Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Democracy can be a damned nuisance
Well, the debate on Webdiary on the election of Hamas in Palestine has already begun on the Can the UN work? thread, so thanks John for providing a more explicit place for it. I don't pretend to understand all the issues of Palestine, but I do know from my Webdiary experience that it is about the most emotive, polarised and personalised issue there is. So straight up, when it comes to moderating abuse and bile on this thread, I am going to be savage. I request that all Webdiarists be sober and careful in constructing their points of view, using references and links wherever possible so we can see the source of your opinions (unless of course you are an eye-witness or participant and hence a primary source yourself, in which case please reveal this). Treat nothing as self-evident - if it helps, imagine that you are presenting evidence to a court of law. I also invite Geoff or Will to submit to Webdiary an alternate perspective on the election to John's, whether their own or someone elses which we may publish. Thankyou everyone for your cooperation. Hamish.
The Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections has thrown the parties in the faltering peace process into a real spin. Even more so given the fact that the US illegally tried to pre-empt the election outcome in favour of Fatah (U.S. Spent $1.9 Million to Aid Fatah in Palestinian Elections).
But the “surprise” result once again underscored the inability of the US and its allies – the phoney champions of “freedom and democracy” - to truly understand the dynamic forces at work in the region, whilst their shrill, alarmist reactions to the election outcome rudely highlighted the fact that they were caught entirely unprepared to deal with the new situation.
Reflecting a need to buy time for their analysts to workout what it all means, whilst appearing to remain in control, the hypocritical crusaders for freedom fell back on the tried and proven tactic of noble chest-beating, outright lies and large dollops of hyperbole.
George Bush led the way by declaring: "I don't see how you can be a partner in peace if you advocate the destruction of a country as a part of your platform," he told a White House press conference (Bush Demands Renunciation Of Violence And Recognition Of Israel).
Condoleezza Rice echoed her master’s empty rhetoric by proclaiming: "Anyone who wants to govern and do so with the support of the international community has got to be committed to a two-state solution and must be committed to the right of Israel to exist, must be committed to the renunciation of violence." (Bush Demands Renunciation Of Violence And Recognition Of Israel).
Meanwhile, de-facto US Ambassador for Australia, John Howard, chimed-in with this: "So far as Australia is concerned, we cannot have a meaningful relationship with a government that continues to support and promote suicide bombing in Israel and the destruction of the Jewish state," he said (Leaders Urged To Accept Hamas Government).
Of course the “white hats” (the good guys) made no mention of the fact that the “black hats” (the evildoers) had already dropped the destruction of Israel from their manifesto prior to the election (Hamas drops call for destruction of Israel from manifesto) and nor did they make mention of the fact that Hamas had declared a ceasefire (“tahdia”) on their terrorist operations in March, 2005, in-line with their decision to pursue the very electoral process championed by the West.
And in making their loud demands of Hamas, the posturing princes of the “coalition of the willing” quietly and conveniently ignore the reality of Palestine, not mentioning the fact that the Palestinian parliament and government lack the authority and rights their counterparts have in sovereign states.
The Palestinian “government” has no control over the external and internal borders that Israel draws between the various Palestinian districts, to the point where they are cut off from each other.
Sixty percent of West Bank land, the primary physical resource of the Palestinian people, has been under total Israeli military control since 1967 and has been fraudulently deemed “state land” by Israel, thereby allowing it to claim that it does not misappropriate private land, whilst doing exactly the opposite. No Palestinian government can do with that land what Israel does: sow and plant; build; develop; maintain.
Israel controls the water sources from its territory and in effect sets quotas for the Palestinians.
Israel's control of the Palestinian population registry and freedom of movement means that it intervenes in personal decisions like family ties, place of residence, work and study.
Through its control of the external and internal borders, Israel also determines how the Palestinian economy will look - the rate of unemployment, the salary cap, the types of economic activity, the location of the factories.
And, notwithstanding the initiatives already taken by Hamas to underwrite its commitment to the western-sponsored electoral process and notwithstanding the US-backed military control exercised by Israel over Palestine, Israel, Washington and their marionette allies continue to condemn the organization as terrorists.
Whilst Hamas has already taken tentative steps to achieve political legitimacy, there will be little point in their continuing that process if Israel refuses to engage them in constructive discussions in pursuit of the peace process and the ultimate achievement of self-determination by the Palestinian people.
Quite to the contrary, continued condemnation in the face of a legitimate electoral victory will only serve to strengthen the cynicism of the Palestinians towards the west, making the task of governing and the achievement of lasting peace even harder for Hamas to manage.
We should not forget the historical Palestinian experience of first British and then American duplicity and betrayal visited on them over the past 100 years: they won’t.
We should not forget that whilst Bush, Blair and Howard continuously seek to justify in part their illegal invasion of Iraq on the basis that she ignored UN resolutions, whilst Israel has ignored many more such resolutions with impunity, simply by dint of US and British hypocrisy and their UN veto power.
We should not forget that Palestine has been subjected to brutal military occupation for 40 years. The Palestinians have experienced first hand the military might of Israel's superpower-funded F16s, tanks and Apache helicopter gunships and to expect Hamas to lay down its arms in the face of this ongoing military occupation is a pipedream.
Indeed, the Palestinian people fervently believe that they have a legitimate right to engage in armed resistance against the Israeli military occupation and International Law provides a firm basis for that belief: UN General Assembly Resolution 33/24 of December 1978 recognizes “the legitimacy of the struggle of people’s for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial domination and foreign occupation by all means available, particularly armed struggle.”
Meanwhile, the arch debasers of true freedom and democracy continue to unashamedly parade their hypocrisy in denouncing Hamas, whilst pursuing kidnappings, secret renditions, torture, targeted assassinations, military attacks on civilian populations and other terrorist tactics, wherever and whenever the whim strikes them.
For the US and its acolytes to suggest that the choice for peace in the Middle East is dependant on Hamas agreeing to disarm is as deceitful and dishonest as the claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction or that the illegal war of aggression waged against Iraq was pursued to “liberate” the Iraqi people.
Hamas and most of the world is capable of recognizing and understanding that there is no difference between democratically elected governments employing terrorist tactics and terrorist groups forming democratically elected governments.
Whilst Hamas can jump through as many hoops as the world might demand, nothing will change until such time as Israel, the US and their allies, including Australia, acknowledge that same reality and demonstrate a willingness to support and pursue genuine negotiations for a just peace in the Middle East.
Democracy may be fine but it’s a damned nuisance when the result does not serve your interests.
 |
|
 |
 |
| © 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
motives .....
"The acting Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, said yesterday that he plans to annex the Jordan Valley and major Jewish settlement blocks to Israel in drawing new borders, according to a television station that recorded an interview with him yesterday.
In Mr Olmert's first policy statement since he succeeded Ariel Sharon last month, Channel 2 television said that he made clear he intends to carry through his predecessor's vision of creating an emasculated Palestinian state on Israel's terms."
Israel Unveils Plan To Encircle Palestinian State
More Israeli Provocation
Olmert annexing more bits of the West Bank!!? That'll go down like a lead balloon with Hamas!
Old School Rules!
Hey Geoff.
For all his faults, which, by current standards, seem few, I wish we had the likes of Moshe Dayan back on the scene.
His famous quote, "If you want peace, don't talk to your friends, talk to your enemies", is probably the kind of advice that would go a long way in present circumstances.
Fiona: Mark, thank you for the reminder. We are but shadows of the heroes of the past....
History is as History does
John, in your essay you made these observations:
"We should not forget the historical Palestinian experience of first British and then American duplicity and betrayal visited on them over the past 100 years: they won't.
"We should not forget that whilst Bush, Blair and Howard continuously seek to justify in part their illegal invasion of Iraq on the basis that she ignored UN resolutions, whilst Israel has ignored such resolutions with impunity, simply by dint of US and British hypocricy and their UN veto power.
"We should not forget that Palestine has been subjected to brutal military occupation for 40 years. ..."
And later, in response to a comment of mine:
"Equally, Israel and the US both have a job to do to establish credibility with the Palestinian people. As I pointed out in my essay, Palestine has been under military occupation [What? No longer 'brutal"?] for 40 years, whilst the Arab people, including the Palestinians, have been manipulated, used, cheated and abused for a century."
You use this historical framework to work up your case that there is an obligation for the US and Israel to clear the air some how for historic and on-going mistreatment that is the cause of Palestinian suffering.(And presumably the cause, indeed the "root cause", perhaps, of terrorism. Or should that be "armed resistance?") Only then is there hope for a negotiated settlement.
As an aside what did you have in mind? An apology? Compensation? In the teeth of Hamas' vicious antisemitism, repeated stated determination to destroy Israel and attack civilians? Then everything wil be OK and it's back to the talks?
You then go on to suggest that it was me who raised the matter of historical drivers and imperatives. You have not ventured into history. You are making a completely different and contempory point.
Give me a break.
You have swallowed the whole, "it's all the US and Israel's fault" mantra in one bite and thrown the Brits in for good measure. Have you been watching too many documentaries on ABC/SBS lately? Where's France by the way? How come they get off scot-free?
Brother, with respect, you have not just ventured into history. You have taken a flying leap on to the ice with your skates on. It is little wonder you are soaked to the skin and frozen to the core.
There are some things I agree with you on. I agree this is not the appropriate thread to get into a debate about Israel/Palestine history, nor probably the right time.
And I certainly agree that the Arab people, including the Palestinians, have been manipulated, abused, cheated and used for a century. Longer in fact. They have been the victims of cruel oppression and crude bullying and violence from the strong. Even the most basic human rights have been denied them and this continues to this day. I agree that this is a driver that has led to today's cruel situation and that it has had an enormous impact on attempts to solve the Israel/Palestine dispute and has helped to make the problem so intractable.
It is over the identity of the abusers, exploiters and oppressors that we disagree.
hysterical pills ...
Geoff Pahoff, hi Geoff. Apologies for the delay in responding: I’ve been away.
After listing a number of comments from my essay, you say:
No Geoff. I used those references as a backdrop for people to understand the natural cynicism that the Palestinian people feel toward Israel, Great Britain and the US, again in support of my original thesis that:
I don’t believe that the treatment of the Palestinian people by Great Britain, the US and Israel in dispute: even you acknowledge that treatment later in your own post, albeit you allude to the existence of other, unnamed “actors” as the real perpetrators.
Your attempt to characterize genuine resistance to Israel’s military and economic campaign against the Palestinian people as “anti-Semitism” is both provocative and inaccurate. As I think I’ve said elsewhere, an Arab / Palestinian aspiration to destroy Israel is not difficult to comprehend in the face of Israel’s ongoing pogroms, including attacks on civilians.
That doesn’t mean that I condone such attacks by either side but it can help people understand the difficulties that already confront all the parties in finding a genuine basis from which to negotiate.
If you read my post in response to Mike Iyvers, you’d see what I believe are reasonable steps for Israel to take to address the Palestinian situation, whilst my essay addresses what I believe all the parties should be doing to try and build a genuine basis for lasting peace.
That’s not what I said at all Geoff. I said:
You then go on to say:
The hysterical pills must have kicked in here eh Geoff?
Thanks. And I look forward to the opportunity of reviewing your piece on this issue.
Given that you haven’t even identified these mysterious parties, nor details of their alleged activities, I can’t form a view about your beliefs, other than to accept that you don’t agree with mine.
Finally, you might recall that I stated that:
On the basis of your latest post Geoff, it would seem that I was wrong to exclude you from that group.
Ed. David, I’m sorry that
Ed. David, I’m sorry that I have to persist in this matter.
David: so am I, Damian, so am I ...
I am aware that Webdiary editors often do a thankless task and do need to maintain standards that have been set by Margo and developed over this last year or so, but I can assure you that while I often push stuff right up to the edge, I also make a conscious effort to refrain from making personally abusive comments on Webdiary.
David: well try and raise your consciousness - if that's your conscious effort, I hate to think what you might be like on a bad day ...
I believe that my comments about Will Howard’s and C. Parsons were made on the basis of facts that are to the best of my knowledge true. Making such comments that I have made about Messrs. Howard and Parsons were not something I did lightly or without consideration.
I have no problem whatsoever about Webdiarists making personally abusive comments about me – as I have stated several times before, I am not in the slightest bit interested in what people say or think about me personally – but I always will react to comments and statements deliberately aimed at misleading, hoodwinking or flat-out lying to Webdiarists.
David: well, as previously stated ad nauseam, we do have a problem with abusive statements and will continue to not publish comments that we believe cross the line. The line inevitably moves about a bit in different contexts and in the mind of different editors, but it is there.
Even More Right-Wing Deceit...
I note that Will Howard is attempting, yet again, to deceive Webdiarists by reasserting his original deceit about nature of Israeli ex-Generals and intelligence ‘experts’ reports about Iranian nuclear ambitions and the nature of the Israeli pullout from the Gaza Strip which he continues to present as ‘non-partisan’. This continued deceit serves only to compound his latest deceit whereby he attempted to deflect what were my original accusations against him as accusations against other Webdiarists when this clearly was not the case. He goes on further to deceive by saying: “I'd forgotten about JCSS but I'm glad I was reminded.” This after days of trying to rebut my argument. He may perhaps put it down to cynicism but I see it simply as another attempt to deceive by trying to belittle the importance of a subject that at the time was important to him – in fact he said that being accused of hoodwinking ‘made his blood boil’; hardly something one is likely to forget.
Will Howard’s deceitful ways typify the right-wing's underhanded hoodwinking of the truth. I noticed also that C Parsons has resorted to similar tactics when in a post yesterday he attributed a headline quote from the Guardian which ran ‘Gaza pullout justifies terror campaign, Hamas claims’, to me personally.
It is for these reasons that, as far as I’m concerned, these two Webdiarists have degraded their credibility to such an extent that I prefer no longer to respond to their scurrilous deceit.
David: Damian, if the replies you would have made were going to be as intemperate as this one, I'd say Webdiarists would be better off not seeing them.
Ed. David says...
Ed. David says: “Damian, if the replies you would have made were going to be as intemperate as this one, I'd say Webdiarists would be better off not seeing them.”
First, what was intemperate about my reply? And, secondly, I’d say Webdiarists would be quite able to make their own judgements about whether they should ‘see’ them or not!
David: 1) numerous unsupported statements of deceitfulness by another Webdiarist - you'd get thrown out of a Parliamentary debate for that!
2) as you well know, we who edit this site agree with Margo that this is a place for civilised debate and we do continually make judgements on what our readers see - and a number of them have indeed complained that lately we have been too lenient on marginally abusive comments.
Jaw Jaw Jaw. War War War.
Damian Lataan: "Gaza pullout justifies terror campaign, Hamas claims."
Er, exactly Damian. If that represents Hamas thinking on the issue, it's little wonder Hamas feels no need to engage Israel in negotiation.
And, seeing that appeasement doesn't work any better in the 21st century than it did in the early 20th century, the Israelis will dig their heels in too.
Reply to Will
Will Howard says: “Damian, do I need to remind you of your previous accusations against other Webdiarists of 'deliberately trying to deceive Webdiary readers'? Remember how those went? Not well for you.”
I should remind you Will Howard, that my previous accusations were not against other Webdiarists “deliberately trying to deceive Webdiary readers”, they were against you specifically “deliberately trying to deceive Webdiary readers” and I should imagine that Webdiary readers would by now have made up their own minds as to whether those ‘accusations’ went ‘well’ for me or not.
You may recall that you stated that certain reports from the Jaffee Center in Israel written by various Israeli intelligence and military 'experts' about Iranian nuclear weapon plans were presented to Webdiary readers by you as being ‘non-partisan’. I then argued that this was an attempt at deliberate deception on your part; an argument which I stand by.
As I say, Webdiary readers have been offered our respective arguments in this matter and I am sure they are able to make their own judgements.
Jaffee Center on Hamas
More On The Gaza Pullout
Further to my recent post regarding the Gaza pullout I draw Webdiarists attention to the following:
‘Gaza pullout justifies terror campaign, Hamas claims’
‘Hamas says Gaza pullout would be militants’ victory’
‘Hidden costs of Israel's occupation policies’
‘Israel asks US for $10bn to halt recession: Intafada takes its toll on a once-buoyant economy’
Webdiarists may wish to draw their own conclusions with regard to my assertions about the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.
Hamish, arrogance has nothing to do with it; time, or rather the lack of it, has everything to do with it. Either way, Webdiarists, I’m sure, can make their own judgements and arguments in rebuttal if they so choose. For my own part I have absolutely no interest in what you or anyone else think of me personally, and if you or other Webdiarists think that in itself is arrogant then so be it. My interest is solely in the well-being of the planet and the people on it. I make my arguments on that basis.
Hamish: please make your arguments, and give your reasons. Bold, forceful assertions without reasons and sources are not very helpful in my view. That's my point. If you convince someone of something on the basis that they have faith in your character, fine, but you have not increased the understanding of the community unless you have given them the wherewithal to draw the conclusion for themselves. In other words, rhetoric does not an argument make.
Gaza Pullout
Damian Lataan, the only thing the Guardian is good for is the crossword. The rest of the paper can be used for wrapping the fish 'n chips in.
Mexico. Industrial giant of the 21st century
Damian Lataan: "It seems some of the extreme right-wing Israeli apologists here at Webdiary (and elsewhere) have either deluded themselves into believing, or are otherwise deliberately trying to deceive Webdiary readers, that the Israeli pullout from Gaza was as a result of some benign concession made by Sharon as a symbolic peace offering to appease Hamas and the Palestinian government of the day."
It seems to me the extreme right-wing Hamas apologists here at Webdiary are correct in concluding that the Gaza withdrawal was to "appease Hamas."
But this concession was immediately represented by Hamas (and now also its apologists in the West) as a victory for violence.
There simply can be no denying that, and trying to divert attention from this core fact by demonising the Israelis doesn't alter a single thing.
Hamas (and now its allies here) just keep saying it over and over and over - that Gaza was gained by killing Israelis.
If this triumphalist rhetoric reflects the actual outlook of the Hamas leadership (or whatever Hamas leadership is presently left standing), there can never be further concessions from Israel.
Gaza was relinquished because the Israelis faced up to the reality that they could not go on forever governing Palestinians there. Sharon even said this.
And doubtless they are mindful of the realities on the West Bank.
But the hope that any Israeli government would now "appease" Hamas again - for all the thanks they got - is ludicrous.
Trying to cover this unfortunate fact up by heaping abuse on the Israelis doesn't change anything. Except provide comfort to Hamas.
Naturally, this is what our resident "peace" activists will do. Adjust themselves to the fact they are now mouthpieces for Hamas.
You watch. It won't be long before they start actually signing the praises of Hamas.
They've already started recycling the Hamas spin already.
Suicide bombers, targetted attacks on civilians, the extinction of Israel and all.
Step by step they're moving toward the abyss.
Phil Moffat: "Just wondering if it is actually America's money or the money of their underwriters. Certain Asian countries may view things a little different but then again, I am not an economist."
I'll say you're not.
If you think a couple of billion in US aid to the Middle East would require "underwriting" by Asian countries, I should point out that the Gross Domestic Product of the USA in 2004 was 11,734 trillion dollars.
That was more than a quarter of the world's total. Apart from Japan at 4,671 trillion dollars, no Asian country comes even close.
Mexico produces more than India, for example.
Hamish: CP, I am a 'peace activist' in the sense that I oppose war except as a last resort, and specifically opposed the Iraq war, but I have not once related to a thing you have said about 'peace activists'. I'm sure you're right about some people, from Green Left Weekly which you love to cite, or whatever, but my feeling is that there are many, many more for whom you completely miss the mark. In the interests of accurate, careful discussion, tending toward the truth of the matter, can you please drop this particular straw man. Maintain your criticisms by all means (I for one often agree), but try to hone in on your target. Thanks.
Right-Wing Garbage About The Gaza Pullout.
It seems some of the extreme right-wing Israeli apologists here at Webdiary (and elsewhere) have either deluded themselves into believing, or are otherwise deliberately trying to deceive Webdiary readers, that the Israeli pullout from Gaza was as a result of some benign concession made by Sharon as a symbolic peace offering to appease Hamas and the Palestinian government of the day.
This is pure delusional nonsense. Sharon was a brutal thug and a war criminal (indicted or otherwise) and his pullout from the Gaza Strip was affected because the maintenance of security in the face of Hamas resistance to Israeli occupation and settlement was no longer tenable. Simple as that. Does anyone really believe that had the Palestinians and Israeli settlers in Gaza lived together in peace and harmony despite segregation that Sharon would have pulled the settlers out? Of course not.
The reality is that Hamas was elected to power because the Palestinian people saw in them the strength to effectively resist Israeli occupation. From the Palestinian voters point of view the Gaza pullout was a Hamas success story that they hope will be repeated in the West Bank.
As I have said before, the ONLY way there will ever be peace between Israel and Palestine is when Israel withdraws to its pre-1967 line and from all other real estate that does not belong to them. They then must recognise East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital and recognise Palestine as an independent sovereign state.
Hamish: you might be right on every count for all I know Damian, but you speak as if you're an infallible authority. Please cut the arrogance, and provide references for your claims. I'll say it again: nothing is self-evident, regardless of how many times or how forcefully it is repeated.
Gaza pullout
Damian says: "It seems some of the extreme right-wing Israeli apologists here at Webdiary (and elsewhere) have either deluded themselves into believing, or are otherwise deliberately trying to deceive Webdiary readers, that the Israeli pullout from Gaza was as a result of some benign concession made by Sharon as a symbolic peace offering to appease Hamas and the Palestinian government of the day."
The only three mentions of the Gaza pullout in this thread, aside from Damian's, were from Michael Coleman who wrote: "The unilateral withdrawl from Gaza without any coordination with Abbas further undermined his authority and enabled Hamas to fill the resulting power vacuum." He was critical of Israel for making it a unilateral move. I think I can safely say that Michael, on the strength of his other postings regarding Israel, is hardly a "right-wing Israeli apologist."
I also commented that, "so far Israel, under Sharon's leadership has withdrawn from Gaza and some parts of the West Bank. Sharon was also in charge of dismantling the Sinai settlements after the peace treaty with Egypt." Just a straight plain set of facts.
C Parsons commented on Hamas' leadership taking "credit" for the Israeli pullout, quoting Hamas officials.
None of these posts mentioned Sharon's motives, benign or otherwise, for pulling out of Gaza. Now what was that you were saying about "delusional?"
Damian, do I need to remind you of your previous accusations against other Webdiarists of "deliberately trying to deceive Webdiary readers"? Remember how those went? Not well for you.
Now if you want to analyse the Gaza pullout, then go ahead. There's no need to accuse anyone else of "deluding themselves" or "attempting to deceive."
Sharon made it quite clear that there were a combination of factors driving the disengagement, mostly pragmatic. And...? Your point is .... what?
Any Arab recognition of Israel's very existence, from the Palestinians or others, has only been made grudgingly, usually after military efforts to "drive the Jews into the sea" have failed miserably, and certainly not for "benign" reasons. Getting out of Gaza was a positive move on the part of Israel, and hopefully not the last one.
Hamas' claiming "victory" for the Gaza disengagement is a major strategic and political error on their part. Israel won't make concessions like that again if they think they're handing Hamas a chance to crow about their victory over the Zionists.
Frankly, I don't give a damn why the two sides make any moves towards peace. I don't expect a hand-holding, Kumbaya-singing lovefest any time soon. I just want to see them disengage and sit tight in their respective states for a while leaving each other alone.
Let the spin begin
Sid Walker: "Would this be the same Israel that in recent times assassinated senior Hamas leaders on more than one occasion in cold blood?"
In cold blood? Hamas?
Anyway, the challenge for the "peace" movement now, as I see it, is the rehabilitation of Hamas in the public eye.
After all, those now committed to the Palestinian Authority's cause find themselves allied to Hamas. They cannot just back away because of this development.
So it makes sense that Hamas hire a Public Relations agency to doctor the spin for western journalists and "peace" activists on its record of attacks against civilians, the recruitment of child suicide bombers and the like.
Also, we should be mindful of the "rights" of Islamist governments to impose Sharia Law.
Bad in Iraq. Good in Palestine.
It's essential that Hamas be repositioned in marketing terms as something other than a terrorist organisation and be portrayed as a "charitable organisation" or as "heroic freedom fighters".
Nothing else need change. Be sure to use the word "Zionist" a lot when attacking the Israelis.
I mean, we've all gone down this path thus far. We may as well go the rest of the way.
Hamas? In cold blood?
Answer the question
C Parsons, yet again, you purport to respond to me but answer none of the points I raise.
A brief excerpt from a recent article about Palestine post-election, Israel's shooting of young girl highlights international hypocrisy, say Palestinians:
The question I posed remains unanswered:...
Will Israel eshew violence?
Hamas is now the Palestinian Authority
Sid Walker: "C Parsons, yet again, you purport to respond to me but answer none of the points I raise."
Well, Sid. There's no onus on anyone here to respond to you at all.
However, no government in the world would renounce violence in defense of its legitimate national interests, Sid.
Let alone Israel, a tiny place surrounded by much larger states some of which have previously invaded it, and others which have actually called for it to be "wiped off the map". As recently as this year.
Like, would Syria renounce violence in defense of its interests?
I don't think so.
How about Iran?
So, to the extent that Hamas is now the government of Palestine, I think you have a good point.
The Hamas regime now running Palestine should be able to defend itself with force, if necessary.
What concerns me is the threat to annihilate Israel. And the use of child suicide bombers. And the deliberate targetting of civilians by this organisation. Even before it was the Palestinian Authority.
You now find yourself in the odd situation of defending Hamas as the Palestinian Authority.
Must feel strange.
But I always thought that it would be something you'd eventually have to deal with.
Legitimate?
Mr Parsons claims, "No government in the world would renounce violence in defense of its legitimate national interests".
As Bart Simpson would remark, "duh!" What the "legitimate national interests" of the Zionist State really are is precisely what's at issue.
The possession and repeated use of superior force does not confer legitimacy, even backed by the most extensive propaganda network the world has ever seen.
Regarding C's diversionary taunt about the irony of my alleged "support" for Hamas...
Personally, I prefer secular movements and governments. I rather think the Palestinian Government will remain secular - much to the disappointment of the Israeli leadership which would doubtless prefer an unpopular and divisive Palestinian regime. Secular forces - and the spirit of unity - appear to remain strong in Palestinian society.
I think Damian got it just about right when he wrote, "Hamas was elected to power because the Palestinian people saw in them the strength to effectively resist Israeli occupation."
In that regard I wish them good fortune and success.
I hope they get real assistance, for once, from the rest of the world to regain their freedom and prosperity.
Palestinians, as a whole, are a very brave people. Their half-century long resistance in the face of overwhelming might is an inspiration to people everywhere.
The insane thing about the Holy Land is that if only all agreed to share and live in peace together (the original PLO vision), the area could become the fulcrum for unprecedented regional prosperity.
Since Zionists seized power nearly 60 years ago, obsessive determination to develop a supremacist State has led to an endless succession of dispossessions, terror and wars.
Time to wind up the show, in my opinion. The same winds must blow through the Holy Land that transformed South Africa at the end of the last century.
End apartheid in the Holy Land!PS Sid RE: "end to apartheid!"
PS Sid, How about calling for an end to apartheid throughout the Islamic world? I'm referring here to gender apartheid which, as practised in some Muslim countries, makes South Africa's former apartheid look positively benign in comparison.
And as I noted (with source) in a previous post below, Hamas has stated its intent to impose gender apartheid in the Palestinian territories.
Sid/Damian's claims
Sid says "I think Damian got it just about right when he wrote, 'Hamas was elected to power because the Palestinian people saw in them the strength to effectively resist Israeli occupation'."
The spin I've read in both the SMH and the Oz in the past few days has been that Hamas was elected because most Palestinians saw Fatah as corrupt - NOT because of Hamas's "strength" as a terrorist organisation. An Israeli friend has expressed this opinion to me as well.
End the Double Standard
AP reports that: "Israel’s acting prime minister on Sunday ruled out contacts with a Palestinian government led by Hamas unless the Islamic group renounces violence."
Would this be the same Israel that in recent times assassinated senior Hamas leaders on more than one occasion in cold blood?
Will Israel renounce violence?
Each year, far more Palestinians than Israelis die and suffer injury in sectarian strife - as one would expect, given the gross disparity in force at the disposal of the respective parties to the dispute.
Repeat: will Israel renounce violence?
Perhaps we should ask can Israel eschew the path of violence - or is the systematic application of violence and superior force intrinsic to the Zionist project?
A fair-minded evaluation of the last century of Zionist activity leads one to believe the latter may well be true.Negotiations deemed irrelevant by Hamas spokesperson
This is interesting, as it gives some idea of how exagerated Hamas imagines its own control over events, and how truculent it is likely to be in the coming months;
"At an (Hamas) assembly in Damascus, Khaled Mash'al said: "This assembly holds special significance, since it takes place after Gaza was liberated against the will of the Zionist aggressors. Who knows when we will celebrate the liberation of Gaza, Jerusalem, Haifa, Jaffa, and all the rest of Palestine. Hamas, together with the Palestinian people, will implement its policy using a new language, without feeling any urge to meet with the enemy or negotiate with it. Was Gaza liberated through negotiations?! Hamas will continue to wield its weapons and to [claim] its right to resist. Resistance will [continue to] be a strategic option until the last piece of Palestinian land is liberated, and until the last refugee returns." [12]
(italics are mine)
Clearly this individual at very least imagines the Gaza pullout was a "capitulation" by Israel (and probably the USA) extracted by Hamas through force of arms.
So, apart from being murderers, they're completely deluded about their own power in the world.
Does this sound familiar?
Hamas hires PR agency to massage useful idiots
Geoff Pahoff: "The people who should be reeling in horror at the Hamas election victory are the Palestinians."
An SBS News item last night suggested that young secular Palestinian people in particular were rather dismayed at the outcome.
I've noted another development in the "debate" about Hamas's election victory, too, that has an interesting historical parallel.
That now Hamas are in power, they'll "settle down" and "act responsibly".
For example...
And of course Hamas will play on that...
In the 1930s it was something of a recurring debate in western newspapers whether Hitler, having come to office as the German chancellor, would moderate his histrionics and aggression having assumed the responsibilities of office.
But of course, it's not just Hamas who do this.Whether the Hitler of 1933 was the same Hitler as Mein Kampf, or whether he'd 'settle down' and 'act responsibly'
And here we go again.
Hamish: "on your last paras, sources mate, or we are obliged to dismiss your claims."
About Hamas recruiting children for suicide bombings?
Sure, it's massively documented with scores of examples.
Boys, girls, pre-teens, fourteen and fifteen year olds. Take your pick.
The glorious Iraqi "resistance" freedom fighters prefer retarded kids.
This from Paul McGeough
But I'm sure they'll happily recruit non-disabled kids, too.
You can see why they have so much support among the Left intelligentsia, can't you?
Get Reel
John Richardson "For those reeling in horror at the Hamas election victory ..."
You just cannot see the point can you John?
The people who should be reeling in horror at the Hamas election victory are the Palestinians. I have no doubt that many of them are.
For my part I repeat that this is an appalling result although not unexpected. I am appalled because of my sympathy for the Palestinian people and their entirely legitimate aspirations. And because of my long standing but now lost hopes of a peaceful resolution.
For Israel there is now clarity. There is no additional security risk, in fact on the contrary, it will probably decline. Moreover political divisions within the country to the extent they followed the faultlines of the security debate will now ease. Israel now will not bear the responsibility for delivering a Palestinian state out of the filthy stew that makes up the Palestinian political culture. Nor can she be expected to. Others can try their hand. Don't count on the Arab countries. Or Europe. Or the UN.
There will be no negotiations with a Hamas controlled PA in its present form. Please try to understand that. No Israeli Government would consider it. Any Israeli Government that attempted it would not survive the week. Nor should it.
Perhaps if you had understood that before the election you might have been less sanguine about the result. Although I suppose that depends on whether your professed sympathy fot the Palestinians is genuine. Or whether this whole issue for you is nothing more than an instrument at hand that you can use to bludgeon Bush and Howard.
mindsets
Geoff Pahoff, no Geoff and you are obviously struggling to see mine.
But to clear-up a few details first.
Back to your main point.
I understand and share your concerns regarding the ability of Hamas to reform its ways and advance the peace process with Israel on behalf of the Palestinian people. That is precisely why I said that Hamas must be encouraged and supported in that process. That doesn’t mean being soft on them but it does mean being prepared to have a dialogue.
Equally, Israel and the US both have a job to do to establish credibility with the Palestinian people. As I pointed out in my essay, Palestine has been under military occupation for 40 years, whilst the Arab people, including the Palestinians, have been manipulated, used, cheated and abused by the British and the Americans for a century.
Given that experience, both Israel and the US are going to have to find a way to convince Hamas and the Palestinian people that they are serious about negotiating, before any headway will be made.
But if it is beyond the capacity of Israel and the US to try and establish such a dialogue and they simply try to control Hamas through coercion and intimidation, military or financial, then all the parties will lose through the renewed conflict.
At the end of the day, there are still only two options: negotiate or fight.
Anyone For Hypothermia?
You are on very very thin ice, John, once you start talking about history. Even if you confined the discussion to the Middle East since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. In fact you have already plunged into deep and freezing salt water and you have barely left the shore.
Your "long held and legitimate greivances" summary of Arab 20th century history has an almost religious quality throughout the Middle East. It is an article of faith that has also become part of the fabric of what passes for "left/liberal" intellectual thought in the West. Another religion. Everything is somebody else's fault. Especially the Americans and the British. And the Jews.
The fact that it does not stand up to an even cursory objective scrutiny is an inconvenience that can be easily swamped with propaganda and lies. We are talking religion here, albeit a secular religion. Truth is irrelevant. In fact worse. Truth is heresy.
Even if this victimhood view of modern Arab and in particular Palestinian history was even remotely connected to reality how does that justify Hamas? Or Islamic Jihad? Or the Fatah murder gangs? How does it explain them? Why would that warrant negotiating with them, given what they stand for?
In any event there is a parallel history of another people in the Middle East and Palestine that you have utterly ignored. A people who lived continuously in communities across the region since before the coming of Islam. At times brutally persecuted and eventually expelled from one Arab country (and parts of "Palestine") after another. Including from the "West Bank" following vicious pogroms in the 1920's, especially Hebron, and the old city of Jerusalem in 1947 and 1948 where they had been a majority of the population for generations.
Try to remember that Israel is a nation of refugees. And that a majority of the population are refugees from Arab lands where they had lived since Roman times.
On another note I accept that my use of the word "sanguine" to describe your reaction to the Hamas election victory cannot be supported by what you have written and I withdraw that comment.
from the ice .....
Geoff Pahoff, hi Geoff, I can feel the chill.
But, if I am on “thin ice” as you suggest, then I reckon I’d be in pretty good and crowded company on Webdiary.
As to the labels you so freely bestow on me and the conclusions you draw about my beliefs, without having justified or tested them, well, I’m reminded of the old “slings and arrows” quotation.
But, at the risk of being serious, if you have a particular thesis that you think might benefit my education, why not put it forward? Either write your own Webdiary piece or, if you don’t want to do that, then at least pay those that do the courtesy of dealing in specifics. At least that way we can have a reasonable debate rather than just trading our prejudices.
You accuse me of having ignored “the parallel history” of another people and I assume by that you must mean the Jewish people. Well, I don’t think I’ve done any such thing.
Apart from my specific references to the deceitful behaviour of the US and Great Britain over the last century and that Palestine has been under military occupation for 40 years (both statements made in a broader context), I haven’t ventured into history. Why? Well because I was arguing a completely different and contemporary point, which is about the fundamental need for genuine dialogue between Israel and the Palestinian people now, today (see my essay).
If you’d like to venture into the historical drivers & imperatives that lead to today’s cruel situation (for all parties), then please do so on the basis that I’ve suggested & I’ll gladly participate.
Thanks for acknowledging my remark on the use of the word “sanguine”.
One of the things that I notice about the debate on Webdiary is that people make claims or assertions but when they are rebutted, they simply ignore the fact and press-on regardless (I’m not suggesting that you do that Geoff): changing the subject, introducing a new line of thought, twisting or replaying statements out of context or, if all that fails, playing the provocation card... tedious and unhelpful for any of us still trying to keep an open mind and being willing to learn.
Anyway, back to my bit of the ice.
Military occupation of Palestine?
John says, "Palestine has been under military occupation for 40 years, whilst the Arab people, including the Palestinians, have been manipulated, used, cheated and abused by the British and the Americans for a century."
John, most of historic Palestine is now called Jordan, an Arab Palestinian state much larger than Israel and not under military occupation as far as I know.
Palestinians were "used and abused" last century? How would you describe the treatment of Jews in that time? The word "genocide" comes to mind.
and .....
Mike Iyvers, thanks for the geography lesson, although I don’t understand what it has to do with the status of the occupied territories or my thesis. If you’d like to develop the point, I’d be happy to go along with you but, as I suggested to Geoff Pahoff above, maybe it’s worth making it the subject of a new thread?
“Palestinians were "used and abused" last century? How would you describe the treatment of Jews in that time? The word "genocide" comes to mind.”
I think your use of the word “genocide” is absolutely appropriate to a specific and terrible time in the history of the Jewish people (along with many other groups in their company) ie: the 2nd World War.
In acknowledging that fact however, I don’t believe that the Jewish experience is a justification for the treatment of the Palestinian / Arab peoples by the US and the British, nor, for that matter, by the Jewish immigrants to Palestine over the past 80 years.
In fact, at the risk of being accused of being “insensitive”, it is somewhat irrelevant to the current debate.
Geography lesson
John, the connection is this: As I understand the history, Arabs and Jews have lived in a region called Palestine for many centuries. Following Ottoman rule the colonial powers made about 80% of Palestine the Arab country of Jordan, and later the UN made the remainder the Jewish state of Israel (in response to the unprecedented persecution of Jews and the fact that Jerusalem is to Jews like Mecca is to Muslims, ie. their holy city). Israel occupied the Jordanian West Bank in response to repeated attempts by Arab countries to destroy Israel.
Now I'm wondering what you mean by your vague statement, "I don’t believe that the Jewish experience is a justification for the treatment of the Palestinian / Arab peoples by the US and the British, nor, for that matter, by the Jewish immigrants to Palestine over the past 80 years." Please be specific. Do you support the continued existence of the state of Israel?
In my admittedly simplistic view (not being a historian), I think the Arabs getting 80% and the Jews getting 20% was a fair solution for the Arab side. Furthermore I think the Palestinian state of Jordan deserved to lose the West Bank to Israel as punishment for repeated attacks on Israel. I think justice has been served to a fair degree by the present arrangement. But you can certainly try to convince me otherwise, I do have an open mind on the issue. And if I am wrong about the history, I'd appreciate a correction.
Mike Lyvers:
Mike Lyvers:
Hi Mike.
I don’t accept that the historical issues you’ve raised have any bearing on the fundamental point argued in my essay, namely:
As I’ve already said to Geoff Pahoff, I’m more than happy to participate in a debate about the historical circumstances that have created the situation in the Middle-East as they are today however, I won’t be run up hill & down dale in this thread on those issues, as I don’t believe they are relevant. I also think that if you want to have that debate then it’s incumbent on you to do the necessary “leg work” to initiate it.
With the exception of your last question, I responded to you on this issue in my last post, pointing out that your raising of the historical Jewish experience, in particular the obscenity of the genocidal holocaust unleashed during world war II, simply wasn’t relevant to my thesis.
You have asked me whether I “support the continued existence of the state of Israel”.
My answer is that I do, but it is conditional support. In particular I believe that Israel needs to do certain things to achieve real legitimacy in the eyes of the world, including:
· withdrawing its military forces to the pre 1967 borders;
· acknowledging and supporting the creation of an independent Palestinian state in the occupied territories;
· acknowledging and facilitating the return of Palestinian refugees, either to Israel or the current occupied territories, as those refugees may choose;
· making restitution or compensation payments to Palestinian Arabs for lands / property previously seized or destroyed by the Israeli government or its forces, whether such Palestinian Arabs are currently in the occupied territories or repatriating from another country;
· taking action to abolish laws, regulations and practices that discriminate in favour of Jewish Israeli citizens over non-Jewish Israeli citizens living in Israel;
· taking action to abolish laws, regulations and practices that impose economic and social hardship and restrictions on the Palestinian Arabs living in the occupied territories;
· taking immediate steps toward the creation of Jerusalem as an “Open City”;
· taking immediate steps to comply with the more than 40 outstanding UN resolutions; and
· accepting, signing and observing the terms of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty
I wouldn’t say that you have a “simplistic” view of history: rather, just a particular view. If I’ve understood your comment correctly, it would seem that you are arguing against the creation of an independent Palestinian state in the occupied territories and in favour of Israel retaining control over those territories, with their ultimate incorporation into the state of Israel (correct me if I’ve misunderstood you)?
If that is your view, then there is no point in pursuing further discussion with you regarding the position advanced in my essay.
For the record, I also don’t believe it’s possible to “correct” a view held by someone-else. I think it’s possible to agree or disagree with another person’s point of view: debate the basis and relative merits of their point of view – yes – but not “correct” it.
Of course the history is relevant, John!
History has everything to do with the current situation. I'm surprised you seem to flippant about it.
Concerning your condition that for you to support Israel's existence it must be "taking action to abolish laws, regulations and practices that discriminate in favour of Jewish Israeli citizens over non-Jewish Israeli citizens living in Israel." I have already pointed out to you (with sources) that Arab Israeli citizens have more rights than Arab citizens of other Arab countries have, especially women, who are systematically discriminated against in many Arab countries as well as Iran. Does this mean then that you don't recognize the rights of Middle Eastern Muslim countries to exist unless they abolish all laws that discriminate against women and non-Muslims? That would at least be consistent.
Lack of property rights
Democratic socialism is a difficult proposition where you have ethnically and culturally diverse populations.
It is made even more difficult when the respective parties have little respect for each others property rights.
That the Palestinians and to a lesser extent the Israelis rely heavily on the state for the provision of housing and other services in an area of the world with a lack of space exacerbates tensions.
The dysfunctional nature of their respective statist policies and bureaucracies reduces incentive and ability for voluntary co-operation at the level of the individual.
It was this lack of respect for the Palestinian property rights at the outset by the Israelis and a continuing lack of development of the building blocks of the rule of law and personal responsibility for the Palestinians that continues to exacerbate the situation.
Perversely it is fear by the Israelis as to the consequences of democratic socialism and what this may mean to Jews should current population trends continue amongst the Palestinian population that is further exacerbating tensions and driving their hard line policies.
It's time for moral equivalence
Geoff Pahoff: "Israel should then declare its borders in the east. In the north as well unless Syria suddenly comes to its senses. Unilaterally. Further negotiations about this are pointless."
There's hardly any doubt, is there Geoff? It's just a matter of time.
Imagine the role played, by the way, of a West Bank under Hamas administration.
In no time at all, they'd be at war with both Israel and Jordan. And the feelers would be out from al Quaeda, too, to act as advisers and an intelligence service.
Damian Lataan: "And people think Hamas is a 'terrorist' organisation."
Yes, they do. It's the Hamas policy of goading people, often children, into acting as suicide bombers in deliberately targetted attacks on crowds on civilians, including other children.
Then bragging about it.
Hamish: on your last paras, sources mate, or we are obliged to dismiss your claims.
No Surrender!
You know I am inclined to agree with Damian Lataan. The ball is in Israel's court. But the game is over.
Israel will wait a while and watch carefully what happens. There is the election to get out of the way anyway. I predict a "centre-left" government but even if Likud forms the core of the next government the way forward seems pretty clear now regardless.
Israel should withdraw to its completed and reinforced security barrier. Unilaterally. Its line may need some adjustment but that can be discussed with the US and other allies.
Israel should then declare its borders in the east. In the north as well unless Syria suddenly comes to its senses. Unilaterally. Further negotiations about this are pointless. Far too much time and life has been wasted already trying to reach an agreement with people who do not want peace. The door has been slammed shut.
It is worse than absurd for anyone to suggest that Israel should attempt discussions with a body that wants it destroyed. Or make any concessions in the face of it. The heart of the PA is now formally a particularly brutal and vile culture of antisemitism, death worship and religious fanaticism. The fruit of generations of carefully nurtured xenophobic hatred by both secular and religious power centres that have relied on this to bolster control of their populations. Not just the Palestinians but throughout much of the Arab world. If Israel had not existed they most certainly would have found a surrogate.
Hamas is a fascist organisation. Fatah was not much short of that. Its whole reason for existence is hatred of Jews and Israel. They do not hide this. Read its charter. Listen to what they have said. Look at how it acts.
No other nation on earth would attempt to come to terms with such a body short of surrender negotiations. No other nation would be expected to. It would be unthinkable.
That there are people in the West who are, once again, so freely and frankly prepared to make an exception for Israel is nothing less than sinister. Get it into your heads please once and for all.
Israel is not going to surrender. The Israeli state is not going to be destroyed. There will be no more massacres of Jews without a very heavy price paid indeed. And naturally, unless Hamas becomes a very different organisation, there is nothing to talk about.
In the meantime, to give support or aid to a Hamas dominated PA, no matter what cosmetic tricks they try, is to become a combatant in their war against peace and human dignity.
Hamas' solution
From theglobeandmail.com on 28/1/06, Hamas: Separate classes for girls and boys:
The news article notes that Hamas' election slogan was "Islam is the solution!"
John Richardson: "Whilst it
John Richardson: "Whilst it will doubtless be an absurd suggestion to some, perhaps the religious hardliners on all sides might ultimately see the wisdom of Jerusalem being declared an 'open city': a true mecca (pun unintended) for Jews, Muslims and Christians alike?"
There are Jews, Muslims and Christians in Jerusalem in spades already.
Hamas and Fatah say they want the Palestinian capital located there.
The other problem associated with this idea, too, is who would administer the City itself?
A municipal government made up of which ethnic representatives and in what numbers?
Children Killed In 2 Seperate 'Terror' Incidents...
‘Terrorists’ in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have struck again at innocent civilians, this time children aged 9 and 13 have been killed in two separate incidents of terror.
And people think Hamas is a 'terrorist' organisation.
C Parsons "In the writing
C Parsons "In the writing of philosophers, historians, encyclopedists, and essayists we find character-as-designation appearing in physiological-moral classification: there are, for example, the wild men, the Europeans, the Asiatics, and so forth... Physiological and moral characteristics are distributed more or less equally: the (native) American is "red, choleric, erect", the Asian is "yellow, melancholy, rigid," the African is "black, phlegmatic, lax". - p119, Penguin Books, 1978
Hold your horses there C Parsons and dont give Mr Lataan any ideas. With the religious and ethnic mix considerations added along side last weeks election results, he will soon be asking why this same at best, very dodgy philosophy cannot apply to Canada!
predictions
About the only prediction I can think is fairly accurate after this election is that there will be more violence from both sides.
There is a certain madness that is being perpuated here that defies the reality of how people will think. When Bush "demands renunciation of violence and recognition of Israel" it is re-inforcing the humilation of Palestinians when he ignores violence from the other side. Israel does exist and will most likely exist for all time considering the unbelievable recourses poured into it by the US and it's ME dominance with nuclear weapons.
The continued calling for a renunciation of violence by Israel and it's western allies-which it has every right to expect, while at the same time ignoring the violence instigated against Palestinians by Israel can only re-inforce the militant views of Hamas.
We should be very clear about is happening here. Hamas hates Israel and has called for it's end in the past. Israel, no matter what it says and proclaims about it's own defence, exhibits an insane hate for Palestinians and treats them as a lesser race.
The real threat to the survival of Israel probably comes from within itself. No Arab country , let alone the Palestinians could possibly triumph militarally over Israel. All that can happen are the horrendous suicide bombings that kill a dozen at one time. But Israel's intransience in being totally blinded to any guilt whatsoever is having an effect. A significant number of the largest sector of immigrants to Israel from Russia have already begun to return.
Hamas a Nightmare? Nope. Still There This Morning.
Fine Hamish.
But in the interests of balance I take it you will also be ignoring the following from the above:
Hamish: not an unfair call Geoff. These statements definitely require some supporting evidence, and I for one do not take them at face value.In fact there have been reports of violence directed at Muslim women by Hamas vigilantes, including at least one horrific murder. I have chosen not to refer to these because I haven't had a chance to verify sources nor have I seen evidence of a pattern as opposed to isolated incidents by thugs acting on their own volition. But why would you find such a thing surprising given what we know about Hamas?
By contrast consider Michael's piece on which you make no comment. I am impressed that somebody is able to squeeze so much bilious spiteful nonsense (alright then ... unsupported propositions subject to incontrovertible refutation and that test the edges of fantasy and beyond recklessly presented as fact..[better?] ) into so few paragraphs.
I am not picking on this piece. There are in fact worse examples on this thread including, in my opinion, the lead article. I thank you for the invitation to present an alternate interpretation. But I wonder now whether this has become an issue that has gone past fruitful discussion. I read some of the stuff posted here and elsewhere and I see a moral inversion. An almost contemptuous atitude to truth and facts.
If Israel was a nation without flaws it would be the first in human history. But what goes on here and elsewhere is way beyond legitimate criticism. How is this demonising helpful? Naturally there comes a point where the shrillness and blatant dishonesty of the critics means only that it marks them as among the protagonists in an existential assault on Israel. Why talk to such people?
Nonsense, Michael de Angelos.
Israel does not regard Arabs as a lesser race; indeed, Arab Palestinian Israelis have the same rights as other Israeli citizens - which means they have more rights than they would in any Arab country! And Israel signed a peace accord with the Arab Palestinian state of Jordan many years ago. Obviously, Israel does not have an "insane hatred of Palestinians" as you stated.
I heard on the BBC news this morning how many young Palestinians are scared of Hamas' stated goal of imposing sharia on the territories. Women have already been threatened for not wearing veils, and restaurant owners who sold alcoholic beverages have been ordered to close. Bad news indeed for those who do not want an Islamofascist state in the region.
Hamish: Mike, I'm ignorant, as I said. The above claims require sources, or I for one, in the context of the internet, will ignore them as suspect. Forget the arrogant abuse as well (some of which has been marked 'do not publish'). It is not welcome.
unequal Israeli citizens' rights ....
Mike, further to your claim that “Arab Palestinian Israelis have the same rights as other Israeli citizens”, I refer you to the 2001 report by Mossawa (The Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens in Israel) titled Report on the Social, Economic & Political Status of Arab Citizens of Israel.
The report deals with the positive legal, institutional and cultural discrimination in favour of Jewish citizens of Israel vs the negative discrimination against Arab citizens of Israel, in particular dealing with “The Law of Return” and religious, language, economic, land rights, housing and sexual discrimination, as well as the unlawful killing of Arab citizens.
This is a succinct report & excerpts from the US Department of State Country Report on Human Rights Practices (2000) can be found at the end of the report & act to support its findings.
There are numerous other reports available that support the findings of the Mossawa Report and confirm the “water carrier” status of Arab Israeli citizens it refers to, as originally conferred David Ben Gurion.
Please let us have your thoughts in response.
from Wikipedia, to John
John, in response you may find the following entry from Wikipedia concerning Arab Israeli citizens' rights:
Bitterlemons on Hamas
This week's Bitterlemons tackles the Hamas victory. All four perspectives are worth reading and considering.
Re: Israeli citizens' rights
I suppose it was inevitable this would come up, and though I consider it a bit off-topic it is related.
I've commented on the issue of Arab citizens' rights in Israel in earlier threads: they have the right to vote, form political parties, serve in the military (though it is not compulsory for them as for others), and join trade unions (Arabs have been eligible to join Histadrut, the main umbrella labor union organisation in Israel, since the 1950s). Arab citizens, including one woman, serve in the Knesset, and in the judiciary (including the Supreme Court).
There is discrimination against Arabs and there are inequalities between Arab and Jewish citizens. It's wrong and it's unacceptable, as ethnic discrimination is anywhere (think of members of the Australian Aboriginal community).
Relatively speaking, Israel is far ahead of almost any other Middle East country in terms of the rights afforded Arabs, especially Arab women, and religious and ethnic minorities. I've made this point before: even the two Arab states that have peace treaties with Israel, Jordan and Egypt (as well as Saudi Arabia) do not allow Jews to be citizens. Few Arab countries allow any citizens, particularly women, to participate in the democratic institutions to which Israeli Arabs have had access for decades. It is still not clear how or if Hamas, in a Palestinian government, will deal with the issues of gender equality and religious minority rights.
Israel is far from perfect, and the rights Arab states deny their citizens do not justify inequalities within Israel. But if Western commentators (including Webdiarists) want to be taken seriously about the rights of Arabs in Israel, they could start by calling on other countries in the region to grant their own Arab residents at least the same rights as Israeli Arab and Druze citizens.
sources
Hamish, in looking for the BBC World Service interviews with Palestinian women I heard on the ABC radio this morning, I couldn't find a transcript posted online - sorry! However I did find this interesting tidbit - Churches targeted in Iraq blasts - which gives the lie to Damian's claim that there are no terrorists (except the Coalition forces, of course) in Iraq.
PS. The interviews I mentioned included a Hamas representative who dismissed the people interviewed previously as "liars." He said there is no plan to force women to wear veils, to prohibit alcohol or impose sharia - at least not now. Who to believe? I'm ignorant too but given Hamas' charter I would tend to take such responses with a grain of salt or less.
Hamish: thanks Mike. Grains of salt and doubts are fine, and show we have healthy minds. If we could all get past our need to be brilliant and infallible, I think we'd have a pile of grains of salt vs a collection of benefits-of-the-doubt - an honest, humble collection of enquiring humans in other words.
Bryan Law "Jay, why do
Bryan Law "Jay, why do you think a realist view is incompatible with diplomacy?
I dont. However Hamas up until at least the present has not shown any reason to suspect that they are anything but a terrorist organisation. Now they are in Government they may change, who knows I am not a fortune teller. The ball so to speak is now in the court of Hamas.
The USA, Israel or any other nation of the world is not under any obligation to deal with a terrorist organisation democratically elected or not. In fact dealing with a terrorist organisation merely shows a complete lack of ethics.
Hamas must first prove that they are willing to deal in a rational and ethical way. A good start would be firstly putting a stop once and for all to all terrorist activity. Before building a house one must firstly lay the foundations.