments expelled their Jews and then robbed them of their land and property. These communities existed since ancient times-since before the birth of Islam- and their members were citizens of the country who posed no threat whatsoever to the sitting regimes. The Arab state destroyed whole civillisations- unique in culture, language and religious tradition and stole more land than is all of Israel today.

While these people had a deep connection to their ancient homeland in Israel- and would indeed send people from time to time to immigrate there or visit the Jewish capital- Jerusalem - their expulsion and the distruction of their rich civillisations was a crime against humanity.

The Jewish people have a right to live in THEIR homeland of Israel and it is the Arab belligerency that has continued the suffering of all. Israel has contributed greatly in all fields of human endeavour over the past 55 short years whereas the Arabs have only contributed violence. If the Arabs were prepared to cease all hostilites - to accept their responsibility and guilt for the conflict and perhaps accept anything from 30 -80% of the "palestinan" Arabs, then Israel would be happy to relinquish all claims of land and proplerty lost in the Arab world. However, Israel is perfectly entitled to ask for states in each of the Arab lands where the millions of Israeli Jews once resided. Israel is entitled to asl for a share of their oil reveues for the past 50 years etc.

234. Seb   
Mar 17 2003 20:32
 

Amram:

Since you are so keen to stress democracy as a key card in Israels legitimacy, and since Israel is a Parliamentary democracy, you might want to read this:

http://history.hanover.edu/early/locke/j-l2-021.htm

(The Second Treatise on Government by John Locke)

In particular:

"Sec. 178. But supposing, which seldom happens, that the conquerors and conquered never incorporate into one people, under the same laws and freedom; let us see next what power a lawful conqueror has over the subdued: and that I say is purely despotical. He has an absolute power over the lives of those who by an unjust war have forfeited them; but not over the lives or fortunes of those who engaged not in the war, nor over the possessions even of those who were actually engaged in it."

"Sec. 179. Secondly, I say then the conqueror gets no power but only over those who have actually assisted, concurred, or consented to that unjust force that is used against him: for the people having given to their governors no power to do an unjust thing, such as is to make an unjust war, (for they never had such a power in themselves) they ought not to be charged as guilty of the violence and unjustice that is committed in an unjust war, any farther than they actually abet it;"

"Sec. 180. Thirdly, The power a conqueror gets over those he overcomes in a just war, is perfectly despotical: he has an absolute power over the lives of those, who, by putting themselves in a state of war, have forfeited them; but he has not thereby a right and title to their possessions. This I doubt not, but at first sight will seem a strange doctrine, it being so quite contrary to the practice of the world"

(Follow the link for reasoned argument of these points)

I belive we have dealt with the legal aspect already. This is just philosophical icing on the cake. From the birth of Liberal democratic thought through the the present day UN Charter and other laws, what you hold to be true is not well supported by any of it.

But somehow, I don't think you are going to agree.

235. amram   
Mar 17 2003 21:30
 

seb, (will be brief have courserwork for tomorrow)section 178 shows that Israel has authority over the conquered peoples ie the Arabs, who waged war against her. she does not have the right to take the private property of those individual civillians who were conquered- this she has not done. No property has been expropriated, no private land has been taken. the conqueror gains "despotic" ie total authority over "those who have actually assisted, concurred, or consented to that unjust force that is used against him"

this accounts for the large percentage of the Arabs who have actively been part of the terrorist fighting forces, assisted in the supply chain of those forces or been a party to the wholesale indoctrination of the masses to hatred and thus war against Israel. those who have not been engaged in such efforts should indeed be protected- that's why Israel uses targetted attacks on terrorsits- and if their intentions are indeed peaceful will not be transferred (if that is their desire) when the policy is (and ultimately will be ) impleneted.

Indeed when sec 180 says "The power a conqueror gets over those he overcomes in a just war, is perfectly despotical: he has an absolute power over the lives of those, who, by putting themselves in a state of war, have forfeited them;" this applies to the Terrorists who are fair game , as it were- blowing your previous arguments that"extra judicial" attacks against kamikaze bombers is unjust.

However of course, Locke was a great philospher, I take greater comfort from the Hebrew Sages. They teach that life is the mostimportant of all values and that the life of the people of Israel must not be sacrificed to satisfy anyone- Bush or Blair. They teach us that the true way does not reward the evil, the agreesor "for he who is merciful to the evil is utimately evil to the merciful". In the case of the current conflict , our sages woulkd teach us no to waiver from the basic truths, for example that the Land of Israel belongs to the people of Israel- it is their inheritance, that the wars initiated by the agrressors have negated their rights to any claims over that land. The oslo accord tried to give the Arabs land for "peace" and this failed big time. It caused more death and destrcution than before. Our sages would teach that to progress we must learn from the mistakes of the past and not repeat them. Ultimately while all efforts must be taken to spare the innocents among the enemy, the survival of the Jewish people cannot be comprimised for fear of offending the nations.

236. Seb   
Mar 18 2003 00:05
 

Amram:

Lockian Property is more than just private property. It includes land (public and private), which has been taken (in the same way that large tracts of uninhabited lake district are part of the UK and the property of the "commonwealth" (read society) that is the UK, and is thus subject to the UK's parliament.

Other than that you have wilfully misread the extracts. The very fact you refer to the Arabs when it's clear Locke is talking about individuals (I urge you to read the full text, people are complaining about Bandwith and it's hard to condense). As for despotical rights, what Locke is saying is those rights are over life, not of property.

"this accounts for the large percentage of the Arabs who have actively been part of the terrorist fighting forces,"

Hang on, most Palestinians were not involved in the 1967 war. And again, you are drifting well away from the clearly specific references to punishing individuals and well into punishing whole groups.

"Indeed when sec 180 says "The power a conqueror gets over those he overcomes in a just war, is perfectly despotical: he has an absolute power over the lives of those, who, by putting themselves in a state of war, have forfeited them;" this applies to the Terrorists who are fair game , as it were- blowing your previous arguments that"extra judicial" attacks against kamikaze bombers is unjust."

I'd say Locke has been superceded, extrajudicial assassinations are not considered legitament under modern international law. I was merely demonstrating that not only are your arguments regarding the land and collective punishment (you insist on refering to all Arabs) incompatible with modern thought, they have never been a tennet of western liberal thought at all (which is not to say that the west has always behaved in accordance with those principles), hence my rejection of the "only democracy in the region" argument.

"the survival of the Jewish people cannot be comprimised for fear of offending the nations."

Swap the word Jewish for Palestinian and you have the recipie for endless conflict.

237. Sunil   
Mar 18 2003 14:21
 

Amram:

Well, sorry but the facts are that the Arab states allowed most Jews resident therein to be airlifted upon agreeing to relinquish all rights to their property. Call it blackmail if you must. But two wrongs don't make a right.

Whatever be the nature of Palestinian Arabs' antipthy towards Israel after having been displaced and betrayed by various leaders, the fact is that they form a distinct ethnic grouping and to deny that, as you choose to do, is unjustifable.

Israel has punished Syria, Egypt and Jordan for waging wars by defeating them wholesale against all odds. Fine. Israel is fighting Palestinian terrorist groups the only way it knows how to. Fine. But to deny Palestinian people their homeland simply because Israel covets historic Judea and Samaria for whatever reasons is quite simply ethnic cleansing.

238. amram   
Mar 18 2003 20:59
 

Sunil

the Arabs did not "allow" airlifts of their Jewish citizens they expelled- Iraq for example only allowed flights to cyprus at first. Later the planes flew directly to Israel because the sheer weight of numbers menat that cypurs wasn't an optiion. The Jews in Syria, Egypt, Morrocco had to flee by various means- including ships, and the Yemeni Jews were evacuated at night in secret by Israel. This does not alter the fact that the Arab governmnents (even the Iraqi government that gave the Jews one way passports) plundered all the Jewish property and wealth- much like the nazis did. The Arab governmnets obtained more Jewish land than the size of all israel today. These Jews rich culture and civilisation (something one cannot say of the genocide bombing death culture "palestinans") was destroyed. These Jews never once engaged in any activities against the countries where they had resided since before Islam was born (and later spread by the sword).

There are no people as "palestinians"- this is simply false. However, if you wish to create an indepedendent 23rd Arab terror state- then there must be independent Jewish States, in Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and Iran. Israel must be given a share of the oil revenues of the past 60 years of these states. OR we could recognise that the Arab agressors will not be rewarded with a state, that Israel will own all of Judea and Samria (the Jewish claim here is just as strong if not stronger than the Arab claim to these territories) and the hostile Arab civillians will be transferred to brother Araby- possible to Palestine itslef- Jordan and then maybe Justice will be served.

Israel has the right to self defence and does not by any just law have to comnmit suicide to please anyone. The formation of a 23rd arab state will be just that - suicide- we can see this from the results of Oslo that has brought more destruction and murder of Israelis than ever before.

Today, there is the way of the fascists- who bomb mombassa, bali, New York and Haifa and there is the way of the Free World- that will cease to appease . Terrorism must be fought, not justified, apologised for and compromised with. The vile culture of Hate that is espoused by the PLO should be renounced by all just people of whatever, race religion or background.

239. Sunil   
Mar 20 2003 00:03
 

Amram:

I have no interest in carrying on this discussion if all it does is give you and others a platform to air sick, racist views and attempts to justify ethnic cleansing on the most dubious of grounds.

The End.

240. amram   
Mar 20 2003 06:46
 

It is indeed sick and racist to believe that the Jewish people must commit suicide an hand over large chunks of their homeland to terrorists whose goal is the destruction of the people and state of Israel. It is most racist indeed to apply a double standard- one that allows the US, Britain, Europe etc to fight wars thousands of miles away from their shores in the interest of their security but to tie the hands of Israel and tell her not to respond or not to respond disproportionately when facing existensional attacks within her cities and on her borders. It is racist of you sunil to suggest that the Jewish people kicked out of Arab lands did so out of choice!

It is not sick to believe in equality and to believe in the unalienable right of the people of Israel to live in peace in their own land. Go read a book or two and maybe when you are educated enough you will stop apologising for Arafat and his henchmen!

241. amram   
Mar 20 2003 08:14
 

I re commend that read this sunil, seb et al

242. tom t   
Mar 20 2003 11:54
 

*Yawn*

come on guys - there's an unjust, immoral, un called for war going on NOW! come and protest! beit quad, 2pm, Houghton st 4pm, Traf Sq., 6pm

See you there amram

243. rter   
Mar 20 2003 14:06
 

is it un called for or UN called for?

you have no idea what morality means.

244. tom t   
Mar 21 2003 11:41
 

Hi rter,

according to me:

Morality is a personal or social set of standards for good or bad behaviour and character, or the quality of being right, honest or acceptable.

would you find this an acceptable definition? I think a war of aggression is immoral.

Now, why don't you reply with your real name, instead of hiding your inane opinions behind a pseudonym? can you define coward?

PS - the war was not authorised by a 2nd UN resolution. - hence uncalled for.

245. rter   
Mar 21 2003 14:24
 

the reason i wont use my real name is because im scared of you. ok so Im a coward. Id rather have my life thankyou very much.

by the way, which dictionary did you get that out of?

1) 1441 authorises war

2) if a war is morally justified, that remains true whether the UN agrees or not

3) the UN has no moral authority when China and Syria sit on the security council

lastly, I saw your pathetic attempt at a demo yesterday, with 10,000 imperial students, you could only muster 30?

246. amram   
Mar 21 2003 21:26
 

Of course the war is moral. we are fighting an arab dictator who murders his own people by the thousands, sent scuds on kuwait today (you know the weapons he does not have and is not allowed to have)., has sent scuds on Israel and Saudi in the past, has murdered thousands of kurds and marsh arabs. At the end of Gulf War 1- a war he initiated by invading kuwait- he was given 15 days to disarm, 12 years later he hasn't. He has built up his weapons. The war is thus totally legal as he has broken his ceasefire.

The UN, an organisation that allows such "democratic" countries such as Syria and China onthe security council, has been exposed for the joke that it is.

rther I wouldn't really bother trying to argue with an appeaser like tom,the truth said above is obvious what isn't stated by people like him is the TRUE objection to war. It is simply antisemitism. they hate israel and the jews- and thus love the arabs and their fascist regimes. They see moves that will begin to overthrow such fascist regimes as a victory for israel and thus are willing to appease them (much like Europe did with the Nazis) at the cost of their own safety. Also, some of these people are against the war because they hate America, they cling to a far left idealogy that was proved to be a complete and utter failure when the USSR collapsed. They see the American success as a threat . They benefit from the fruits of freedom and the free market but covet its destruction.

That tried and failed organisation- CND- has been most vociferous amongst the new communists. However i wouldn't worry too much- as just as their pathetic ideas- whether nazism, communism or pan Arabism failed so too will the anti- war anti-civilisation movements in europe. their ideas wil be flushed down the toilet of history and their idiocy exposed.Indeed tom himself may not actuallty realise that the Bennite /CND crypto communists are supporting saddam for such reasons- he probably isn't that bright- but it is clear what the pro- saddam movement really stands for. Finally- as I am now enjoying watching the Iraqi soldiers surrender on Fox I see with it the exposing of the idiocy of Blair and the wickedness of Short.

And as to names, well I suppose it is brave to put your name on a forum(!) cos now i know that you really are a bit of a tit!

Mar 23 2003 04:46
 

As you are no doubt aware, the mainstream media is by no means neutral in the way it reports the war. The anti-war effort is clearly being talked down. We keep being told that, since the war is now underway, we should be 'patriotic' and stop opposing the government's position. I don't buy this blackmail!*

You may find the following links useful to get a more accurate approximation of reality as it unfolds...

http://www.antiwar.com (the hidden headlines...)

http://www.islam-online.net/english/index.shtml (a glimpse of the other side & among it some Al-Jazeera reports in English)

I can't see why our position should change now the war is underway. It doesn't make it any more justified. In fact, it means the need to show our outrage is stronger than ever!

In Spain, this is already proving effective. The anti-war movement has paralysed the country and Aznar appears increasingly weak.

As Spain is showing, by demonstrating in even greater numbers, we can continue to isolate the US and the UK on the world stage -to the point of making their position untenable. THIS WAR IS STOPPABLE!

At the moment, we're being presented with the picture of an effortless American advance into Iraq. But so far, US & UK troops haven't even entered the large urban centres -where the real resistance will lie.

It's only natural that they haven't encountered resistance: they've largely been advancing through uninhabited desert!

As they near Basra, they seem to be getting cold feet; choosing instead to 'capture strategic locations' around the city. They're just lying there!

No matter how sophisticated their armoury, there is an irreducible reality to street fighting: civilians! They can't use their bombs here (or risk tens of thousands of civilian casualties, causing even greater outrage worldwide). It all boils down to the rifle -which places them at the same level as that of the Iraquis -except that Iraquis have a better knowledge of the terrain, and may resort to guerilla tacticts -masquerading as civilians (bring on another Vietnam...!).

The truth is that street fighting will mean a significant and undeniable number of British and American casualties. My feeling is that the mood will swing firmly against the war once these reports start coming through, along with those of thousands of civilian deaths... (not to mention the 'war within a war' which may explode in Northern Iraq between the Turks and the Kurds). The world is not at the same point as it was a decade ago (even if the Bush administration is): attitudes towards casualties as an 'acceptable cost' of war have become more sensitive -especially if the war has mixed support at home (ie. those who die, do not die unqualified 'heroes'); which is why it is so important for opposition to continue to be heard and felt (and not to blindly coalesce around the government's stance)!

THIS WAR IS STOPPABLE!

At another level, this war is about unthinking physical aggression ('shock & awe') set against reason (diplomacy and peace). We all know that it is ideas and the realm of thinking that hold transformatory power in this world, over and above the physical and instinctive. By simply influencing the way this conflict is thought about, we can shape its course and outcome. If we do not lose sight of this, there is every chance that reason will prevail.

One last thing: I urge you to order 'stop the war' circular STICKERS (cf. their website: http://www.stopwar.org.uk/resources.asp ), by calling 020 7053 2155/6. At ?5 for 100, they're not expensive. Get some and stick them everywhere! There will undoubtedly be another demonstration, once the 'real war' starts to become apparent... We have to show our continued resolve in condemning the war and make sure people are aware of this sustained sentiment, thus helping to ensure an even larger turnout next time. Our voices will not be ignored.

Peace,

George

*Equally (I maybe a little extreme in this), I don't sympathise with the call to 'support our boys'. It's so 19th century. These individuals clearly put themselves in the position where their life could be at risk (by joining the military!). It's nothing more than an occupational hazard, which they chose to be subject to -even if it is reasonable to recognise that they are also victims in this respect (that is another story).

Mar 23 2003 05:01
 

PS. In reply to AMRAM, it may well be moral to rid a country of a tyrannical dictator. But the crucial point here is that morality is not the motivation for this war. Have you considered America's wholehearted support for Uzbekistan's dictator? Wake up!

This is unrestrained neo-imperialism -a dangerous precedent for the 21st century (a regime needs to be consistent with America's interests, in order to survive). What happened to self-determination?

Don't worry, the ugliness of this war will become more and more apparent as it progresses...

249. amram   
Mar 23 2003 12:49
 

To George,

You well may get away with your neo-communist/fascist rant at UCL but at IC we can see through some of your propaganda nonsense.

let's begin:

the spanish antiwar movement has paralysed the country- has it really? what are the siestas geting longer?

You give us a link to Al jazeera in english- it is a pity that you don't tell us what it says in Arabic eh?

I watch al jazeera all the time and see the anti semitic, anti chrtistian, anti "infidel" hate, and terrorist apologism that spews from such a "news" channel everyday.It is the voice of Alqaeda and hamas, the supporter of the Genocide bombers.

Just because there is a dictator somewhere else that isn't being dealt with doesn't make it any more moral to allow the Iraqi dictator to continue to murder his own people. Your belief holds no water. It is to say that, my arm is broken and my kidneys are dying, but I won't have my kidney transplant because the hospital isn't fixing my arm too!!

You wish to condemn the World to more terrorism- supported, funded and trained by saddam. You wish to condemn the Iraqi people- you know the ones who are now cheering the US troopps in Safwan, Um Qasr, Basra etc as we speak, to more years of oppression- you are the immoral one not the freedom loving nations. US- imperialism- you repeat like the marxist sheep that you are- why don't you think about the stupidity of your comment before making it eh? If the USA with all its military might, wealth and success wanted an empire- it could take all of the Middle East, it could take half of Europe, it certainly wouldn't have to wait for 12 years to attack a little Backward Arab dictatorship. It is precisely because it followed the route of the soon to be extinct UN- that nothing has happened until now. America has no interests in an Empire- most Americans couldn't care less about the rest of the world. They would be happy to lead an "isolationist" existence. However once the planes hit the towers and they realised that their own security was under threat from the Arabs they woke up and are defending themselves.Who are the imperialists of today?

The Saudis who spend their petrol billions building mosques and centres around the world to promite their vile Wahabi extremist ideaology. Who support Islamic terrorist groups in Bosnia, the Phillipines, Central Africa and Israel and who seek to stir the milions of muslims in europe against their own governmnets??

Which is the country where 15 of the 18 hijackers came from? where a man is imprioned for drinking a glass of wine, where women are treated as fourth clss citizens,where all other religions are banned by law eh?

Why don't you protest aginst the Arab dictatorships- or maybe it is they who are helping to fubnd these demonstrstions? How much money did Saddam give you guys in the rally last month? Who paid for all the coaches, the stickers, the banners , the sound systems? Was it all from the layabout, unemployed "anti capitalist/anti civilisation" mob?

As to another Vietnam- while it is clear(from your hatred and jealousy of the USA) that you would like this to happen this is not going to. Iraq will fall fairly soon and casualties will be a minimum. When the Arab armies begin to loose they flee - this is a fact!

250. Nia   
Mar 23 2003 15:24
 

What's the difference in REAL terms between being imprisoned for drinking a glass of wine and being imprisoned for snorting cocaine?

Less that 100 years ago women could not vote in the UK. Moreover the majority of women did not support those who were campaigning for sufferage. Change only occured when the majority of women decided that actually the vote would be quite a nice thing.

Change can only come from inside.

ps: I do occasionally wonder if Amram is actually writing a very clever, perceptive and witty anti-war message.

251. amram   
Mar 23 2003 18:06
 

Nia

are you saying that the Iraqi people should suffer for a hundred years more ?The Arabs are not progressing rather they are moving further backwards. For example the widespread moves towards Islamism are a hearkening back to the period 1400-1300 years ago when Islam was initially spread by the sword. the islamists in fact forget the only real period of Arab/Islamic civilisation and progress- namely during the sultante period of the early middle ages. They evoke imagery of Mohammed's own battles gainst various tribes (Arafat for example compares his false peace wih Israel to the 40 years treaty tha Mohammed signed with the kureish tribe until he was strong enough to wipe them out!)

Essentially, the Arabs have been independent for 80 years-Iraq for example was granted independecne in 1921- and have not progressed one iota in the fields of science, literacy, medicine and prosperity. Rather they have declined. They have waged tens and tens of wars killing millions of people. They have imvemted terrorism and blackmailed the world throught its use as well as the use of their oil. As I said to Seb, what the Saudis forget, is that while the west needs oil- they need the west for everything else! The Saudis don't produce anything. All their food is imported. All their doctors are foreign, all their medicines are foreign, all their engineers are foreign. Indeed the foreigners make up more of the population than the citizens. There are almost as many Filipino and Thai servants/slaves as there are citizens in the Gulf states.

As an Israeli, I couldn't care less if the Arabs remained primitive so long as their actions are not aggressive. Unfortunatley, the culture of terrorism has spread. The Arabs hatred for the Western world is a serious threat. The Arabs hatred, is no longer focussed on little Israel (although that racist hatred is very much alive)it is focuseed on Europe and America. There were no Israelis in Bali. The twin towers are not in Rishon Lezion. The Ricin plotters were planning to attack London and Paris(which proves that French appeasment , as usual didn't work).

The war in Iraq is just as the regime poses a threat to the free world. The people of Iraq will benefit. The world will benefit. The only loosers will be Saddam and other fascist Arab regimes from Syria to Saudi whose days are numbered.

252. ...   
Mar 23 2003 18:10
 

No, she was being ironic you moron.

253. rter   
Mar 23 2003 20:34
 

btw tom, I thought of an alternative chant to the one you had the other day. it goes,

"what do we want?"

"Lobotomies!"

"When do we want them?"

"Now!"

254. tom t   
Mar 25 2003 15:38
 

for rter, the witty chap in the corner:

1441 doesn't authorise war, it only sanctions force if Saddam refuses to disarm. However, no WMD were found to disarm, so Bush/Blair just went for 'regime change'. Funny how they withdrew the 2nd resolution...

How can you be so openly racist on the thread?!? quote: '3) the UN has no moral authority when China and Syria sit on the security council

' - is this another reason why you're scared to reveal your name??!! do you really think a bunch of peaceniks would come and beat you up?! or is this just the conditioning you get from your 'school'?

Finally, good suggestion for a chant! undoubtedly your grasp of issues surrounding the psychological welfare of 'combatants' is second to none. Shame you're not training to be a doctor.

255. rter   
Mar 25 2003 16:44
 

I was talking about China and Syria in their current states, where the leaders don't represent the people in any way shape or form. You are a racist for wanting to preserve those dictatorships (and Saddams) and not allowing those people to be free. tom youre such a genius, I bow to your superior knowledge and intelligence.

256. tom t   
Mar 25 2003 17:47
 

sorry but I just have to respond to this one!!!

'...in their current states, where the leaders don't represent the people in any way shape or form.'

hmm, what proportion of teh US voted for Bush? similarly for Blair? wasn't our Tony very keen on proportional representation reform... until he won the election? Last poll I saw, most of the UK was against war. Some representation!! Keep it up arthur

257. rter   
Mar 25 2003 19:22
 

er, ok. So why dont you go and live in Syria then? if you think that you'll have more of a voice then go live there.

Actually most people in this country (and in the US) are supporting this war. But that is not the point; the job of governments is not to have a referendum on every issue of the day. It is to make the best decisions (sometimes unpopular ones) based on the information that we may not be privy to.

You are so arrogant to believe that you know better even tho you havnt seen the intelligence reports that have presumably scared tony s**tless.

258. tom t   
Mar 25 2003 19:59
 

"Actually most people in this country (and in the US) are supporting this war. But that is not the point;"

No, and it's not even the truth!

"You are so arrogant to believe that you know better even tho you havnt seen the intelligence reports that have presumably scared tony s**tless."

Nowhere have I explicitly stated that I believe I know better. I just maintain healthy cynicism when the rest of the 'threaders' just start slagging you off! The funny thing is, haven't France and Germany and China and Russia and Syria &c also got this sh|t scary intelligence? Or are you referring to the PhD thesis written in the 70s that Tony published as 'up-to-date' intelligence?? Frankly arthur, I know that you'll reply with a couple of insults thrown for good measure, but could you actually come up with some decent points, please? I'm afraid that responses such as "er, ok. So why dont you go and live in Syria then?" hardly convince even the most immoderate, right-wing thinkers at IC! So I'm still waiting for an argument to convince me that the representation I require from government exists here and in the US - or do you now subscribe to argument #2* that the government should take decisions, regardless what the people think!

*I quote again: "But that is not the point; the job of governments is not to have a referendum on every issue of the day. It is to make the best decisions (sometimes unpopular ones) based on the information that we may not be privy to."

259. rter   
Mar 25 2003 21:54
 

stop calling me arthur. its rter.

even the guardian report that support for the war has surged.

anyway as I said it not that important, public opinion rises and falls, I dont believe that you should make decisions about war based on fickle public opinion. If you dont like it, vote them out at the next election.

Maybe Russia and China have the intelligence, but they dont really have much to lose by opposing the war do they? in fact Russia and France have a lot to gain, as they are owed loads of cash by Saddam, and all the contracts they have signed with him will have to be torn up.

As for other countries like Syria, I doubt whether they have seen the intelligence.

coming back to my original point about Syria and China, are you really saying their votes have any MORAL authority, compared with the US or UK?

260. amram   
Mar 26 2003 00:03
 

rter, as I said before don't waste your time on a terrorist apologiser like that tit fellow.

Syria, is a repressive dictatorship whose Baathist regime is just about as close as one gets to Fascism today- with the possible exception of the Baathist regime in Iraq. In one day alone, the Syrian army murdered 20,000 civillians in the city of Hama in order to put down a "revolt" that the regime thought was a threat. Syria, is in part responsible for the ethnic cleansing of a qurter of a million native christian lebanese from their homeland. Today lebanon is still illegally occupied by syria- and their 30,000 or so troops. The Syrians and the occupied territories of lebanon are the number one exporters of heroin in the world. The Syrian, governmnet continues to fund Hizbollah and the Hams terrorist organisation whose murderous attacks are planned directly in damascus-the terror capital of the world. But of course tom the tit thinks that Syria is comparable to England- at least the Syrians don't have such tits!

As to China, that tit man thinks is SO fre all I need say is the three t's 1. tiannaman,2.Tibet and 3. Taiwan.

oh by the way tit boy the US and theUK didn't forget the 2nd resolution it was the 18th resolution.

The UN has been exposed for the joke that it is. Saddam will fall and so will all his supporters. As to the socialists/crypto communists- well why should we listen to people whose ideas have been proved complete failures time and time again!

261. tom t   
Mar 26 2003 11:59
 

amram: why don't we meet up for coffee one time? I'd really like to meet you and find out if you're as unpleasant in real life as you are on this thread!

Let me know!

tom

Arthur, in a word: yes. I think China and Syria have just as important a role in the UN as our leader and his british poodle. That's why it's called the UN, not the US. After all, who'll be paying to clear up this bloody mess? The US with their sinking economy and massive national debt?!

262. The Face   
Mar 26 2003 15:24
 

Tom has been very good at not sinking to the level of sticking insults in. But Tom, I'm sure rter isn't short for arthur. Its more than likely short for ritter, as in my heads up my......

The UN is supposed to be a union of many nations, not just the ones that the west think are important. Everyone is entitled to their opinon after all. That is the point of democracy and if anyone wishes to impress that on anyone else, then the way to do that is by example surely, not by force. I find it slightly ironic that during the vietnam war, the reason for war was often quoted as to stop the spread of communism. Now a little further down the line, the US are promoting the "spread of democracy." Just an observation.

Look guys, we live (supposedly) in a democracy. That means Tom is entitled to his opinion and you are entitled to yours. Make no mistake, the anti-war guys probably don't want to see evil dictators stay in power any more than you do. Perhaps they seek a different path to the same outcome though. And just as we shouldn't listen to the anti-war people as Blair is far more informed to make a decison than the anti-war people, by the same argument we should listen to the pro-war people either! If you don't like someone else's opinon, you don't have to listen to it or believe it. A free world, after all that's what the coalition forces are apparently fighting for, is it not?

263. rter   
Mar 26 2003 21:10
 

I asked you whether you thought their votes has equal moral validity. If you think so then I really think there is nothing left to say.

as for the face, Ive never heard of that expression. but if you really must know, my name is actually rter. that is what is on my birth cetificate.

may the good lord bring freedom to the people of Iraq, Iran, Syria, China, N Korea. But failing that bring on the US army!

264. amram   
Mar 26 2003 21:41
 

to tom

I drink tea.

to "the Face" the whole point of this discussion forum is to debate that's what we're doing. It allows the anti-war people like tom to say ridiculous thing and allows me to tear it to pieces- very demnocratic!

As to rter- perhaps his name is like "writer" duh!

But seriously, tomboy you cannot claim that the UN is democratic when the Nations supporting Saddam are undemocratic. In my eyes the British, US or Israeli governments (and yes even the French) have legitimacy in voting at theUN since they are democratically elected representatives of their nations. The Syrian, Libyan Iraqi (or any other Arab governmnets ) as well as the Chinese are not.

Ultimately the most important factors must be justice for the people of the fre world and the people of Iraq ie a right to live in a world free from terrorists and their regimes. The war in Iraq will indeed bring about the formation of much less opression and more freedom. It will bring to an end the threat posed to the free world by Saddam's regime, a regime that has lkinks to Hamas and Alqaeda amongst its other crimes. Whosoever is against the war is thus supporting the continuation of Saddam's repression and his threat.

By the way Face man- while Vietnam was executed in an appallingly inocnsistent way that made it a huge c**k up- the goal of the removal of the evil communsit regime was indeed noble. However the Arabs are not the Vietnamese b any strecth of the imagination, there is no USSR today, and 50 % of the Iraqi landmass is already in allied hands- this is no vietnam.

265. Seb   
Mar 27 2003 00:20
 

Yes, the UN allows in nasty regimes.

It's easy to understand why though. The UN, like the LoN before it, isn't supposed to be a global democracy. It's supposed to be a forum of the geopolitical powers with the ultimate purpose of preventing war.

It's a product of the 20th century, in which the major units of geopolitical powers were states. The way to prevent war therefore, was to set up a unit that arbritrated differences between states. If it left out or excluded states, it wouldn't work.

But it never really worked in the way it was intended. The cold war ballance of power and threat of mutualy assured destruction was what prevented another world war, the UN never had a chance to grow into the role of an arbiter as the power blocks were always going to disagree.

Instead, the UN seems to have developed into a sort of Human Rights lobby group with some power. Hence the apparant absurdity of having grotesque human rights abusers siting on committees supposed to be confronting such states.

Is "democracy" (with regard to giving each state a say) a worthwhile ideal on these issues? Afterall, you can't be a convicted criminal and stand for Parliament.

Perhaps these roles need to be divided, in which case "humanitarian intervention" should be sanctioned by some sort of international court for which there are requirements of membership, whereas colective defence should remain with the security council.

It's not going to solve the basic problem though: Unless you have the ability to enforce your judgement, then the judgement is useless.

266. tom t   
Mar 27 2003 10:37
 

Thank you seb for a very illuminating discourse on the state of the UN. Seemingly useless in the face of modern superpower terror, but still a role to play, i believe, especially in terms of arbitrating and mediating global relations/responses to one another.

Amram: "Ultimately the most important factors must be justice for the people of the fre world and the people of Iraq ie a right to live in a world free from terrorists and their regimes." Terrorists, until recently, did not have regimes - it is just the new word for people we sold weapons to/trained in camps when we liked them, but now we don't like them we call them terrorists. Originally terrorists had very little to do with their home states. Secondly, I agree with the sentiment that we have the right to live without terror, but for that to happen, we'll have to ask the US to stop funding it in Ireland, Chechnya, Columbia, Paraguay, Venezuela, Israel, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan etc etc. This is the reason why I am opposed to war of aggression: There are many oppressive regimes around the world, singling out one for sustained military bombardment will not help reduce the risk posed by fractious 'terrorist groups'. Instead it will harden their resolve to fight back. Dubya should be careful with the can of worms he has opened - it is no longer the West that is resented for its economic strength and abuse of poorer people, it is the US and the UK who single themselves out retribution, if it happens. Saddam is an evil man, and a great friend of Margaret Thatcher. I don't support him, but I'd rather live under a cunning, intelligent man with no WMD than a total moron with more nuclear warheads than anyone else and a point to prove.

267. The Face   
Mar 27 2003 10:56
 

Amram, well done. You realised what the point of a discussion forum is. But the need for calling people things like "tom the tit" is not part of a discussion forum and only adds an air of contempt to any threads you wish to throw into the debate. Where as Tom didn't sink to that level, I did because I saw something coincidentally funny (the term ritter is a part of the anatomy that swells out of the back of one's trousers, or what most people on this forum talk through.)

Its not so much another vietnam I was pondering, more the general American foreign policy. "Stop the spread of communism" because it was a "security" risk to the nation. "Promote the spread of democracy" because Iraq is a "threat" to the security of the nation. Its not quite the same but you could be forgiven for thinking one coin - two sides. However before you start with pro-war pro-yank stuff again, perhaps you should read http://www.newamericancentury.org and check out the statement of principles. Interesting stuff???? Its almost like watching someone form the next set of crusades!

268. The Face   
Mar 27 2003 10:58
 

Oh, sorry, and check out the names of the signatories on the statement of principles too.

Mar 27 2003 12:18
 

Wow, just read that PNAC thing - creepy.

Hmmmm, so perhaps getting George Jr. into the White House was a little bit more than just a family thing for Jeb Bush - perhaps by getting their man in there they knew PNAC would gain more support from the Bush Administration.

Not that I am stupid enough to believe that 'democracies' are truly democratic, but this stinks to high heaven....America wants an empire (to 'lead' the world). Mind you, look what happens to empires in the end :-)

270. the face   
Mar 27 2003 19:16
 

I am the face of pure evil

271. Seb   
Mar 28 2003 13:46
 

Tom T:

Much as I like the idea of a universal arbiter to prevent war, the UN has never worked as an institution to provide collective security in it's own right. It's not a matter of modern superpower terror, it's just the simple fact that we can never have a "known, indifferent judge". Either the UN will be split into opposing groups, as during the cold war, or it will be dominated by the most powerful nations. Whether the UN is able to constrain those powerful nations depends on who is opposing those powerful nations and whether they themselves are powerful enough to do so. Hence Russia in the 70's blocking UN backing for the Suez war and threatening to bomb cities got America to restrain Britain and France, but France is utterly incapeable, even with Germany, China and Russia in tow, to realisitcaly exert enough pressure to prevent America from invading Iraq.

Collective security is only ever going to be provided by military alliances as there is no other global executive power. With no executive, it really doesn't matter if there is a legislature. What is more, unless we have a single global government (which will prevent war but will probably be the worst blow for individual liberty that has ever been struck), there is no way to have a separation of powers on an international level.

The UN, in it's current form at least, is only ever going to work as a legitimiacy factory for those occasions when the world agrees that action does need to be taken, which basicaly makes it useful only in humanitarian interventions, provided that the military powers wish to involve themselves (Rwanda being an example of when they didn't).

Other than that, it's just a global talking shop, which has some use, but not enough to prevent war sadly. I'm begining to wonder whether it's detrimental as it seems to be a way of shifting moral judgements to a higher instiution rather than individuals making them. That's not to say that it's necesarily imoral to oppose the war on Iraq, but I know a few people that seemt to treat the UN as some sort of deity that hands down moral judgements and confers moral legitmacy today in much the way that the Pope confered moral legitimacy to wars in the dark ages, and it's about as true to the sentiment of international law as the Pope's of the dark ages were to the sentiments of the Bible. So much for a new milenium of peace. How long did it last, a little under two years?

Mar 28 2003 16:29
 

that NPAC stuff is nowhere near as scary as this piece, Playing Skittles with Sadaam from the Guardian!!

Mar 28 2003 16:43
 

did anyone see Yasmin Alibhi brown get a pasting on question time last night??? it really was quite hilarious. that woman is evil.

274. amram   
Mar 28 2003 17:01
 

Seb the Suez War happened in 1956!

It is funny thought you mention it as we could learn from it today. In 1956 - Nasser- the egyptian dictator and tyrant (much like his disciples Arafat and Saddam). Decided to nationalise the canal-ie to limit the crossing of international shipping and to stop any ship geting to Israel in order to block her enough economically to make her weak enough to succumb to a second "final solution" Arab style.

The Israeli army fought valiantly, losing many beloved sons in Sinai but managed to defeat Nasser and humiliate the bloodthirsty Arabs again!

The British and Frnch then interfered (although with the tacit approval of Israel)forcing Israel o withdraw. They then fought the- already beleaguered Arab army again and won- not really a victory as it had been the Israeli soldiers who had done all the real fighting and had paid with many of their lives. Unfortunately, the USSR- the evil empire got involved on behalf of their Arab client and fored the British to withdraw. Nasser eventually got his way. This allowed him to think that agression against Israel is always sanctioned by the Antisemitic world powers and did lead him to initiate the 1967 war of agression...

If we allow Arab dictators to go unchecked, to flout internatioonal law, to constantly threaten genocide against the Israeli people things for Britain and the West. If Saddam is defeated but then the Arabs are appeased again in Israeli currency- then the war will have been pointless. The war must send a message that ALL the repressive Arab regimes are a threat we are ready to deal with. It must say that all those who engage in terrorism must not be immune and it should signal an end to the muslim/tyrannical/rogue state dominated UN.

Oh and to Tom- I rather liked the link you posted- pray tell what specifically bothered your littled head??

275. tom t   
Mar 28 2003 18:19
 

Seb:

I agree entirely with the points you have made. I also agree that the UN can not be seen as some moral deity that hands down judgement - I certainly don't take everything they decree as morally acceptable! However, I am glad that such an organisation at least exists to try to moderate the powers and wills of various nations. Surely the vast economic strength of the US economy/military can only be undermined when they begin to pay a realistic price for energy - the one commodity that they use that costs significantly more elsewhere in the world, and is right at the heart of their current economy. I don't think that the rest of the world should accept the behaviour of the US with respect to energy policy - by maintaining low oil price to consumers, the US manages to undercut all other producers making international trade tilt in their favour. If americans had to pay what we do for energy, salaries would have to rise accordingly. If prices in shops reflected the increased costs of transport, heating, packaging etc etc, salaries would have to rise again! Higher energy prices would be felt at every level of the economy, and the current national debt would be utterly unsustainable. As all this energy is used, with the associated environmental problems etc, the Bush line is to ignore Kyoto and sabotage Johannesburg, whilst other countries are prepared to invest in alternatives and clean up the mess. Is there any reason why we should accept this?? An energy surcharge on all imported american goods would help to redress this balance somewhat - helping to end the unfair advantage that cheaper production and transport has for american goods, and the fact we're paying for their pollution too. Bringing America onto the same level as us would be in our long-term interests, serving to divert spurious wealth from the american military and encourage the sustainable use of resources, both actions reducing the causes of war, IMHO. The developing world would benefit too - at the moment their advantages are cheaper economies and lower cost goods, both undermined by subsidies within the american economy (for example, look at agribusiness). Should we submit to these bullies, who profess indifference to world opinion and pursue a blinkered view of purely national interest? I don't think so, and what role can the UN play in levelling the playing field for the future? If you have any ideas, post them!

Amram: I didn't post a link. Is this another manifestation of your fertile imagination? btw, you obviously haven't been in this country very long - inviting someone for a 'coffee' does not preclude the invitee from drinking tea, water, petrol or any other drink he wants. It is a figure of speech to indicate an informal meeting. SO, are you up for it? You still can't resist insulting me all the time, and I have never met anyone (who wasn't suffering from tourette's) like this. It would be very interesting for me!

276. amram   
Mar 29 2003 00:58
 

To tom,

apologies- it was "the face" who posted the link.

I was in somewhat of a hurry.

As to tea/ coffee/hot cross buns I accept the point about the turn of phrase but it is rather too American for my liking- how ironic!

As to having been in the country long- well I have been here all my life...

As to your kind offer I must graciously decline( at least for now) as 1. I am a mere student who must revise/read lecture notes for the first time and 2. That would destroy my anonymity- I mean come on have you not figured out who I am impersonating by now- my email adress would be a giveaway- top marks to seb if he gets it right...

Mar 29 2003 01:30
 

check out this cool link

Mar 30 2003 13:24
 

Buses and trains are rubbish. If we want to get Britain moving we need more cars. CARS I tell you - its the way forward.

Mar 30 2003 14:03
 

yes and we need more roads and wider roads too. did you notice how the GLA is narrowing rads all over london with new traffic islands. This coupled with the greater number of red lights, the kengestion tax and the pathetic tube system means that this city is grinding to a halt!

280. ...   
Mar 30 2003 14:59
 

What the hell has any of this got to do with ICUs clubs and societies policy?

Mar 30 2003 15:25
 

It has everything to do with it. Terrorist supporters like sjp are taking vital funds away from road improvments around the country. Do you know that Abu Hamza has received ?100,000 in benefits since he has been here? and for what? to organise attacks against us real Brits? We need more money so that mothers can drive their kids to school in even bigger 4x4's.

282. ...   
Mar 30 2003 15:33
 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

AT LAST! Someone with a sense of irony!(At least I hope you are taking the p1ss, but having read some of the posts before yours I do sometimes wonder)

Makes a change from all the boring posts on this subject we have had to date.

Mar 30 2003 16:45
 

no, Im being deadly serious!

this drive by the lefties to get people out of their cars is a disaster! For one thing bus fumes are being pumped out at ever increasing rates, covering my car in disgusting filth. And as for the cyclists, they are a public hazard, especially the ones with baskets on the front, think what that could do if your head hit it. its truly outrageous. What is the point of buses? they dont go from your doorstep and they dont take you where you want to go and more importantly they slow down the people who really understand that if you want to get from A to B you need to use a CAR - I mean, are these people thick?

284. 4 jags   
Mar 31 2003 11:07
 

not as thick as you...

285. Seb   
Mar 31 2003 15:12
 

amram:

"Decided to nationalise the canal-ie to limit the crossing of international shipping and to stop any ship geting to Israel in order to block her enough economically to make her weak enough to succumb to a second "final solution""

Actually, the nationalisation of the canal was a direct result of the decision by America and Britain to refuse to fund the Aswan Dam due to Nassers cosying up to the Soviets. Nasser natinalised the canal in order to raise funds for the construction of the dam. It's interesting we should raise Israel's roll in this, given it's collusion with France and Britain to provide a pretext for recapturing the canal. As you may remember, the Suez adventure ended in disaster, and Nasser got to keep the canal. Israel still seems to be here, so it seems somewhat unlikely that nationalisation of the canal was intended to strangle Israel rather than provided a quick and easy solution to Nassers cash flow problems.

"The British and Frnch then interfered (although with the tacit approval of Israel)"

Excuse me, but the British, French and Israeli governments had stitched up a deal well in advanced, and this is a matter of public record following the collpase of the Eden Government.

286. amram   
Mar 31 2003 15:41
 

To Seb,

It is indeed a fact that Nasser eventually got his way after his agression. This unchecked agression lead to his belief that he could finish Israel off and lead to his blockade of the striats of tiran in 1967 and the Arab war of agression of that year. It also set a precedent that was in the minds of the Syrians and the Egyptians when they attacked Israel again on Yom kippur 1973.

As to Nasser's agression in 1956 being only a financial consideration- this obviously ignores the denial of Israeli shipping to cross the Canal under any circumstances. It also ignores other acts of belligerncy including the unification of the Syrian and Egyptian armies.

The lesson of Suez is that if you allow an Arab dictator's agression to go unchecked this will only strengthen his resolve and lead to worse conflict in the future. It teaches us that, if Britain were to flee from Iraq today ala Robin Cook- the future problems would be much greater. The only way to deal with Arab/Islamo fascism is to defeat it. There can be no negotiation with the Nazis of our times. Indeed Baathism is the singly most similar idealogy to nazism(including its rabid antisemitism)that exist today. It is arguably closer to Nazism than was Mussolini's fascism. The same rule must be applied to the other heirs of the third reich- namely the PLO whose defeat must be like that of Saddam's which is why no cosmetic changes (such as the appointment of holocaust deniers as "prime minister")wil work.

287. Seb   
Mar 31 2003 15:43
 

Tom T:

I don't belive the UN will ever be able to restrain global powers. What I'm trying to say is that the only power to enforce the UN are the very people you would be trying to restrain. The only way to restrain a super power is to have sets of global powers pointing guns at each other.

As for American engery policy I'd say two things.

Fristly, America's energy policy (drafted by Cheney under this administration) doesn't fit in with the current foreign policy. The volatility in price of middle eastern oil is damaging to the US economy. Cheney's vision is for increased domestic produciton, greater efficiency, more reliance on nuclear power and a shift away from reliance on middle eastern fuel. As for America paying what we pay, in terms of economics that is because our government charges large amounts of tax, nominaly to restrict it's use.

I don't think the roll of the UN should be about leveling the playing field and t last thing we want is a trade war between the US and the EU. Ultimately, I'd like to see technological fixes for ecological problems rather than political or enviromental ones. Rather than diverting energy into trying to browbeat America into adopting higher fuel taxes and trying to ward off the dammage of a trade war, we'd be better off simply moving to outcompete them with new technologies.

A trade war would just shield both europe and america's economic ineficiencies, which means out of date machinery and infrastructure, over production and dumping of surplusses onto the third world. That means more polution and more consumption than is necessary. On top of that, the first thing to go in economic trouble times is r&d budgets. If America decides not to invest in more efficient, it will come back an haunt them just as the failure of Britain to replace it's industrial infrastructure to compete with the new factories in Europe after WWII came back to haunt us. We will get money back by selling them the technology.

As for international politics with regards to humanitarian intervention and whether we should be opposing an America, I honestly can't say. If the UN worked, irrespective of America invading Iraq, it would now be confronting north korea over it's announced withdrawl from the nuclear non proliferation treaty (which comes into effect in about three weeks). Instead we hear no criticism of the UN, but lots of anger over "well why not North Korea" as an argument against attacking Saddam. And then there is Iran. It seems to me that no one is taking the UN at all seriously because no one is exercising the responsibilities they ought to as members. We have those that suggest it's a

defunct orginisation because it won't meet it's responsibilities, yet the UN has no power in itself, only in it's members willingness to act. We have those that suggest it's a rubber stamp for western powers, yet it has just tied itself up by agreeing to act to disarm Saddam and then deciding to have a go at constraining America instead, then there are those that say it's a forum for dictators, yet it was Britain and America that did the most to prevent any attempt to halt the genocide in Rwanda.

There isn't any solution to that as far as I can see. The reality is that America has a great deal of power, and it would probably not further our interests or the worlds to oppose America.

I'm suspicious of the French simply because the argument of creating strong federal-like instiutions to allow the EU to be able to oppose the US, but retaining national governments, seems to give France an undue level of power over Europe. I think it's a mistake for a nation, or confederation, or any entity, to make it's first duty to oppose another nation rather than look out for it's own interests.

288. Seb   
Mar 31 2003 15:49
 

"As to Nasser's agression in 1956 being only a financial consideration- this obviously ignores the denial of Israeli shipping to cross the Canal under any circumstances."

No it doesn't. Nasser wanted to posture as the Arab leader, the way to do that was to victimise Israel, just as Christian Europes way in the dark ages was to capture Jerusalem. To sugest nationalising the Suez Canal was all about blockading Israel rather than trying to drive the British out of the middle east and gain revenue for Egypt, especially when the eventual solution Egypt agreed to allowed Israel access to the canal is laughable.

289. amram   
Mar 31 2003 16:22
 

to Seb

The Egyptians eventually allowed Israeli shipping through because they were defeated by Israel in the inital stage of the War and, as much as they had soviet backing, did not want to get into another conflict at that time with Israel and so were happy to settle for a postion that still gave them much much more (undue) income than before the war that they initiated. Indeed it was not that long-11 years- until they felt strong enough to , as Nasser put it- "throw the Jews into the Sea" and started another war. That "posturing" as an "arab leader" necessitates "victimising Israel" as you put it, shows exactly what sort of people Israel has to deal with. It shows that such hatred cannot be placated by extreme, unneccessary,unjust and dangeours concessions of Israel's vital and strategic historical heartlands. It also explains the need for a total war on such Arab fascism. Only when the Arabs realise that will gain nothing through war- but will lose and that there are eternal consequences- eg the egyptians will never regain Gaza and the Jordanians will never get Judea and Samaria,for such agression will there be any prospect for peace.

BTW the US administraion was right to reject the Kyoto protocol which simply punishes the motorist and has very little environmental impact.

290. Seb   
Mar 31 2003 19:47
 

amram:

"and so were happy to settle for a postion that still gave them much much more (undue) income than before the war that they initiated."

Still clinging to the fantasy that the Suez war was all about Israel?

"shows exactly what sort of people Israel has to deal with."

Indeed. It's a well known fact that the entire Palestinian population is made up of Nasser Clones. He's dead. His regime is dead. His movement is dead. Pan Arabism is dead. Get over it.

"historical"

You mean "biblical", which is broadly synonymous with "fictional", unless you can give me a good reason not to take any other religious text as equal value.

"BTW the US administraion was right to reject the Kyoto protocol which simply punishes the motorist and has very little environmental impact."

Possibly. It doesn't alter the fact that the individual state governments are putting it into effect regardless.

291. Editor   
Apr 02 2003 10:36
 

A number of posts in foreign languages to this thread have been removed.

This is an English language website. Please respect that when posting to the discussions.

292. mark   
Apr 02 2003 22:39
 

The UN - dogs minding the butcher's shop

The very idea of the UN being an unbiased forum for discussion of global problems is the biggest farce in history.

You might as well let the dog guard the butcher's shop.

Let me see now... there are some 180 member nations of which some 55 are Arabic or Islamic. Quite a power bloc, I'd say. Gee... I wonder how that 25% would vote every time it came to a resolution against Israel?

And how many Islamic nations have oil? Do the numbers people. You'll find yourselves a nasty little surprise at just how many Islamic nations have critically-needed oil.

Does it astound anyone to know that Israel was barred from membership of just about every UN committee since Israel joined?

The technicality? Israel wasn't included in any global region.... until 2 years ago. And now... whoop de doo... Israel may participate in UN committees - but (here's the catch) not until the present rotations are done with...

... in 2023.

So, gee folks, isn't the UN a really really fair institution to the Jewish state? {NOT!}

Without the US, Israel has no safeguard on the UN. Which leads me to comment here and now: any UN involvement in a post-US-conquest Iraq is doomed to precipitate dissention, fragmentation and ultimate failure.

Don't be too surprised people if you see the next Pope poking his nose into the new "democratic" UN protectorate of Iraq.

The UN? Dogs minding the butcher's shop!

The sooner Israel and America leave it the better.

I only hope my country has the good sense to join them if and when they leave. Sadly, I think the dumb-ass humanists have way too much influence in those governments.

293. Rachel   
Apr 02 2003 22:44
 

What is the evidence that the United Nations is biased against Israel? see

By www.palestinefacts.org

The United Nations, conceived after World War II as a world body dedicated to peace, justice, and morality among nations, has lost its way. The organization that gave the international legal impetus to the creation of the State of Israel has become the largest single bureaucracy promoting the interests of the Palestinian Arabs against Israel, with no balanced concept of justice or morality or reasonable rules of evidence or procedure. The Palestinian Arabs, supported by other countries with anti-American agendas (almost all of them totalitarian governments), have come to view the UN as an invaluable political tool, much to the long-term detriment of the United Nations and the high hopes for its role in world affairs.

The UN is not monolithic, with multiple bodies receiving funding to work around the world on problems determined to be appropriate for UN investigation or intervention. Since 1948, when a UN resolution set the State of Israel on its way, the UN has been a part of the on-going evolution of the struggle between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs with binding and non-binding resolutions, peace keeping forces, peace conferences and investigations. Unfortunately, an alliance between Arab states, third-world countries hostile to the developed world, and Cold War politics backed by the former Soviet Union, have created a UN environment that is uniquely hostile to Israel. While Tibet, Cambodia, Rwanda and other world problem areas have come and gone, often without significant comment or action by the UN, Israel has been repeatedly targeted, investigated, denounced, and condemned by one-sided UN agencies or committees with no scintilla of objectivity while at the same time Israel has been denied full participation in UN functions. Meanwhile, nations with horrible human rights violations such as Iraq, Libya, Iran, Afghanistan, and Syria have escaped criticism from any UN forum.

294. amram   
Apr 03 2003 17:26
 

A poem

come bombs and fall on Baghdad!

Soon the dictator will be gone.

Soon the people will be free.

Soon the USA and the civilised world will be victorious.

Come bombs and Fall on Ramallah.

Soon the blood stained dictator will be gone

Soon the people will be free.

Comc bombs and fall on all those opressors in Syria, Iran, Libya, Lebanon and Sudan.

Victory is near.

Afghanistan has fallen.

US troops are 6 miles from Baghdad.

Arafat and Bashar watch out.

He who curses Israel will be cursed he who blesses her will be blessed.

Come children of Islam.

Renounce dictatorships.

Renounce terrorism.

Renounce Bin Laden.

Embrace freedom and chose dignity.

Are there any moderate muslims out there?

I hope so.

295. Seb   
Apr 04 2003 14:33
 

Mark:

Any binding decision in the UN that really effects Israel is taken by the security council, there is never more than one Arab nation in the SC at any one time. There is no permenant member which is a Muslim nation. On the other hand, there is the USA which has consistently vetoed binding resolutions against Israel or acted to water them down. I'm not going to go into whether that was the right or wrong to have done, but to sugest that the UN consistently victimises Israel because it is dominated by Arab nations is a bit of a joke.

"Meanwhile, nations with horrible human rights violations such as Iraq, Libya, Iran, Afghanistan, and Syria have escaped criticism from any UN forum"

That simply isn't true. Libya has been the target of international sanctions, as has Iran. Iraq? Iraq hasn't been criticised? Where have you been for the last decade? This is pointless.

296. amram   
Apr 04 2003 15:45
 

Seb

I thought that the current war with Iraq was met with hugely irresponsible and unreasonable veto from 3 of the permannet members of the Security council particularly France?

As to Iraq ,well, it may have been criticised but NOTHING serious was done by the UN- hence the current war.

Libya may have been the subject of sanctions but it still doesn't negate the fact that it chairs the UN human rights commitee!!

By the way I believe that Syria- the biggest terrorist sponsoring state in the world- is now on the securtiy council!

297. mark   
Apr 04 2003 15:58
 

Seb

While no muslim nation is a permanent member of the security council China and Russia are. China is a communist oligarchy/dictatorship (if you consider Xiang Xemin to be the man with most of the power) and Russia is only now emerging as a democracy. Indeed most of the resoultions passed against Israel had support of the USSR- a regime that killed more people than the Nazis.

The way I see it is that the world doesn't accept the Jewish people's right to exist in their historical homeland within defensible borders. The US has been neutral at best- if you look at all the money they give the egyptians or all the weapons they have sold the arabs or the constant pressure they apply on israel to make unreasonable concessions you might not neccessarily take the Arab/antisemites' view that the US is run by the Jews!!

Therefore, the Israelis a people who 50% are refugees from the Arab countries and 50 % are refugees from Europe, should act in ther self defense and should not heed to pressure from a world that remains hostile to the very existence of an Israeli state. No other nation in the world- and half the members of the UN are younger than Israel- has to continue to justify its existence. This is intolerable. And that said there should be ABSOLUTELY no concession made to the Arabs or their appeasers be they blair or putin.giving in to bullies doesn't work they will just come for more and more. for peace to be realised in the middle east there will probably be neeeded a sea change in the fascist regimes that surround Israel and make up the whole Arab world. Perhaps a democratic Iraq will be a good start.

The death of Arafat and the PLO would also be a good start too.

298. bycullah   
Apr 04 2003 16:21
 

Dont you know that Britain abstained on the vote to bring Israel into existence?

some friend of the Jews.

299. Seb   
Apr 04 2003 19:00
 

amram:

"I thought that the current war with Iraq was met with hugely irresponsible and unreasonable veto from 3 of the permannet members of the Security council particularly France?"

Indeed it was, but their aim was not to protect Saddam so much as to block the USA for their own particular reasons. The UNSC has this built into it as the default way of preventing escalation of war between two power blocks is to prevent a war. That is why there there are vetos at all. This reflects the problem I outlined earlier: The UN is designed for collective security where the principle threat is two nation states going to war with each other. As such, the safest default is to make agressive action illegitimate.

Frankly, I found the action of the French to be deeply cynical and rather foolish. Russia and China were just acting I their best possible national interest given the situation created by the French.

"As to Iraq ,well, it may have been criticised but NOTHING serious was done by the UN"

Excuse me, but the first Gulf war is the only war asside from Korea that has ever been sanctioned by the UN ever. By my calculations that makes Iraq the target of 50% of all wars ever sanctioned by the UN. On top of that we have the no fly zones, sanctions and inspections. A war is supposed to be the last resort, and given the fact that the UN is structured on the asumption that a war is the least desirable outcome (focusing not so much on human rights but realpolitik), it seems to me unsurprising that war has not been prompted earlier. Ultimately though, the reason the UN has not been involved earlier has been because no security council member, not even America, wanted to do anything about Iraq.

"Libya may have been the subject of sanctions but it still doesn't negate the fact that it chairs the UN human rights commitee!!"

Indeed, and this is because, as I said earlier, the only way the UN can work for collective security is if every state is a member. The human rights issue is something that has come up subsequently, clearly the rules need to be changed.

Incidentaly, the reason that Libya is chair of the UNHRC is simply because of the near arbritary manner in which countries are appointed to the HRC, and the fact that many western nations chose to abstain in the vote. The HRC doesn't do anything anyway.

"By the way I believe that Syria- the biggest terrorist sponsoring state in the world- is now on the securtiy council!"

I feel you are missing the point. If there is one body that DOESN'T look at past records, it ought to be the SC. The whole point of the UNSC is to try and make war impossible. If you are looking to start a crusade to rid the world of regimes that don't conform to western standards, then the UNSC is the worst place to start because it's built on the fudemental premise that the most important thing for global security that national sovereignty, not individual sovereignty, is respected. I agree, in the case of dealing with terrorism and human rights abuse, which takes a completely different approach (that national soveriegnty can and should be violated in order to prevent crimes against individuals) this is absurd and inappropriate.

On the other hand, if we were to fully adopt this approach, then the Palestinan problem would become a global issue not an issue internal to Israel. Where there would be a cast iron reason and process to allow war on all dictatorships on the principle they violate basic human rights, so would there be a cast iron case to allow war on Israel to enforce the right of self determination that the Palestinians would have claim for.

The real butcher garding the saussages here is that the UN is controlle by nation states that have a vested interest, were possible, of maintaining the concept of national sovereignty on internal issues.

300. Seb   
Apr 04 2003 19:14
 

mark:

"While no muslim nation is a permanent member of the security council China and Russia are. China is a communist oligarchy/dictatorship (if you consider Xiang Xemin to be the man with most of the power) and Russia is only now emerging as a democracy."

Yes, but that is because you are missing the fundemental point: The UN was never supposed to be about spreading truth and light. It was supposed to prevent nations from invading each other. The fundemental premise is that national soveriegnty is paramount and can not be violated. It's got realpolitik at it's core. If you were going to create an organisation that excluded anyone but western powers, then it will never, ever be able to be a forum to prevent war. That is one of the reasons why the League of Nation failed.

"Indeed most of the resoultions passed against Israel had support of the USSR- a regime that killed more people than the Nazis."

Yet many of the arms controll treaties that passed had the support of the USSR also. Should we throw these out too?

"The way I see it is that the world doesn't accept the Jewish people's right to exist in their historical homeland within defensible borders."

And where is the Arabs historical homeland? I belive this was the NAZI's argument for much of the land they wanted from Czechoslovakia and Poland. As for defensible borders, that's just a polite way of saying buffer zone. It was the Soviets argument for occupying most of Eastern Europe after the war. As you correctly note, they killed more people than the NAZI's.

"The US has been neutral at best- if you look at all the money they give the egyptians"

Which is less than they give the Israelis, and which they give to the Egyptians as a payoff for the peace treaty they signed with Israel, and part of the same package whereby Israel recieves the majority of US's overseas aid budget. It seems a little hypocritical and even ungrateful to complain that this is a matter of "neutrality" when in actuall fact it's part of a deal designed to benefit Israels interests by making it all but impossible for Egypt to go to war with Israel (being dependent on American equipment), unwilling to go to war with Israel (because it would cost them too much) and keep Israeli stronger than Egypt (because Israel recieves more money and newer equipment than Egypt).

"or all the weapons they have sold the arabs"

Hang on, Israel sells weapons to China. A regime you just singled out as beyond the pail.

"or the constant pressure they apply on israel to make unreasonable concessions"

Such as dismantling the settlements? How is this unreasonable?

"you might not neccessarily take the Arab/antisemites' view that the US is run by the Jews!!"

I don't say the US is run by the Jews. It's a testament to your partiality that you decided to invoke the anti semitic argument for the umpteenth time that it has been.

"Therefore, the Israelis a people who 50% are refugees from the Arab countries and 50 % are refugees from Europe, should act in ther self defense and should not heed to pressure from a world that remains hostile to the very existence of an Israeli state."

No one is sugesting that Israeli state should cease to exist, merely that it should not continue to occupy land outside of it's borders.

The fact of the matter is that your appeal to "historic borders" actually suggests that Israel has some growing still to do at the expense of arab nations. That sounds remarkably like expansionism.

301. Sam   
Apr 04 2003 21:12
 

Hey kids,

while i know this is important to you all, i have the following points:

  • you're not convincing each other, you're just going round in circles.
  • you've deviated from the actual article, to the point where this is no longer a discussion on the article, it's a semi-theological discussion about who's friends with what religion...

I think i said this a few hundred posts ago, but i'll say it again for the sake of clarity. Grow up, Give up, Go home.

Let me sum up.

  • Israel exists now
  • many wars have been started over religion
  • non were righteous.
  • many people died
  • opinions differ on who was at fault.
  • it's probably six of one, half a dozen of the other.
  • it's all in the past.

Live for the moment, for tomorrow we may die. All this c**p about stuff that happened years ago is pointless, you can't change it. All you are doing is persuading the 99.999999999% of the population who don't post on this thread that you are pig headed, short sighted and stuck in the past.

Move on.

302. amram   
Apr 04 2003 21:26
 

to seb

yes you're right Israel, a country smaller than wales that has given egypt sinai( a territory never actually part of egypt) a territory larger than all of Israel, that has given the Syrians Kuneitra (look it up) and allthe land to the east of it is expansionist!!what rot.You are again misinformed- Egypt gets exactly the same amount of military aid per year as Israel. It also has the benefit of the oil israel found and refined in Sinai worth 5billion dollars annually. It also benefits up to the tune of 1 billion dollars in tourism to the toen of Sharm el Sheikh- built by Israel. American pressure and the stupidity of Israeli government forced it to give up sinai.

The USA pressurised Israel at the end of the Arab initiated yom kippur war of 1973. Kissinger forced Israeli troops to stop in the South- when all Egyptian forces -land sea and air - had been destroyed or surrounded. Israel was just 3o miles from Cairo. In the North Israel was just 20 miles from Damascus. The US effectively revitalised these regimes!

All israel is doing is portecting her borders. All the land west of the Jordan belongs to her. There may have been arab, turkish, british, roman occupiers there at some point in history but NOW this land has be reclaimed and liberated. The towns of jeruslame and Hebron have for example been inhabited by Israelis for two and a half thousand years- before Jesus , Mohammed, were ever born !

The fact that the Europeans and the Arabs will have to accept is that the land of Israel belongs to the people of Israel and there will be no compromise on this basic right. The fabrication of the "palestinian" people- I challenge you to show me any proof of their existence before 1967 is but one tool in this propaganda war. Blair believes that he can bribe his antisemitic MP's from Galloway and Corbyn to Short and Cook, as well as the Fascist Arabs with Israeli currency. This will not happen . The governmnets of the Israeli left who comprimised on historic truths and gambled Israel's security in the vain hope of "peace" with Arafat the murderer are gone. The Israeli electorate has thrown them out. The Israeli people and her government will not allow the foreign nations to hold a gun to her face and tell her to commit suicide.

If you believe that there is "cast iron case to allow war on Israel " then you are seriously twisted. You sem unable to differentiate between the Arab fascists- whose Islamic fundamentalism now threaten Europe itself and Israel who is only acting in self defence. You are also sorely misguided if you think that such a war is possible. If any such attack were to happen- Israel would not go down so easily- she'd take the lot of you with her. There will be no second holocaust. And as our glorious Prime minister has said Israel will not be a 2nd Czechoslovakia.

303. bycullah   
Apr 05 2003 21:47
 

Seb you also avoided the point some time ago that Israel would almost certainly have gone under in'73 had they not been holding the territories gained in the (defensive) war of '67. Would you have been happy at that outcome?

304. mark   
Apr 06 2003 00:44
 

on a different note

sources from the Middle East are suggesting that saddam hussein has moved most of his weapons of mass destruction to Syria.

High rankiong members of Saddam's regime possibly himself even or members of his family are staying in a hotel in Latakiya in syria called Cote d?Azur De Cham Resort.

Syria has long been funding supporting and organising terorism. all of the Arab terrorist organisations from Al- qaeda to Hamas to the Syrian run Islamic Jihad and hezbollah have bases in Damascus.

Syria has been sending hundreds of volunteers to help the Iraqi regime over the past month. After war in Iraq is won in the next few weeks attention to then turn to Syria. This should be the reall goal for the war on terror and will truly end fascism in the Arab world.

Only last year Tony Blair, and the ever pathetic Jack straw invited the Syrian dictator to downing street!

No wonder they are against attacking Syria, they don't want the egg on their face that will inevitably result!

No wonder then that such Arab appeasers are trying to force Bush to pressurise Israel to commit suicide with road to destruction maps...

305. Seb   
Apr 07 2003 21:23
 

Actually, I think Sam has a point. So this is the last post from me.

Amram:

On waht basis do you say Sinai is not part of Israel? It's easy to see Israel has expanded since it's creation, which I think is rather the point.

You are incorrect regarding the military funding, Israel recieves more money in military aid than Egypt, something around 30% more.

Ehypt recieves $1.3bn annually compared to $2bn for Israel.

"The towns of jeruslame and Hebron have for example been inhabited by Israelis for two and a half thousand years- before Jesus , Mohammed, were ever born"

And that, fundementaly, is why we are never going to agree. Drawing modern geopolitical boundaries on that line begs questions such as "Where did the Muslim Arabs all come from? Where should they go?".

"- I challenge you to show me any proof of their existence before 1967"

Show me proof Israel existed 10,000 years ago. Nations come and go, the point is you are trying to make out these people were never there and suddenly appeared. The fact is they re-deffined themselves and forged a new national identity. At some point, every national group came into existance. They didn't move in, the fact remains that the majority of Israelis did actually move into the area since 1900.

"If you believe that there is "cast iron case to allow war on Israel " then you are seriously twisted"

The point, if you were reading carefully, is that this is why you can't go round suggesting the UN should be a forum for launching "civilising missons" where one group of countries decides to go on a crusade against any system they do not like. Indeed, it would be very twisted.

bycullah:

And the Soviets argument was that if there ever was another war between Germany or any other western country (afterall, in the 100 years prior to the end of WII, Russia had been attacked four times by western European countries)and Russia, the whole thing could be made a lot simpler if the Soviet Union could have the entire of Eastern Europe and a large chunk of Germany. In the end, there was no war. The basic formula for peace in the middle east has been "land for peace", however:

1. The current Israeli government includes a party that is opposed to ever allowing a palestinian state.

2. Land for peace can't work when there is a creeping annexation going on.

3. If the west bank is a military bufferzone, why is it being settled?

4. Israels military might is based on air power, the usefullness of the west bank as a bufferzone is dubious as the only country is borders is Jordan, which has made lasting peace with Israel.

The situation isn't remotely comparable to the situation in 1973. It's dishonest to sugest it is.

306. Amram   
Apr 09 2003 14:33
 

US forces have taken Baghdad!

I have just seen Iraqi civillians carrying a banner saying "GO HOME HUMAN SHIELDS YOU WANKERS"

They probably think the same of all the scum who supported Saddam in their Nazi like rallies last month.

These Europeans, driven by their love of totalitarianism, communism as well as their hatred for the USA, the Jewish people and their state, as well as the entire civilised world have been dealt a huge blow today.

To those naive idiots who supported them from IC wouldn't it be nice if you all crawled out of your rocks and apologised to the Iraqi people and the American people too!

Thank God for Bush as one Iraqi put it.

Arafat and Assad must surely be next. Arab tyrants are quaking in their boots. The days of Islamism are nearly over...

307. ...   
Apr 09 2003 14:50
 

Is it possible that the Iraqi people, after years of being repressed by Saddam, are calling out 'Thank God for Bush' insead of 'Thank God for Saddam' because they are expecting more of the same (abuse and plunder), just from another party and would rather not incur the wrath of the new regime?

I am not saying this is necessarily the case, merely pointing out that things are not always as simple as they seem.

As for your highly xenophobic comments Amran, I sincerely hope this is not the end of 'Islamism' if, by that, you are implying that people with the same mentality as you will be in charge. You are just as bad as any Islamic fanatic, who uses religion and nationality as an excuse to persecute people and wage war.

Also, I would like to point out that those who protested against the war often condemned Saddam, however I think the vast majority did not feel war was justified when there are worse abuses of human rights being perpetrated in this world that the West appears perfectly comfortable to overlook. Obsession with Iraq at the neglect of other countries was believed, by many, as cynicism on the part of the West. So far there is not substantial evidence to the contrary.

It is my understanding that the UK are willing to support war in Iraq as they have no major vested interests in energy or infrastructure there yet, but they will do once they get involved in the rebuilding of Iraq. Conversely they don't want a war in Iran or Syria (who are also accused of breaching human rights legislation) on the basis that they have invested a large amount of money supporting British business in these countries, or in Saudi Arabia because their government is friendly towards the UK.

Personally I think ANYONE from ANY side who uses religion as an excuse with which to legitimise killing is scum...which I think includes the Isralis, and probably includes you.

308. ...   
Apr 09 2003 14:52
 

Like Seb, I can't be bothered to dignify any further arguments that are made with a response, so I will not be wasting any more of my time on this thread.

Apr 09 2003 15:25
 

...

the nameless gutless wonder flees- just like the gutless tyrants of the Baath party fleeing Baghdad now- all the better.

As to ...'s remark that "those who protested against the war often condemned Saddam" this is a lie that even the Iraqi information minister would be proud of. In the Nuremberg like rally of 750,000 layabouts and Islamic fundamentalists held in Hyde park not a single banner condemned saddam. Indeed counter protestors of Iraqi exiles were spat at and physically abused.

Tony Benn and the other antisemites (let's face it they really loved Saddam because he hated Israel) never once asked the Iraqi regime to leave and avoid war. Never once did they condemn Arab terrorism- in fact many caaried the flag of the PLO- the most murderous Arab terror organisation. In fact recent press reports suggest, that the coaches that brought a lot of these dole-collecting layabouts to London were sponsored by "foreign elements" read Saddam or other Arab governmnents.

If you think that the genuinely jubilant people of Baghdad are only saying "we love you Bush" because they think he's like Saddam it shows just how twisted you are and just how little you know about the middle east.

As for Syria and Iran- I agree with ... that they should be dealt with and it is appeaser Blair that is against it.

Buti it hardly surprising when the BBC, the Labour left, the Guardian etc continue to press their pro- Arab agenda. Deep down Blair would rather have attacked Free Israel than Nazi Iraq.

Indeed we remember how easy it was to get Europe to appease a different dictator, 60 years ago. At that time too the same Fascist ideas were prevalent. The threat was clear but the Europeans were clouded by the antisemitic scapegoat.

If , being against violent dictatorships that opress the masses, that murder innocent women and children of their own, that use human shields, that seek to enforce their religion through the sword,that opress women, that send terrorists on suicide/homicide bombings whether in NY , Tel Aviv or Bali, means being "Xenophobic" -according to gutless wonder perhaps I am. Then again anyone else wold see that such unreserved support for tyranny is indeed the real Xenophobia.

310. Appeaser   
Apr 09 2003 15:45
 

Oh OK Amran, you're right..

In fact, we all agree with you, oh mighty dictator, er, sorry, leader.

I have seen the error of my ways now that you have shown me!

Apr 09 2003 16:07
 

Nazi Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, by two distinguished Jewish MIT academics, in case you were wondering.

312. amram   
Apr 09 2003 17:06
 

To the antisemite above , you might as well quote lord haw haw for an example of a true brit! chomsky and his ilk are no better than jewish quislings- look it up you probably know nothing of history. If you really want to read som ething to counter that c**p try this article

http://www.kahane.org/meir/dear_world.htm

enough of this nonsense- I am going out to celebrate the end of An arab tyrant. I suppose "alter ego" you are in mourning for your dear friend Saddam....

313. Seb   
Apr 09 2003 17:09
 

Breaking my promise, but hey.

What has celebrating the (hopeful) demise of Saddam got to do with this? I think it's a thoroughly good thing the Ba'athists are gone. Only thing better than Saddam dead would be Saddam on trial and then banged up with the rest of butchers in the Hauge.

314. amram   
Apr 09 2003 17:13
 

Seb- at last a reasonable argument- I totally agree!

Apr 09 2003 17:50
 

always been an anti-semite, amram? look at this:

http://www.bartleby.com/61/87/S0258700.html

interesting to note that there doesn't seem to be a special term for people with an irrational hatred for muslims. Maybe they never behaved in such a way that people felt driven to irrationally hate them...

316. amram   
Apr 09 2003 18:58
 

the idiot above hints that Arabs can't be antisemitic because they are semites. Firstly anti semitic - specifically refers to Jew hatred, the very site YOU YOURSELF SUGGEST you fool

http://www.bartleby.com/61/90/A0349000.html

says so.

As to Islam. I don't hate muslims at all you racist fool. That's why I am against Saddam who has killed more muslims than anyone else. That's why I support the US liberation of 24 million muslims.

Who I do detest are the Islamists whose only ability lies in destruction both of themselves and other- hence the suicide bombers- are the perferct metaphor for them.

317. amram   
Apr 09 2003 19:11
 

afterthought

I though the arab lobby invented the word "Islamophobe" so I guess your assertion that such a word doesn't exist is again proved false.

Why don't you guys in the Islamic soc invite the Iraqi information minister (you know the guy who told us that there were no US troops within 100 miles of Baghdad) to give a talk.

Maybe Mr. Al sahaf could host "palestine" discovery week. He'd probably be more truthful than some of your speakers....

318. Sam   
Apr 09 2003 19:26
 

I don't think i got through completely as people are still here...

give it up, please, now, before you completely destroy my faith in human reason.

To Amram specifically:

Are you spoiling for a fight or something? That posting the same message on every active thread here was stupid, petulant and frankly the type of action i'd expect from a child. If you really care about all this soooooo much, why don't you nip over the Middle East and put your gun where your mouth is... If your rifle is large and misdirected like your mouth, i doubt you will do any harm - with any luck you won't be posting here any more.

Don't get me wrong, i don't hate any religion, race or creed... i'm just rather bored with you specifically. I'm not an anti-semite, Islamist or racist... if anything i only support the Anti-Amram movement. Amram is boring, loud and oppressive... i fully support his removal (from the discussion board) ... that's not racist, it's a personal thing...

feel free to disagree though... i wouldn't want to oppress anyone's freedom of speech - but i tend to think that about 3 people care what this thread says now, and it's certainly not the people involved in the SJP debate.

Apr 10 2003 01:37
 

so Amram, criticsim of 'Israel' and the neo-Nazis who run it somehow makes me anti-semitic, does it?

Try this:

http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/

Are these Jews anti-semitic too?

320. amram   
Apr 10 2003 12:18
 

To the idiot above.

To call the Free democratic liberal government of the Jewish people Nazis is unoworthy of a response.

As i explained earlier- but you were too ignorant to undestand- the people above- are quislings.

Frankly "jews for Jesus" are more authentic.

Apr 10 2003 12:20
 

How about setting up a Justice for Amramists Soc?

I think that we are being very ufairly treated by being continually exposed to his brand of expression.

322. amram   
Apr 10 2003 13:06
 

It would probably be less harmful than a justice for homicide bombers society...

323. Ned Lowe   
Apr 10 2003 17:07
 

WOW - This thread is half a meg big now and *way* off topic.

I used to read it for information purposes, but it isn't even worth that anymore. Methinks editor-in-chief should nuke it. Or use biological weapons, or whatever floats his boat.

324. amram   
Apr 14 2003 15:59
 

sometimes a picture says a thousand words

Apr 14 2003 16:06
 

it does indeed...

but you need to remember the context. If you scroll down, that page you'll find out where the sign actually came from. (And you can then make your mind up as to whether the Iraqi's holding it up to media attention were actually literate enough to know what it meant.)

Meanwhile, why not look at this picture ?

326. osama   
Apr 14 2003 16:12
 

the above poster is of course right the Iraqis are entirely ignorant. They wouldn't know what a wanker means- far too complex...

He's so right too all the thousnads of people greeting the americans all around Baghdad were in fact Ahmed chalabios 600 exiles bribed by the US media. It was all a big plot. In fact the biggest plot of all is 9 11 the Americans diod it themselves....

327. osama   
Apr 14 2003 16:13
 

the above poster is of course right the Iraqis are entirely ignorant. They wouldn't know what a wanker means- far too complex...

He's so right too all the thousnads of people greeting the americans all around Baghdad were in fact Ahmed chalabios 600 exiles bribed by the US media. It was all a big plot. In fact the biggest plot of all is 9 11 the Americans did it themselves....

328. bycullah   
Apr 20 2003 22:46
 

btw, if anyone is interested in an excellent history if Israel and Zionism, Conor Cruise O'brien's "The Siege" is a great book, from an impartial observer who had a unique take on events as he was Irelands member at the UN. quite difficult to find tho, as its out of print.

329. stirrer   
Aug 28 2003 16:58
 

Well, 300+ posts and counting. Soon there will be as many dead Americans in the new Vietnam as there are replies to this article...

Sep 04 2003 12:42
 

[The last two posts to this thread were long newsletter style compositions that may be found posted all over the web. For this reason, they have been removed. Should we receive more of these posts, action will be taken to prevent further contributions to this thread from outside of Imperial College -Editor]

Dec 27 2003 04:20
 

The TRUTH with honest and equal justice for all people and nations on earth is the ONLY thing that can keep all humans free and safe.

in WW2 Jews suffered thanks to an idiot beleiving that there was such a thing as a super race. NAZI GERMANY

In WW3 which I beleive has already started,Palistin people are already sufering thanks to some Isreal idiots that beleive that GOD as they see it condones murder of inocent men, women, children, and elderly is the way to gain teratory they claim belongs to them as a gift from GOD.

but when murder happens to them in return they call it terror. Funny isn't it.

BUT I am crying inside,

NOT laughing.

Who will be next. OR, will

ther be a next after the world has been ravished along with most of humanity.

This form me with 70 years earning my PHD from SLHKU

school of lifes hard knocks

U.

Peace can only come through honest negotiation. Never through confrontation.

Dec 27 2003 04:25
 

PS...TRUTH can keep you free and safe<<<>>>

IF.....

you can find it after truly searching all sides with an open mind.

333. Elon   
Dec 28 2003 19:19
 

p*ss on you.

Nazi.

The land of israel belongs to the Jewish people. The Arabs terrorists have 22 states. let them go home to Arabia. Why don't you go and join them?

Dec 28 2003 19:38
 

what the hell is wrong with you "peace on earth" you trumped up ignorant little moron? have you just come out of saddam hussein's information ministry or something? if not, why are you posting all this c**p? if you are really interested in peace and freedom you'd support the israeli people in their struggle against terrorism. if you are attempting to equate israeli self defence whose sole goals are to stop those attacking its civillians to the attacks against its civillians themselves then you have the strangest sense of morality. israelis are not persecuting anyone in the name of God. you're just spouting socialist pan-arabist c**p - israel is trying to defend itself against vicious terrorist assaults perpetrated by savage arab cowards who have no regard for human life whatsoever, and who would rather remain in abject poverty than recognise israel's right to exist and biuld a peaceful society.

Dec 28 2003 19:41
 

I am a hypocrite so is p*ss boy.

Jun 22 2004 12:40
 

Uninion is strangth

337. lynette   
Sep 11 2004 00:13
 

i would like to know more information about the topic you are discussing

Dec 21 2004 22:29
 

work for human rights organzation

Dec 21 2004 22:31
 

work for human rights

Closed This discussion is closed.

Please contact the Live! Editor if you would like this discussion topic re-opened.

 
Live!

Also In Random Rant

  1. Oh. My. God.
    15 Jan 03 | Random Rant
  2. ICU Council: Was it right?
    14 Jan 03 | Random Rant
  3. Elec Eng New Foyer - A New Students' Arcade?
    11 Dec 02 | Random Rant

See Also

Live! Poll

How frequently would you like to see a CGCU magazine being published




Live!