C'mon Kate, you're being unfair to Muslims. Wouldn't want the web wanker wuss Warnout wandering by to collect 'proof' of this now do you?

heh!

In listening to CBC we hear that Gaza is under seige but it looks like Israel is the one under seige. Lebanon in the north, West bank in the east and gaza in the west.

I suspect a Canadian Egyptian will soon launch a HRC complaint against you, Kate, for suggesting Egypt and Egyptians are as racist and xenophobic as Jews.

/sarc

"Or is it only the Jews who can ever be guilty of such heinous acts?"

To ask the question is to answer it.

The Palestinians have been pawns for a generation.

The Palestinians have been pawns for a generation.

Whose pawns Mr. Ball?

Are we talking about that noble race known as the Palestinians. Those poor victims .. do they really deserve such a fate.

Here let me list some of their great humanitarian, medical, scientific, political, educational, industrial, and social attributes and achievements.

Er ... ahhh ... welll .... mmm let me see .... Oh ya ... Yassir Arafat got a Nobel "PEACE" prize for simply being a brutal thieving, lying, dictatorial terrorist to that great culture known as the Palestinians.

As I see it, if the Palestinians want a better life, all they have to do is stop trying to kill Jews and stop killing each other (which they do with regularity) and state that they want to build their economy. The money will pour in and they would soon be a first world economy living in peace with their neighbors.

The cannot happen because Palestinians are apparently a violent criminally insane culture. That is what the last forty years of evidence tell us.

To answer grennmamba~ the faux 'palestinians' have been the pawns of the arab / muslim governments, for decades:

["The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the act of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agree upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem."

– Emile Ghoury, secretary of the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee, in an interview with the Beirut Telegraph Sept. 6, 1948.

***

"The Arab state which had encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of
the Arab invasion armies, have failed to keep their promise to help these refugees."

– The Jordanian daily newspaper Falastin, Feb. 19, 1949.

***

"Who brought the Palestinians to Lebanon as refugees, suffering now from the malign attitude of newspapers and communal leaders, who have neither honor nor conscience? Who brought them over in dire straits and penniless, after they lost their honor? The Arab states, and Lebanon amongst them, did it."

– The Beirut Muslim weekly Kul-Shay, Aug. 19, 1951.

***

"The 15th May, 1948, arrived ... On that day the mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead."

– The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom, Oct. 12, 1963.

***

"For the flight and fall of the other villages it is our leaders who are responsible because of their dissemination of rumors exaggerating Jewish crimes and describing them as atrocities in order to inflame the Arabs ... By spreading rumors of Jewish atrocities, killings of women and children etc., they instilled fear and terror in the hearts of the Arabs in Palestine, until they fled leaving their homes and properties to the enemy."

– The Jordanian daily newspaper Al Urdun, April 9, 1953.]

btw, Kate, Gateway Pundit is reporting that the faux 'palestinians' are now fighting with the Egyptians trying to close the border.

john west - the Palestinians aren't a 'race'. And, there's no such thing as a 'violently criminally insane culture'. Either genetically or even socially. You are ignoring the history of the area, a generation of occupation, and a generation of being, effectively, stateless and impoverished.

And by the way, you don't measure up the rights of people to human rights by their "great humanitarian, medical, scientific, political, educational, industrial, and social attributes and achievements". That would exclude a great many of us, both individually and collectively, on this planet, from such rights.

I think your suggestion of 'all they have to do' is simplistic and naive. You can't build an economy without control of the resources of your area (water, land, borders, airspace, roads, energy supplies, etc). They don't have that control.

Richard Ball - I agree, the Palestinians have been pawns for a generation. They've been pawns of the Arab States, who used them to try to prevent the emergence and devt of Israel. And now, they are pawns of the Islamic fascists, who are using them as pawns to cover their fascism.

It is clear that the Arab States don't want them and never wanted the Palestinians. And those posters here who assert that 'they are all arabs' and therefore ought to be assimilated by 'other arabs', eg Jordan, Egypt, Syria, etc, don't understand that reducing the entire ME population to the commonality of 'all arabs' (ignoring also that we are all humans)..ignores the highly important (to the ME) role of tribalism.

The Palestinians are, to the Arab world, the 'lowest of the low' in tribal terms; they don't want them. Israel doesn't want them within Israel because it wants a Jewish religious majority - and - it wants their land (only the West bank land; the Gaza strip is useless).

Furthermore, I feel that the Arab States don't even want a Palestinian state. They are in the midst of fighting an enormous infrastructural change, trying to maintain tribalism against the emergence of a civic society based around a middle class. The Arab States, still firmly tribal, don't want an arab democratic, civic model state (Palestine) in their midst. That's also why they were against the change in Iraq.
However, with Iraq and Afghanistan moving, slowly, into a civic model....

Islamic fascists, equally, don't give a damn about the Palestinians, for the simple reason that their fascism has nothing to do with 'freeing Palestinians' but has to do with power struggles in the ME - between tribes.

I wondered what would happen with the breach of the Rafah wall. I felt that Israel would welcome such an act; it would like nothing better than for Gaza to become, effectively, a suburb of Egypt, and 'out of the picture' of a future Palestinian state.

Egypt has provided its answer. No. It doesn't want them either.

The Right of Return custs two ways

http://www.broadsideonline.com/12-03-2007/jewishrefugees.php

And what is the Liberal Party position on this issue ?? Keith Martin, Liberal MP says Israel MUST return to the original UN established 1957 borders

The Jews put up the wall to keep the Palestinians from migrating to Israel. It is a wall that enslaves and oppresses the Palestinians. The Egyptians put up their wall to keep Egyptians from migrating to Palestine. It is a benefit to the Palestines and helps them control their border. Honest.

"Richard Ball - I agree, the Palestinians have been pawns for a generation. They've been pawns of the Arab States, who used them to try to prevent the emergence and devt of Israel. And now, they are pawns of the Islamic fascists, who are using them as pawns to cover their fascism."

I would also agree. However, ET, your statement, "Islamic fascists, equally, don't give a damn about the Palestinians..."

Are you assuming there aren't Islamic fascists amongst the Palestinians?

I wonder what Jimboob's feeling based opinion might be on this. One doesn't have to resort to what the HRC's opinion might be, or even Kinsella when there's a resident 'feeling' based commentor right here.

As long as Jews exist, everything will be their fault, unless, of course, Bush is still alive - then it is either the Jews' or Bush's fault. Good thing Bush isn't a Jew or he'd never get any peace.

ET: You are ignoring the history of the area, a generation of occupation, and a generation of being, effectively, stateless and impoverished.

The Palestinians never had a state and never were a people. Furthermore, there are many instances of people in similar circumstances that did not engage in the same irrational behaviour that Gazan/Judean/Semerian Palestinians do.

The special factor affecting these Palestinians is probably the intense brainwashing to which they have been subjected for decades.

otter - there is just as much data outlining how the early zionists were planning, and active, in urging the Palestinians to leave their homes and farms.

Again, the structure of Israel is based on a Jewish majority. Whether I agree or not, that's their business and their right to set up their nation in that manner. That means, right from the start, that the population that was already settled there (about 500,000+), under the Turkish and then British administration, would have to leave. That also makes it difficult to allow them to return as Israeli citizens. Because of that requirement for a Jewish majority.

Judaism really isn't a 'converting' religion; it has never sought to expand its numbers by conversion. Judaism is a 'hereditary' religion, and interesting, that connection is by the mother's side rather than the father's. This suggests to me, that Judaism was a religion of a settled people whose economy was based around horticulture - 'gardens' and small animals.

Christianity, on the other hand, is a religion of conversion rather than heredity. You have to, as an individual, accept Christianity. It isn't simply 'being born a Christian'. That suggests, to me, that it was a religion based around a market or trading economy, that required everyone to act as 'neighbours', (love one another) and collaborate.

Islam is not, in my view, really a religion but is instead a social and political dogma, developed by an economy under siege. I say it's not a religion because it has little to say, unlike Judaism and Christianity, about the metaphysical, about origins, death, birth etc. Islam simply copies those ideas from Judaism and Christianity.

But it has a great deal to say about proper social and political behaviour. And that behaviour is very much a tribal behaviour, in a pastoral nomadic economy. That's where the men are gone for long periods of time with the large animal herds; and that also requires a large land base with much of it vacant for regrowth of pasture. I think that this economy was being besieged in the byzantine era, with the expansion of Christian market settlements. Islam is a militant reaction - and it moved its social and political mode into a non-adaptive mode by defining it as a 'religion', ie, direct from god and outside of debate.

Islam isn't a religion of conversion; it's a religion of power over others, trying to maintain a 7th century mode of life.

I'm suggesting that the Arab States, in post WWII, didn't want Israel in their midst. Not because of its judaic ideology, but because it was setting up a Western style civic nation-state. The Arab States were, and are, tribal. They have been fighting to retain this tribal mode since WWI and II. It's a disastrous mode, suitable for the 7th century but not now - and is the cause of the emergence of Wahhabism, attempting to prevent change...and Islamic fascism.

The Palestinians are caught in the middle of this deeper struggle. Israel doesn't want them because they are not Jewish. Fine. But the Arab States don't want them because they are 'tribal nothings'. And, above all, the Arab States don't want a civic mode of a political organization in their midst.

So- how do you, as Arab State, prevent a civic mode from emerging in your tribal system? You first set up the definition of Israel as 'evil'. That's done by not enabling a Palestinian state, by telling the Palestinians not to negotiate and settle with Israel.
Then, you must constantly incite the Palestinians to fight against Israel. So, Israel retaliates, and a generation of hatred - hatred on BOTH SIDES, emerges.

Result? Your people reject a civic state and democracy because 'that's the mode of the Evil West and Israel'. Your people say 'We arabs, we are against democracy'...
Neat tactics.

It can't last. The population is too large for a tribal mode; it has to be civic and permit a middle class.

What would be best? A two state solution, and I think that Palestinians would be closely, economically, filiated with Israel. But, will the Arab States 'allow' this to happen? Or will it go on and on...until they themselves are forced to move out of tribalism and into democracy?

ET,

Okay they are not a race, but I did refer to them as a culture later in my comment. How should they be referred to other than a disgusting gang of whacked out killers?

Perhaps you are right that they are to poor victims of literally everyone except perhaps the CBC and Svend Robinson.

From now on I will ignore their continual attacking of the Jews with rockets, suicide bombings and their murderous political system between Hamas and what's left of the PLO system under Yassir's hapless and impotent successor whose name escapes me at this time. He is quite forgettable.

We can just let the chips fall where they may. Great idea.

According to you ... absolutely no one has any interest in doing anything for the Palestinians since they are the lowest of the low. Hated by all concerned.

Great situation ... cannot ever be resolved.

Why bother even mentioning it anymore since it is a violent never-ending stalemate.

From now on I will thing only good thoughts.

irwin daisy - of course there are Islamic fascists among the Palestinians; that's not the point. Equally, there are extremists among both the settlers and non-settlers who view the entire land base as theirs 'by virtue of god's gift' - a rather similar reliance on direct contact with god as is found in the Islamic ideology.

greenmamba - what's your point? The Jews never had a state either; neither did 'Canadians' or 'Americans'. And we weren't a 'people' either. The Palestinians were legally resident in the area. Would you provide examples of people in similar circumstances?

The circumstances are, remember, that you are legally an owner of land, farms and buildings and homes, and are, turned into refugees during a take-over of your area, not by your democratic participation, but by some far-off 'authority' (the UN). You are told that this new nation has an agenda of a majority of another religion; you are told by people on BOTH sides of the issue (Jewish and Arab leaders) to leave. You leave either then or in the war - and - you become a refugee for 60 years, without any compensation, any right of return, and, any new state set up as promised by that far-off authority.
So- let's have some similar examples.

I think that a great deal of this generation of suffering, and we can't and shouldn't mitigate the suffering of the ordinary Palestinians, is due to both sides - Israel and the Arab States.

The Arab States didn't want a Palestinian state that was civic. They didn't want an Israel that was civic. They didn't want to absorb the 'low status' Palestinians into their countries...which would also allow Israel, in its civic mode, to exist. They couldn't allow a nation in their midst, Palestinian or Israeli, that was operating in a civic political mode.

Israel should have pressured for a Palestinian state. Pressured the Arab States to allow it. I think Israel's failure to do this (which doesn't mean the Arab states would have allowed a Palestinian state!!)..added to the by now pathological hatred of Israel in Palestine.

And, Israel wanted the land - and still does - in particular, the West Bank. It should never, ever, have settled the West Bank. It should have instead, shown the Arab States that it, at least, was deeply sincere in wanting the Palestinians to have a state. Even if the Arab States were hypocritical liars about it. By settling the West Bank, Israel was showing the Palestinians that it didn't want them to either return or have their own state...and this plays right into the hands of the Arab States and the Islamic fascists.

Arguing this stuff with ET is like trying to convince a paranoid delusional that everyone is not actually out to get them.

It's a waste of time.

ET can rationally disguss many topics. This is not one of them.

ET: greenmamba - what's your point

I'm not arguing with you because in your answer to otter, you showed you agree with me about the Palestinians being brainwashed as well as abused by their Arab brethren. Where we generally disagree is in the blameworthiness of the Israelis.

Somehow in the warped mind of leftists only one half of a vise is to blame if your nuts end up being crushed in it.

The half of the vise that is on the side of Israel of course.

There is no way the left could have ever blamed
- or even mentioned - the Egyptian wall.

It is not what is being done to whom,
but who does it and who can be blamed that matters to leftists and their main stream media.

The more we dig, the more we find evidence the left and their main stream media are driven by a blind and bizarre hatred of Israel.
And the more we dig the more we see the left and their main stream media are either very dishonest or disconnected from reality or both.

I can not have a conversation with someone who tells me only one side of a vise is responsible for crushing anyone's nuts.

I could recommend them a good psychiatrist though.

Caroline Glick, Column One: Is Livni the Answer?

RTWT -- many interesting comments on the whole affair.

charles macdonald, thanks for the link. However, I don't find much to agree with in the article. I find Haaretz Daily is a good source for analysis.

Egypt has apparently tried, and failed, to reseal the Rafah border. I'm hardly the only one to point out that Israel would very much like Egypt to take over Gaza, as a kind of 'suburb' (my term) of Egypt.

I think that Iran is most certainly supporting Hamas, just as it is supporting insurgents in Iraq. And supporting Syria against Lebanon.

But I think that the ME situation and Islamic fascism cannot be reduced to one thing - Israel. I maintain that there are two separate situations that have become linked.

Israel-Palestine is a complex argument about the establishment of two states by a far-off authority (the UN). The religious nature of one of these states, Israel, defines the nature of its population base requirements (a Jewish majority). The other important attribute of this state is its political mode; it's civic not tribal; it's a democracy not a hereditary oligarchy.

The existent states in the Area didn't want a civic or democratic political mode in their midst to exist as an example to their own powerless population...who might revolt against tribalism and want a civic democracy. That's why they didn't want Israel there. And that's why they don't want a Palestinian state.

Israel, for its part, wanted all the land. That, in my view, is its error - in settling the land, rather than confronting the rejection of the Arab States of a Civic Democracy mode...by insisting that the Palestinians also have a Civic Democracy.

Islamic fascism is a reaction to the ARAB refusal to modernize into a civic democratic mode. The reaction is two-fold: the govts will move into fundamentalism of Wahhabism. That will put fear into the population; they won't dare provoke the govt and demand more freedom. Then, the Arab govts will divert the arab population demand for more political power into hatred against Israel and the West - that's fascism, with its mythic romanticism of 'pure power'.

Islamic fascism is using the Palestinians as a front to focus the arab population's attention away from the tyranny and lack of democratic power in the arab states...That includes Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia.

People will blame Israel for Egyptian actions, ignoring the fact that Egypt has always refused to grant Palestinians living in Gaza citizenship, despite one time being part of Egypt. Jordon to their credit has extended citizenship to West Bank Palestinians, which is a factor in their better economic status.

People also forget that the ME has historical not allowed Palestinians to immigrate and become citizens in their countries, preferring to let them rot in refuge camps for political purposes. Also the PLO and PLA has a long history of biting the hands that feed it, they have tried to take over or destabilize both Jordon and Lebanon and have been kicked out of most other Arab countries for their behaviour.

Egypt does not want Gaza and it’s headaches, in fact no one wants them and for good reason, Saddam was the only one that helped them and for their preferential treatment under that regime, Palestinians in Iraq are generally despised.

It’s a shame that the Palestinians don’t grab a bit of reality and focus on making their people a valuable resource, rather than expendable suicide bombers.

ET Regarding your 1:36 post, you are fundamentally correct in noting the origins of Islam. During the early 6th century, bedouin culture was being fundamentally squeezed by two large, competing, growing empires, the East Roman Empire starting with Justinian and the revived Persian Empire under Khosroes III. Its expansion was purely the result of the two engaging in a long, exhausting war in the late 6th early 7th C that virtually destroyed both empires, leaving a complete power vacuum in the middle east throughout the 7th century. The Roman Empire would survive to have a further revival by the end of the millenium. The Persian Empire did not. In a sense, the rise of Islam to prominence was an historic accident. Given the historic circumstances, Islam is not just a social and political doctrine, it is a military one. The rise of Islam was entirely by military conquest; for Christianity only partly so, and for Judaism, not at all.

Warwick said at January 25, 2008 2:19 PM
“Arguing this stuff with ET is like trying to convince a paranoid delusional that everyone is not actually out to get them.
It's a waste of time.
ET can rationally discuss many topics. This is not one of them.”

I agree with you, Warwick; and an increasing number of other commenters do, too. It is sad, but far too true; she has thoughtful things to say on other topics.

However, ET often becomes unhinged and emotional (or overly “passionate”) about Israel and the Palestinians. She may actually have something to contribute to a discussion, but she goes bonkers when anyone says something she does not agree with. She does not discuss or argue the Israel and Palestinian issue; she makes assertions and blanket denials – read her comments and reactions to what others write for examples.

colin, I agree with your comments that the other Arab nations don't want to extend citizenship to the Palestinians. As noted, many in the West don't understand the tribal structure of the ME and reduce all its people 'they are all arabs' and therefore assume that they can be welcomed as citizens anywhere in that Arab world. That's untrue; the population are defined by tribal filiation and that's hereditary - and if you are low on the tribal rung, as are the Palestinians, you aren't wanted in the Arab 'snooty' world.

However, Jordan did not, to my knowledge, grant citizenship to West Bank Palestinians. The reason the West Bank population lives better than those in Gaza has to do with the arable land in the West Bank - which is non-existent in Gaza. Some Palestinians living in Jordan may receive passports that are valid for a few years, but they are not Jordanian citizens.
http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/research/rir/?action=record.viewrec&gotorec=450189

Exactly cgh- thanks for your post. Right, the emergence of Islam was an historic accident, a result of a particular economic mode and its population being squeezed out of their territory by other populations. It is therefore, a social and political mode attempting to retain that mode - by military force. It's a military doctrine and its rise was indeed, by force. Defining that economic/political mode as a religion acted to prevent the population from adapting and assimilating with the other populations. But - it froze the ME into the 7thc!

What is going on now, with regard to its fascism, is a reaction by the population to that frozen tribal mode. The population base is now too large to function within the hierarchies of a hereditary tribal political structure. The population requires power over their own economy and actions in the global world; they require a civic democratic mode. The tribal hierarchy has refused to modernize - and fascism is the result.

ET, Haaretz is deep in loony Left land. They represent the most virulent form of what Jabotinsky called "the line of renunciation, of subconscious Marranism." In short, you may have the same confidence in their analysis as in that of the CBC or BBC.

For anyone who is not familiar with Haaretz's agenda, I'll include this:

Caroline Glick, The rape of Israel

Last Wednesday, New York's Jewish Week reported that the editor of Israel's self-described "newspaper of record" asked the US secretary of state to rape his country and told her that his erotic fantasy is to watch America rape Israel.

On September 10, at a dinner at the home of US Ambassador Richard Jones, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with a group of Israeli "elites." Among the elitists was Haaretz editor David Landau. According to the Jewish Week, Landau "referred to Israel as a "failed state" politically, one in need of a US-imposed settlement. He was said to have implored Rice to intervene, asserting that the Israeli government wanted "to be raped" and that it would be like a "wet dream" for him to see this happen...

islam et. you don't need to add isms.

old white guy - I'm not sure I understand your post. I use the term 'Islamism' purposely to define it as a sociopolitical ideology and Islamic fascism is a particular mode of Islamism that is - fascist.

charles - because he said/she said/others may have said, and because some of this may have been critical, is no reason to reject the content of a journal or newspaper. I'll continue to read the articles in Haaretz Daily.

ET With respect to your 3:49 post, there's one other factor that has to be added into the mix, that of civilization decline. For at least half of the past 1500 years, Islam has been the pinnacle of civilization in the western world following the fall of Rome in the 5th C, particularly with respect to science, mathematics, philosophy and a host of other disciplines. From the turn of the millenium to the end of the 15th C the most highly educated society in Europe was islamic Granada.

What has happened in the past 500 years is the remorseless eclipsing of islamic society as the world leader, not just in military and economic terms, but also in terms of culture and science. The final crushing blow was the breakup of the Ottoman empire as a mere sideswipe to the war against the Central Powers in 1914-8.

This creates a powerful 'fin de siecle' attitude within any group. The world has turned against them. From being 'first', they're now 'worst'. Ask any Leafs fan. Wahabbism is typically the brand of islamic extremism rightly blamed for modern islamic militancy. It's a creation of the 19th C when the loss of status was overwhelmingly apparent to all islamic elites. In addition to cultural demoralization, the other effect this had was of splintering an already tenuous unity. Islam had already been long divided into a large number of different sects. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire simply reinforced the division back into the tribal backgrounds to which you referred in other posts.

Under such circumstances there is a typical reaction by many to blame outsiders for the decline of a once-great civilization. That's Wahabbism. It's an extreme puritanical reaction based essentially on the notion that failure was the result of lack of virtue or morals by the worshipers and the allowing of unclean immoral influences from outside (in their view, that would be us). Given that its defining mechanism was military in the past, it has only that record of apparent success on which to base its future.

In short, contemporary islam shows typical characteristics of a society aware of an apparently great past, now overshadowed, and wanting someone or something to blame for it.

A small codicil for some of you, none of this in any way implies that I agree with anything of what they believe. But you have to understand the problem before you can come to grips with it. Giving the patient aspirin is useless if the disease is pneumonia.

ET, it wasn't critical, it was treason. Do continue to read them, but don't be surprised when others object to Haaretz's decades-long tradition of lunacy.

God preserve us. ET's at it again. What's with all this over-the-top passion?

I figure no more than a third, from the beginnings of islam in 600, to about 1000. they dont get the 100 years from the fall of Rome to when Mohammed started up. and alot happened from about 1000 to the high renaissance.

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

the european west went back to dominance about this time.

Brilliantly argued, CGH. I'd never quite put those thoughts into words like you have, yet now seeing them laid out, I think you are correct.

As I've mentioned before, I think that ET's overall model of the nature of societies in general, the current dynamics of the I&P societies in particular (where current includes the effect of history but does not focus on historic details that are by now irrelevant to or subsumed by the effect), and the realpolitik issues that must be addressed by the global system of states in regard to this problem, is generally correct.

In general, my position on the I&P situation is that the problem will not be solved until the global system of states decides that the problem has become too risky for it to allow the problem to continue. As long as it's not, shysters in the global system of states will succeed in actually promoting the conflict for personal advancement.

If my argument in the previous paragraph is true, then it may be the case that the solution to the problem is closer to hand than we might otherwise suspect, in the sense that nuclear weapons proliferation has become a major strategic threat to the power-brokers in the global system of states, and the mitigation of that threat may include some agreed or forced resolution to the problem.

To be clear, I don't know what to do next, and I don't know how it's going to turn out. The current situation, all in, appears largely intractable at least in terms of current best practice. The two-state dance is probably the only reasonable approach right now, realpolitik-wise. Hank argues in favour of this approach and related realpolitik issues, his approach which I largely agree with, in this Charlie Rose interview of Henry Kissinger:

video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6468270690914589463

Some radical development might change the I&P situation, or maybe not; it might go on for a long time (for some value of long). Personally, I try to avoid predicting the future states of chaotic dynamic systems.

If one wishes to analyze a situation and understand it, which is usually a good idea before taking sides on the issues, then while one is doing the analysis it's best to not take sides, as that often tends to cloud the analysis. It's like begging the question.

A good deal of the non-light-generating heat in threads like this one is caused by the cognitive dissonance between the activists and the analyzers. It doesn't need to be this way, yet we often find that all it takes is one or two who don't understand that to set things off.

cgh - I understand your point, and I accept the role that the ME Arab (and Persian) states played prior to about the 14th-15th century, in that they were at the centre of Mediterranean trade -and after all- this was prior to the discovery of America- and therefore, the locus of commerce was Europe-Mediterranean (see Braudel on that!).

But, I think you are using Bernard Lewis' argument of 'cultural civilizations' and the Islamic angst over the loss of imperial power. I don't accept his argument because of its focus on culture and its ignorance of what I consider more important causal factors; namely, population size and the economy.

I think that the Arab knowledge system was to describe and rescribe; ie, to retain the knowledge base of the Greeks and expand on its, and the Hindu, mathematical systems.

As a system of thought, however, they were opposed to questions, the use of reason, exploration of the human body, etc. Now, at this time - so was the West and Christianity. But, the West transformed itself and opened its knowledge base to questions, innovation etc. Islam remained trapped within its non-exploration.

Why did the West transform? I maintain that it was a necessary consequence of their rise in population from the 10th through 15th c, which was in itself, due to the extreme richness of the European biome. This population base could not be sustained within the no-growth feudal (tribal) system of governance, economic mode (local agriculture), no growth in knowledge.

The only answer, since disease/famine and wars could not decrease the population, was to change the political and economic infrastructure. That required a change in technology - which required a change in ideology and the focus on the rights and duty of the individual to explore, to doubt (Abelard's dubitando)and come up with new ideas.

The ME, in a completely different biome, could sustain its much smaller population at the time in a no-change local peasant agriculture. However, with the industrial era and the change in fuels to gas and oil, the ME was opened to new technology in the 19th c. This new technology, imported from the West, enabled a rise in population. BUT, the ME could not switch from a tribal political infrastructure to a civic (ie middle class) political structure.

That, in my analysis, is the 'fatal flaw' which led to fascism. Wahhabism is a form of fascism, with its focus on a former essentialist purity etc. ..and the utopian notion that IF you return to this pure mode, THEN, all will be well.

So, my analysis, for what it's worth, is not about Lewis 'clash of civilizations' or the 'angst over loss of power'. It's much more basic. It's that when a population reaches a certain size, it MUST, it has NO CHOICE, it must move out of a tribal political structure (which is two class) and into a three class structure, ie, it must cede power from hereditary tribal authorities, to the democratic will of a non-hereditary middle class. The Arab States have refused to do this. And since their ideology, Islam, is a social and political system, and, as a religion, closed to change and questions - then they are in trouble.

That's why they are against Israel, not because of its religion, but because of the insertion of a civic political mode in their midst..which mode would easily be very attractive to their own enormous population..who have no power in their own societies. That's why they don't want a Palestinian state - for the same reason.

I don't think CGH was making the clash of civilizations argument, ET, at least I didn't take it that way. Yet I do think that it may well be the case that, in the long term, what we are starting to see now is some sort of last gasp fanaticism, which is how I interpreted CGH's comment. To a large degree I think how it will play out depends on the degree to which the model you have elucidated, ET, is correct, and as I've mentioned, I think it is. Still, even if so, the open questions that remain are the trajectory between here and there, and the degree of collateral damage that its transit will accumulate.

Thank you, Vitruvius. As you've gathered, I too agree with the overall direction of ET's analysis. Like you, and like ET, I too have no suggestions to offer as a solution. I agree with your reference to the Henry Kissinger interview. I am strongly reminded of an analysis by the London Times team in the late 1970s which discovered that Kissinger's initial intentions in 1973 were that he wanted a limited setback for the Israelis, a military deadlock with Egypt, as a way of breaking through Israeli intransigence on refusing to negotiate with anyone after their complete victory in 1967. Kissinger was of course referring to Egypt, Syria and Jordan, not the Palestinians, and in fact got some of what he wanted, as serious discussion commenced very shortly after Yom Kippur with Egypt and Jordan. A very clever man, thoroughly practical and one of the very few ever to make any progress whatsoever of any lasting kind in the past half century in the Middle East. Hence, his advice is not lightly discarded.

Kissinger was a very wise man to resist solutions based purely on military ascendancy if you think about it. After all, in 1805, Napoleon dominated all of Europe after Austerlitz. In 1815, all he had was a barren rock in the South Atlantic after Waterloo.

No, I have no solutions except the general agreement all three of us have on some form of two-state result. That's why I suggested, partly in despair in another thread, that it will happen when both sides have suffered enough. The problem is that for some states, they have a vested interest in keeping it very much alive. Iran particularly so in this case. For Iran, diplomatically isolated by the US as it has been for the past 30 years, sees Palestine and Lebanon as a useful way to keep Israel on the defensive and the US preoccupied. Well, we've seen how well the Carter doctrine of isolating Iran has worked, haven't we? I don't know; maybe if Nixon could go to China, another President can go to Teheran? This is all far too serious, and this lethally stupid deadlock has gone on far too long, but no politician of either left or right has had the courage to state that what has happened hasn't worked. The left wastes its time in condemning Israel (and providing moral cover for terrorism), and the hard right wastes its time in moral platitudes. One Israeli prime minister did have such courage, and it got him assassinated by an Orthodox religious fanatic.

Predictions? You are entirely correct about the futility of trying to predict dynamic chaotic systems, which is an extremely appropriate description of the situation.

Analysis? Absolutely. Like you I find much to admire in Israel and little in those who denigrate it. However, when trying to discover the problem, we have to set aside our beliefs to get to the root drivers of the conflict. To use your phrase, I agree with you; we need much more light and a lot less heat.

ET and Vitruvius: Indeed I was not making Lewis's clash of civilizations argument. I view this as almost entirely internal, which is why the tribal economic model of society that you suggest works so well.

Vitruvius, this is indeed a last gasp fanaticism, and that was exactly my meaning. I referred earlier to Granada. It was a highly literate, highly tolerant, highly free society by comparison with European norms of the 10th-15th C. After all, islam preserved much of the Greek literature and philosophy long after it had been lost in the Fall of the West, and reintroduced it into Europe again through Spain, notably Aristotle but much else as well. It failed because its political structure, a tribal one, was fatally weak. It would have collapsed in time even without military pressure from the northern Spanish kingdoms.

ET, I agree with you that population and economics drivers with respect to a fundamentally tribal political structure are indeed at the root of this and a large part of why it resists change. Look at the one example of an islamic nation that did break at least partially this structure, namely Turkey. It had to do it through a revolution that overthrew the tribal political structure, the Sultanate, and in so doing make Turkey essentially a secular state.

The concept of last gasp fanaticism plays back in to my criticism of Mr. Steyn's America Alone thesis. Not to speak for Mr. Steyn, whose work I admire; I interpret his thesis as: if Muslim demographics hold up, and descendant generations of Muslim ancestry in the west continue to promote the current misbehaviour of some Islamist Muslims, then in two or three generations we will have an insurmountable problem.

Yet it is not necessarily the case that future generations will mirror the present. Indeed, when has that been the case (other than for short terms) in the last few hundred years? Especially when you look at mixing historically tribal societies with the modern West. Every time so far, at least eventually, the forces of the history of civilization (which includes western civilization, yet is not limited to it) have eroded historical societal structures that the march of time has shown to be no longer tenable (or at least, far less than optimal). The remaining basket cases are those that have eschewed the march of civilization.

On the one hand, part of the reason that things tend, in the long term, to work themselves out, is because real people like us here at SDA, both analysts and activists, speak out. On the other hand, part of what happens is inherent to the nature of our species, and unlike many folks, I think we're ok.

Charles MacDonald is correct: Ha aretz newspaper (or as I like to call it "Jews for the final Holocaust")is the equivalent of the Toronto Star or the New YOrk Times. It says alot that ET prefers it.

Why is it called "the West Bank"? west of what and from whose perspective? If you are on the Mediterranean coast it is obviously east. It is west for those living in Jordan, and indeed from 1947 to 1967 it was part of Jordan and the people living there were Jordanian citizens. Why weren't ET and Norman Finkelstein calling for a state for the ancient Palestinians during those 20 years when the West Bank was part of Jordan? Same with Gaza - from 1947-1967 it was part of Egypt - no call for another Arab state when Gaza was part of Egypt. hmm.

Why when a Jew wants to live in the West Bank, it is an "Israeli occupation"? Why does a two state solution require that no Jews be left living in the West Bank?

Vitruvius, in your comments on Mark Steyn's analysis, that seems to be far too many 'ifs' for the liking of either of us. Your remarks about dynamic, chaotic systems require caution in making future predictions. With respect to erosion of social structures, again I believe you are correct. To quote from WW1, "How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm when they've seen Paree?"

No, ex-liberal, they were not Jordanian citizens. it was Jordanian occupied territory. The Arab Legion, the British-created core of the Jordanian army, was recruited exclusively from the TransJordan. No, the Gaza strip residents were not citizens of Egypt; it was residual territory in Palestine militarily occupied after the 1949 ceasefire. As such, they did not have transit rights to other parts of those countries.

Hmm, I thought I too was complaining about there being too many ifs.

cgh - my apologies that I thought you were using Lewis' argument. Yes, I fully agree that Islamic fascism is indeed a 'last gasp' fanaticism. It is the reaction of a society that MUST transform its infrastructure, but is doing everything it can, to prevent such a change.

Many people think that democracy and a civic infrastructure is a matter of choice. It isn't. Interestingly, your political mode is directly related to your population size and your economy.

Within the ME, since those states set up their old social and political infrastructure as a religion rather than an ideology, it makes it difficult to change.

Using Israel as a red herring, the Islamic states, who want to retain tribalism, can fight their own people's Right to a Civic and Democratic Mode - by setting up Israel(and democracy) as antithetical to the Purity of Islam.

Israel's enormous error, and I define it as enormous, was to settle the Palestinian land base. That enabled the Arab states to use the situation to prevent any possibility of a Palestinian state (which, as I've said, they don't want anyway..because they don't want any example of an arab civic model in their midst).

And, it enabled the Arab States to continue to reject Israel - again, they reject Israel because it is a civic democracy. But, on the surface they can state that they reject Israel because of its occupation of the Palestinian lands. That, again, is Israel's error. It ought to have 'called their bluff'; left the lands open to the Palestinians and openly negotiated and called for a Palestinian state. That would have confronted the Arab States with a hard reality.

I don't think the situation will end when both sides have suffered enough; I think it will end when the Arab States, ie, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria..realize that they can't retain the tribal political structure any longer and they must free their people to develop a civic middle class.

I think that was the agenda of Freeing Iraq; it was the easiest one to move into and enable structural change. That's why Iraq, and Afghanistan are so important; they must be strengthened as models.

I think it's coming. For example, the UAE, and Dubai as an example, are realizing that they can't remain in the 7th century. As well, they can't rely on oil as their only economy. Dubai is educating its people, moving into a diverse economy, opening up ties to the west..etc.

The problem is that by now, the situation in Palestine has become pathological; the people there are trapped within an ideology; it's almost a cult - and breaking out of a cult...?

But, the West also has to firmly reject multiculturalism in its own lands, so as not to provide a rootless haven for Islamic fascism when it is no longer tied to the tribalism of the ME.

Thanks cgh, to you and vitruvius for an enlightening discussion.

I'm not convinced, ET, that if Israel had not settled in the Palestinian land base, then we wouldn't still be seeing most of these problems, due to the combination of the societal structures and dynamics you have described, and to the shyster factor that I have mentioned. I do agree that it is at least to some degree a weak front in their battle, in the Sun Tzu sense that it provides their opponents with an easy avenue of attack. Yet if it is the case that most of these problems would have happened anyway, then I don't think it's necessarily an enormous mistake ~ it may simply be more of a long-term bargaining position.

I do think that we agree though that the situation will probably not end until Israel's neighbours achieve the level of modern civilization that Israel has. On the one hand, that's where the global system of states is not determinative, in the sense that they can't force that. On the other hand, corroding the undergirding of those types of obsolete societal systems is actually, in practice, something the global system of states is quite good at (pace the UN), at least if measured over generations.

The trick is to keep Israel from being wiped out before that happens.

Also, I do agree that the UAE, and I might add Qatar, are very interesting to study. There is a degree to which I see an analogy between them in the middle east, and Singapore in the far east.

Right, vitruvius, I see your point that the problems of the Arab World rejecting a civic political infrastructure would have continued on even if Israel had NOT settled the Palestinian lands.

But, and speculative 'what if's are admittedly not worth much -- if Israel had openly declared that these lands were to form part of a Palestinian state, instead of settling them - that declaration might have, just might have, forced the Arab states to deal with the issue. Instead, they can blame Israel for the lack of not merely a Palestinian state but above all, push to the side their own lack of a civic political structure in their own countries.

I agree that the Arab States must reach the same level of sociopolitical structure as Israel for the situation to ease - and I think the change is taking place, almost by the back door, on several levels.

Economically, the Arab states have to move out of their dependence on oil, which enables them to maintain tribalism. As mentioned, some of them already are doing so. This economic change will open these areas to a modern industrialism, with its concomitant devt of a middle class.

The US's pushing of Islamic fascism back into its rightful place, the Arab States, was another level.
Opening up Iraq to a civic model, is another tactic.

How long this will take is another issue. But, I don't believe that a networked globe, which I understand to operate as a Complex Adaptive System, can readily operate if some of its 'nodes' are completely unable to interact and network with the rest of the system. This of course doesn't mean that all the nodes are identical! But a CAS does require a certain commonality such that interactions can take place.

However, the West, and particularly the Left, has to reject multiculturalism and the development of a rootless, stateless fanatical Islamism in its own borders.

ex-liberal, I think you know very well that the issue is not about Jews 'living in the West Bank'. The issue is about the governance of that West Bank and the citizenship of its population. I'm sure there would be no problem of Jews living in the West Bank as part of a Palestine nation, governed by Palestine, and with those Jews as Palestinian citizens. The problem would possibly be, the refusal of those settlers to be Palestinian citizens under a Palestinian governance.

ET - why don't you start your own blogg? Kate has asked commenters to post, at most, three or four comments. You regularly post six or seven, or even more, very long comments. It seems that some commenters appreciate what you write, while others do not. If you had your own blogg, you could accommodate the first group, and not annoy the second (which seems to be bigger). And you would not be hogging Kate’s bandwidth.

ET and Vitrivius: Last word from me tonight. Yes, you were indeed saying there were too many ifs. My apologies if my inept wording created a different impression of what you were writing. You may indeed be correct about there being problems between Israel and Palestine irrespective of specific land policies and actions. I suspect however that ET has a point that this issue has functioned as a lightning rod.

ET, I have only one small quibble with your post above. They "thought" Iraq was the easiest one to move into and effect change. It's turned out to be not nearly so easy as imagined in 2003. And, in line with your Tribal Economic Paradigm (there, I've given it a name, how presumptuous of me; feel free to reject it if you wish) that is what might be expected.

Vitruvius, The only small disagreement with your last post is the statement about Israel's survival. A modern industrial state with a modern defence force is far more rugged than most of us soft Westerners give credit. In 1973, Henry Kissinger wasn't worried about Israel's survival; he was concerned that it would so overpower its neigbours that peace would be impossible. Trust me on this, if you look at the raw military balance of power, Israel's military advantage has only grown relative to all its neighbours since the early 1970s. The technological gap simply grows wider with every passing year.

Otherwise folks, I agree with all your comments above if not specifically noted otherwise. We have at most I think minor quibbles on some details but agreement about the overall shape of the problem.

By the way, if you get TVOntario you could have heard John Manley's discussion of his report with Steve Paikin. I can only describe it as a tour de force, very tough minded about Afghanistan and very realistic. Some themes in his discussion were very similar to what we have been discussing.

Understood and agreed, ET & CGH.

And a note to Wondering: SDA has a long history, and some of us, including ET, have been here for a long time. I, myself, once a few years ago, had my wrist slapped by Kate for getting too chatty in a thread here. But it's not for you, Wondering, or me, or anyone else, to decide what's appropriate here, it's for our illustrious, gracious, and lovely hostess, Kate. She will let us know if our analytical discussion of the situation has gotten out of hand. Not you.

no cgh,
Jordan made them citizens

Wikepedia
Rather than attempting to establish an independent Palestinian state for its West Bank subjects, Jordan formally annexed East Jerusalem and the West Bank on April 24, 1950, giving all resident Palestinians automatic Jordanian citizenship. (They had already received the right to claim Jordanian citizenship in December 1949.)
Unlike any other Arab country to which they fled after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Palestinian refugees who found themselves in the West Bank and East Jerusalem (and on the East Bank) were given Jordanian citizenship on the same basis as existing residents. However, many of the refugees continued to live in camps and relied on UNRWA assistance for sustenance. Palestinian refugees constituted more than a third of the kingdom's population of 1.5 million.

In the Jordanian parliament, the West and East Banks received 30 seats each, having roughly equal populations. The first elections were held on 11 April 1950. Although the West Bank had not yet been annexed, its residents were permitted to vote. The last Jordanian elections in which West Bank residents would vote were those of April 1967, but their parliamentary representatives would continue in office until 1988, when West Bank seats were finally abolished. Jordan, although mandated by the UN to let Jews and Christians visit their holy sites, refused access to them. They also led a systematic destruction of the Jewish Quarter including many ancient synagogues [1]. Under Jordanian rule of East Jerusalem, all Israelis (irrespective of their religion) were forbidden from entering the Old City and other holy sites.

I did not say that Egypt gave them citizenship - I said that no one, including Egypt, made any noise about a state for Palestinians between 1947 and 1967. hmm.

Between 1947 and 1967 there were no Jews "settling" in the West Bank or Gaza.

And why shouldn't Jews be able to live there? Why does the birth of the state of Palestine require that any Jews living there be gone?

Israel tried to offer reparations, but Arab states refused - something about if they accepted it would mean they accepted the existence of Israel.

Economically, the Arab states have to move out of their dependence on oil, which enables them to maintain tribalism.

ET, I'm not sure that oil money is sustaining Arab tribalism. The commodities boom hasn't changed the face of Russia. Putin and his reversion to the mean, meaning oppressive Stalinesque behavior, gets endorsed by the majority even after the USSR years of material poverty. A better diet and digs, western goodies and a memory of real freedom under Yeltsin hasn't converted the Slavic mind to democracy. Tribalism with Arabs, not unlike every Native American I've ever met, doesn't seem to change with economics. Tribalism seems to move with Mideasterners even as they immigrate.

So according to ET Abraham was a gardener or was that Ezra was a gardener. After all one or both founded modern day Judaism. Jesus was a merchant or maybe Paul was a merchant and Mohammed was a camel jockey sheep herder. Isn’t it funny how none of that matches historical accounts? Maybe anthropology has greater insight than history.

I'm getting a bit of a chuckle here with all the "solutions" being thrown around. Realistically there is no solution and any speculation we throw out is just a bit of nonsense.

The fact remains that there can be no peace unless the people want peace. People will not want peace so long as there is no commonality between the people. Even in our own society we have lost the public discourse because we have no common basis upon which we relate. I just disparaged ET's posting because I see her lack of religious experience and in her intransience I think she discards what I view as the very glue that holds a society together. Fortunately ET and I grew up in a society that has a common value that prohibits us from killing each other over a difference of opinion but ours is a rare exception in history and not common.

History shows us that mankind belittles another’s thoughts or beliefs then proceeds to de-humanize the other and eventually go to work to eradicate the “aberrant ones”. At the same time, speaking as a Christian here, I see God constantly stirring the pot as if to keep His children at the top of their form.

Someone earlier posted that Islam was almost an accident. I would say that it is a fulfillment of a prophecy of St. Paul. Paul spoke of the son of the promise (Israel and by extension Christianity) and the son of the law (Islam). He also said that the son of the promise was life and the son of the law was death.

In other words there is no final solution. (Sarcasm intended). Israel will remain Israel. Palestine will remain Palestine. Judaism will remain Judaism, Christianity will remain Christianity and Islam will remain Islam. What we need to do is figure out how to handle the situation. If I pick up a snake and it bites me it’s not the snake’s fault. The snake has done nothing that snakes haven’t done since we were kicked out of the Garden. I was the stupid one for mishandling it. I don’t expect my dog to critique Thomas Aquinas but it is wonderful to play fetch with. Each is acting according to his kind.

All religions and I include secular humanism/atheism as a religion have different world views and are guided in these world views by the spirit of that to which they belong. Counter anyone and you will soon find out the spirit beneath. Each acts according to their kind and there is nothing in this world that will ever remove that fact. The best we can do is prepare ourselves for the time when someone in the camp opposite challenges us with nothing more than a leather sling and five smooth stones.

ET, I think you know very well that this IS about Jews living in West Bank. Every other day it seems I hear on the CBC that "settlements are expanding" and that Palestinians and their supporters are calling for the dismantlement of these Jewish settlements. This is discriminatory and morally reprehensible, yet many Palestinians and their supporters in the West have decided that there should be no Jewish presence in the West Bank. Why?

I agree with or am at least neutral with much of what you say after your first two paragraphs, Joe, yet I am reminded that this is not a zero-sum game. I think it is completely reasonable to argue, and I would argue that it is inevitable, that modulo the ups and downs of history, the net overall human situation will continue to improve on balance, as it has for the last 10,000 years, for the same reasons that it has so far.

In other words, though there is no, as you so cleverly put it, final solution, it remains the case that the evolution of the species has slowly, falteringly, and yet inexorably been heading asymptotically toward a better direction, pace the arbitrary philosophical sillyness of any sort of utopian final solution.

All we have to do is keep batting down the ideologists, one after another, forever.

And on that note I bid y'all good evening, have a great weekend, I must now go and
listen to Stan Getz & Astrud Gilberto performing The Girl From Ipanema in 1964:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpmGKbXxaOk

Posted by: Vitruvius at January 25, 2008 9:50 PM
"She will let us know if our analytical discussion of the situation has gotten out of hand. Not you."

I refered to one of Kate's very own requests, Virtuvius, and I asked ET a question regarding that request. Nothing I said even implied that I was speaking for Kate. It was presumptuous and silly of you to suggest that I was.

Point taken, sorry if my rhetoric was stronger than necessary. Still, though the concept of limiting comments to a few posts per person per thread has been discussed here over the years, you will notice that it is not included in the cyan rules above the comment box below. And this certainly isn't a flame war. So the alternative is the extended debate rule, which is arguably worthy of consideration; I was simply trying to express my opinion that this not (at least yet) such a case, though I've been wrong before.

Have a great weekend Vitruvius. In response to your post, you see human progress and I acknowledge what you say yet at the same time other wise men have commented that humanity is degenerating and that too I acknowledge.

Personally I see neither progress nor degeneration. I see what St Augustine called “changing direction without changing course”.

Of this I am convinced. We humans have a date with destiny that far surpasses anything our eyes can see, ears can hear, minds can comprehend or bodies can stand. Yet even as I strive I am compelled to love He who created us and by extension all that He created.

Apology accepted, Vitruvius. I do not visit SDA regularly, and seldom leave comments. And, I do not know what Kate would consider an "extended debate”. I was simply referring to a comment Kate left in a post awhile ago about limiting the number of comments per post.

penny, no, I don't think that an ideology can exist for long without an economic infrastructure to support it. Oil money is 'feeding' by topdown govt redistribution, the population, such that they aren't 'hungry enough' to demand more power. Plus, the severe repressions of a Wahhabi fundamentalist Islam prevents even thinking about freedom. It's an entangled mixture of ideology and economics and it is indeed difficult to sort out primacy.

ex-liberal, you are ignoring my point, which is that it isn't about "Jewish presence in the West Bank". It is about the political ownership of the lands and governance of the West Bank. This land is set aside for a Palestinian State. Therefore, I've twice commented, and you haven't replied, that the situation is about whether or not the Jewish settlers would accept that they are, in the West Bank, Palestinian citizens living under the national authority of a Palestinian state.

If they refuse this infrastructure, then they have no business moving to the West Bank. As for your insertion of 'discriminatory and morally reprehensible', I'll ask: 'Do you think it discriminatory and morally reprehensible that Palestinians are denied the right to settle in and become citizens of Israel?'

By the way, just wondering, since your comment was about me, it wasn't simply the number of posts you objected to, but your evaluation (despite your infrequent visits) that most readers do not appreciate my posts. Ah well.

Another inconvenient truth for the Left, the supremacist Islamists the MSM, you name the anti-Semites...

Whenever something's inconveniently true for the Left and their buddies, they deny, attack, defame, and haul before the Liberal Fascist Commission of Inquisition to intimidate people into quitting the spreading of inconvenient truth.

What's the inconvenient truth here? Smart folks already understand, but the Left doesn't, so I'll say it for them: Hey, Leftists: You are bigots, period. You like the Arabs and Muslims but hate the Israelis and the Jews. So go screw yourselves until you renounce your comforting fascist ways. Shoo, moonbats!

ET, if it is about "political ownership of the lands and governance of the West Bank", then why is there the insistence that the Jewish presence be removed before the "state of Palestine" exists? Jews have always lived in Hebron and Bethleham and near Rachel's Tomb and in Shechem/Nablus/near Joseph's Tomb etc, no matter who had the political ownership of the land (Byzintines, Mamaluks, Turks, British, etc).

No one has answered the question: why must the Jewish presence be removed from the West Bank for "Palestine" to exist? It is always in their list of requirements: "dismantle settlements". How do approx. 250,000 Jews ruin their ability to have a state? Why do they insist that Jews living there be removed?

Also you know that Israel is 20% Arab/Palestinian with full citizenship, equal rights before the law, voting, members of parliament, etc. Israel did not annex the West Bank after the 6 day war - would you rather that they had done that? This would make the Arabs living there Israeli citizens. Maybe they should have just annexed it - then anyone who did not want to be an Israeli citizen could have kept their Jordanian citizenship and move an hour away.

ex-liberal, you still aren't answering my question. This is the fourth time I'm asking it!

Would the Israeli settlers in the West Bank accept living there as Palestinian citizens and under a Palestinian government? If yes, fine - I see no problem with their being there. If not, then - they have to leave. That's the key question and you are continuing to ignore it.

As for "Jews have always lived there', I'm not into First Footprint arguments as having any relevance not only to the above question but also to any 'rights to land'. Arabs have always living in the Israeli area too. So?

You seem to be implying some moral 'right' for Jewish people to live in the West bank. I'm not aware of any 'moral right' for people to live anywhere. These are political decisions.

And the fact that 20% of Arabs in Israel are Israeli citizens ignores my other question. Is it legal for the current non-Israeli Palestinians, who live in the West Bank and Gaza, to move to Israel and/or, to obtain Israeli citizenship? You know that it is illegal to do so.

Therefore, you haven't answered, my second question, which uses exactly your words but substitutes 'Palestinian' for 'Jews': 'Do you think it discriminatory and morally reprehensible that Palestinians are denied the right to settle in and become citizens of Israel?'

Your comment about 'annexing the West Bank' is not relevant. That land was set aside for a Palestinian state.

By the way, the situation in the ME is more complex than our much simpler focus on CIVIC identity. In the ME, and even in Israel which is primarily a civic system, tribal or national identity is still definitive. So, citizenship and nationality, which we consider equivalent terms, are not equivalent in the ME and Israel. I quote P. Bennis

"All Israeli citizens, including Palestinians, have the right to vote in elections for members of the Knesset (parliament) and for the prime minister. But not all rights are citizenship rights. Other rights are defined as nationality rights, and are reserved for Jews only. If you are a Jew, you have exclusive use of land, privileged access to private and public employment, special educational loans, home mortgages, preferences for admission to universities, and many other things."

Note that I am not commenting on the morality or justness of this differentiation between citizenship and nationality - one which you seem to ignore. I'm commenting that it makes a difference in your ability to participate in the society.

"Islam has been the pinnacle of civilization in the western world following the fall of Rome in the 5th C, particularly with respect to science, mathematics, philosophy and a host of other disciplines. From the turn of the millenium to the end of the 15th C the most highly educated society in Europe was islamic Granada."

This is historical revisionist rubbish. The ideology of Islam is repressive and violently antagonistic towards knowledge. Especially non-Quran based, infidel knowledge.

It was the Muslim Caliph Omar who burned the library of Alexandria. His reason for this: "they will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous."

Crediting Islam as an impetus for higher education and civilization is false. However, there were intelligent men who happened to have been Muslim, typically nominal Muslims, however. And in fact, many were not Muslim at all, but hidden apostates, having rejected the irrational ideology.

As one scholar put it, "They claim to have invented zero and they've been contributing as much ever since."

Of course, zero is a Hindu concept.

ET
Jews have lived there when the land was politically controlled in a variety of ways and those who wanted to live in say Hebron would continue to do so no matter who was politically in control. That is not the issue. It doesn't matter if YOU would be okay with it, it doesn't matter if "settlers" would be okay with it, the Arabs themselves call for the removal of a Jewish presence in the West Bank in order for the state of Palestine to exist. Why?

Anyone can become a citizen of Israel after a period of naturalization.

Quoting from Phyllis Bennis, an anti-war peace advocate, does not advance your position. "Bennis is an employee of the Institute for Policy Studies, an organization that over the last forty years has shilled for the Kremlin, for Castro, for Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot, for the Sandinista and Salvadorean Communists, for Palestinian terrorists, for the Ayatollah Khomeini and now evidently for Saddam Hussein. IPS is the quintessential think tank of the American Fifth Column."

When you/Bennis say that Jews have special rights because of nationality, isn't this like saying that Canadians have special rights because of nationality (non-Canadians do not have the same rights; landed Canadians work and pay tax but can not vote for example.) Jews are a nation not only a religion.

ex-liberal, you are yet again, slithering from the issue.

I asked you specifically if the Israeli settlers would refuse to live in the West Bank if they were defined as Palestinian citizens and under a Palestinian govt. You still haven't answered, and it DOES matter what the settlers would agree to because they currently consider themselves Israeli citizens under Israeli govt.

The fact that the Palestinians want the settlers removed is because the settlers consider that land to belong to them, as Jews, and does not belong to Palestine.

Again, the issue is not First Footprint which is both a legally and morally unacceptable criterion. After all, both Jews and Muslims, and even their 'pagan' ancestors lived in all those regions before. That is not relevant.

It is quite untrue that 'anyone can become a citizen of Israel after a period of naturalization'. First, you have to be admitted, and as you know, but are slithering out of accepting, this acceptance is denied to Palestinians. How's that for 'morality and discrimination' (your terms)?

The first step of 'acceptance to eventually become a citizen' is important for Israel to control, since its stated doctrine is to maintain a Jewish majority.

I very much doubt if Israel would accept the 4 million Palestinians as citizens (even if they wanted)..that is why most, but not all, in Israel, reject a 'one-state' solution.

No, special rights given to 'nationality' as differentiated from those given to 'citizenship' are NOT the same. I pointed out to you that in Canada and the West, nationality and citizenship are identical. Your list of various other types of residency (non-Canadian, permanent resident, etc) has NOTHING to do with nationality but with types of residency and citizenship.

Nationality, or tribalism or ethnicity, as found in the ME, is completely different from citizenship. And, the FACT that in Israel there are certain 'rights' given to 'ethnicity' or 'tribe' (Jewish vs Arab)even though both peoples are citizens, is, in my view, discriminatory.

I disagree with you; I consider Jewish to be a religion, not a nationality or ethnicity or tribe. But, even if you do consider Jewish to be both a religion and a nationality, that still leaves the fact that in Israel, citizenship is not equal. Your 'tribe' or religion or nationality or ethnicity whatever you want to call it, also defines your powers in the society.

As for Bennis, I focus on the facts, not on filiations. After all, I worked all my life in departments devoted to furthering leftism, postmodernism and other such agendas. That didn't define me.

ET,

It is hypocritical of you to accuse others of ad hominem attacks, when you continually attempt to belittle ex-Liberal with the smear, "slithering."

As well, your entire argument is moot. Do you really think that a Shariah based Palestinian government would accept Jews as equal citizens? If so, what proof do you have?

There's mounds of proof to the contrary. All one needs to do is consider the depopulation of Arab Christians in Palestinian territory.

ET, I find it quite amusing that you would choose Bennis as a source, when in everything that does not pertain to Jews/Arabs, I think you would probably be diametrically opposed to her positions. Is it a case of the broken clock that has the correct time once a day?

When Jews (could they be called settlers?) lived in Hebron etc during the Byzintine or Mamaluk or Ottoman periods, they probably thought that the land belonged to them because they are Jews. So what?

I am not slithering away from your question. I think I answered. Jews who would not want to be citizens of Palestine (or were afraid for their safety) would leave. Some for sure would stay (there has been a continued Jewish presence there for thousands of years) because of the meaning to them of Hebron, Rachel's Tomb, the Judean hills, Bethleham, etc.

As I said above, it doesn't really matter if you or Jewish settlers would be okay with it, as long as Arabs are calling for the removal of Jewish presence in the West Bank for their state to exist. Why does the existence of a state of Palestine require the removal of Jews?

ET, Jews/Israelis are not perfect. They are trying to survive in a very hostile neighbourhood. Are you trying to say that Israel should accept even people who have waged war against them as citizens? Who does that?

irwin daisy - critiquing a mode of debate, where one person continuously inserts deviations from the topic and doesn't answer direct questions and comments as 'slithering' is not ad hominem. It's a criticism of their style of argumentation (not their person). That's exactly what ex-liberal was doing, slithering away from the question.

That's my point, irwin, that a Palestinian state would NOT accept Jews as citizens. I'm answering ex-liberal's repeated assertions that there is nothing wrong with Jewish families settling in the West bank - by asking him/her why he/she approves of such settlements - when the land is assigned to the Palestinians for their state!

And when, most certainly, the Jewish settlers wouldn't put up with being defined as Palestinian citizens within a Palestinian state - never mind that Palestine wouldn't want them either! Are you deliberately missing the point????

My question is why does ex-liberal repeatedly claim that it is 'discriminatory and morally reprehensible' to take the view that Jews should not settle in the West Bank. Do they have any inherent right to do so? No, there's no such thing as 'inherent rights' to land. Any moral right? No. Any other right? No.

ET,

So you are arguing on behalf of an Islamofascist state that in your words, "would NOT accept Jews as citizens." yet you are antagonistic towards Israel, a democratic state that does accept Muslims as citizens.

Just so we're perfectly clear.

I see no way that this situation can be resolved until the question of political Islam and shariah are resolved. Political Islam is incompatible with modern civilization, democracy and universal human rights.

Let alone getting along with your neighbours.

ex-liberal, the reason the Palestinians are calling for the removal of the settlements is because they doubt that the settlers would accept being defined as citizens of Palestine, and, furthermore, would accept that non-Jews could live in those same settlements, with them - even be in the majority in those settlements!

Why does the existence of a state of Israel require that non-Jews be in the minority? Why does the existence of a state of Israel mean that non-Jews cannot be admitted as citizens (eg, spouses of Israelis who live in the West Bank)?
You aren't giving the Palestinians the same rights in defining their nation, as you give to the Israelis.

As for admitting people who warred against you, that happens all the time. Lots of Germans and Italians and Russians now live in the US and the UK. As citizens.Japanese live in the US - as citizens. Wars don't end interaction forever and ever!

Nobody is perfect - and nobody is all bad. That holds true for both Israelis and Palestinians.

Wow, that's odd, in all of my following of this situation, I have never heard any Arab say: "the reason the Palestinians are calling for the removal of the settlements is because they doubt that the settlers would accept being defined as citizens of Palestine"

ET I think you know that there have been plenty of family reunifications with people in the West Bank. Recently there has been some cases of spouses coming over and then plotting/accomplishing nefarious terrorist deeds. Wouldn't you want your government to protect its citizens from such a thing?

Israel is the only Jewish state on the planet. Non-Jews are allowed to live there, but just like we in Canada do not want to live under Sharia, Jews in Israel prefer not to live as dhimmis. They prefer to stay in the majority to avoid living in a place similar to the other Middle Eastern countries. They have offered reparations to Arabs and have allowed many to return after wars of aggression started by their neighbours. The Japenese, Germans, Italians, etc. do not deny the right of the United States to exist and do not have terrorist organizations like Hamas whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel.

I agree that nobody is perfect and nobody is all bad.

Aye, nobody is perfect and nobody is all bad.
That's not sayin' much, still, it's a place to start.