Abbas: Arab world was wrong to reject 1947 Partition Plan

[shira]

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said on Friday in an interview with Channel 2 that the Arab world erred in rejecting the United Nations' 1947 plan to partition Palestine into a Palestinian and a Jewish state.

The Palestinian and Arab refusal to accept a UN plan to partition the then-British-controlled mandate of Palestine sparked widespread fighting, then Arab military intervention after Israel declared independence the following year. The Arabs lost the war.

"It was our mistake. It was an Arab mistake as a whole," Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told Channel 2 TV in a rare interview to the Israeli media. "But do they (the Israelis) punish us for this mistake for 64 years?"

Abbas also contended that he and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert were "very, very close" to reaching a peace agreement in 2008, before the Israeli leader left office under a cloud of corruption allegations.

more...
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/abbas-arab-world-was-wrong-to-reject-1947-partition-plan-1.392560

[provis99]

1. Israel ain't going back to the 1947 lines, Abbas.

You can pretend all you want.

[azurnoir]

2. But Abbas is not asking for 1947 lines he is asking for the 1949 lines

the West Bank pre-1967

[King_David]

3. He will not get all of that either.

East Jerusalem ,Ariel and Maaleh Adumim can not be evacuated or divided.

He will get some land swaps in return though.

[shaayecanaan]

5. Ariel will need to be returned to the Palestinians

it was established specifically to make the establishment of a Palestinian state that much more difficult. It is located almost in the middle of the West Bank.

Given that only 18,000 people live there, it is hardly an impossible feat for this land to be returned.

[King_David]

7. Ariel will have to be part of a land swap n

[shaayecanaan]

9. Not possible

Even your colleague, Shira, agrees that Ariel will need to be returned to the Palestinians. Only the most fervent pro-settler ideologues believe otherwise.

[King_David]

10. Shira is my colleague?

Are you also my colleague ?

[shaayecanaan]

11. Absolutely...

you're my very bestest friend, bosom buddy and closest pal.

[King_David]

12. As much as one could be on the Internet

Let's go for a drink.

[Ken Burch]

16. Just promise me we won't see you guys staggering home later singing "Kumbuyah"...ok?

:eyes:

[Ken Burch]

15. The land swaps would be worthless.

Your country's political leadership STILL doesn't accept that the Palestinians have a RIGHT to a state, and a viable state at that.

As long as the Israeli government still acts as if Palestinian self-determination is a privilege to be earned through "good behavior" and an acceptance of the false notion that the whole thing was the Palestinians' and other Arabs' fault, this will not be resolved.

[pelsar]

23. a nation without civil rights....that is your proposal

and why does this 'right" in your opinion include having the citizens of this country live under a facist govt where civil rights, minority rights are not part of the basic foundation of this state?

Since when has the "far rights" version of nationalism being more important than civil rights became a progressive stand?

why is a state more important to you than civil rights, minority rights for its citizens....after all you did right that the state "should" have rights included but that its clearly not necessary....

[Ken Burch]

25. That is NOT my position and you know it. Stop repeating a falsehood.

Saying that the current lack of LGBT rights guarantees in Palestine(something all of us agree does need to change) doesn't justify perpetuating the Occupation is NOT the same thing as saying that a land without civil rights is ok.

You can't keep an entire people under military occupation in the name of minority rights-every progressive person in the world accepts that.

Nobody who supports the Occupation actually gives a damn about minority rights in Palestine. The only reason anyone DOES defend it is to prevent Palestinians from having independence. If LGBT rights were really the issue re: the Occupation, the far-right religious parties would not be the biggest champions of perpetuating the status quo in the West Bank, and the pro-civil rights and pro-LGBT parties in Israel would NOT be the biggest opponents of the Occupation. You also wouldn't have gay Israelis like Ezra Nawi in the Palestinian self-determination movement.

This "what about Palestinian gays" thing is a canard. Israel never demanded that Egypt pass a gay rights law before returning the Sinai, or that Jordan introduce LGBT rights before making peace with them. Why the double standard here?

And, by the same token, nobody used the existence of slavery in the Colonies as an argument against American independence-even the British!

If Israel actually cared about Palestinian gays and lesbians, or other civil rights issues within the Territories, it would offer to remove 10,000 settlers for every article of the U.S. Bill of Rights that was included and enforced in the PA constitution.

And, with all of that, I've just proved that your characterization of my views on the matter is a lie.

[King_David]

26. This whole post is rambling offensive nonsense.

Gay rights are not negotiable and are absolute. Anybody tell you different should not be a self proclaiming "progressive".

[Ken Burch]

27. What's offensive is to pretend that the Occupation is about gay rights

There is no progressive or rights-based justification for the Occupation. And we both know that keeping IDF troops in the West Bank can NEVER lead to anything good for LGBT people there.

The IDF isn't in the West Bank to defend Palestinian gays, or to make a future independent Palestine a progressive place(which we both agree it should be, as Israel should become a progressive place again instead of the horribly right-wing place it is now). They are there to prevent ALL Palestinians, INCLUDING Palestinian LGBT people(NONE of whom support the Occupation) from gaining independence, and they would be there even if the PA was the most gay-friendly government in the world. Bibi doesn't give a damn about gay people, neither does your hero Avigdor Lieberman, neither does Barak, and neither does Tzipi Livni. Nobody on the Israeli Right and nobody who occupies anybody else's land militarily anywhere does. And I seriously doubt that the LGBT community in Israel as a group accepts the idea that the Occupation can be justified by current PA policy towards LGBT people(most of them, most likely, are doves).

The way to get gay rights in Palestine, and the way to get anything else progressive there, is to work to END the Occupation.

You should listen to Ezra Nawi on this.

[shira]

28. Is it too much to expect "Progressive" members of Team Palestine to stand up for gays, women...

....religious minorities, and children within Gaza, the W.Bank, Syria, Libya, N.Korea, China, Cuba, and Sudan...against their oppressive totalitarian leadership?

Maybe demand that the UN and major NGO'S do more about all that....

...rather than focus an inordinate amount of time and resources scapegoating Israel in order to cover for these extreme totalitarian regimes?

[Ken Burch]

31. Of course we stand up for them

We don't have to defend the Occupation to do that, since continuing the Occupation can never be good for those groups.

And you know it.

[shira]

36. I see Liberals standing up for them. Not the "Progressive Left", which basically enables

...far rightwing totalitarian dictatorships. You consider just about any criticism of these extreme rightwing regimes bigoted, racist, and not sensitive to their 'culture'.

If it were up to you guys, Gaza and the W.Bank could turn into Iran or Saudi Arabia and you guys would never speak up for those persecuted under such leadership.

[Ken Burch]

46. My support of the Arab Spring proves you wrong about that

I have been critical of Hamas. I'm not obligated to denounce them on command to prove that to you.

And liberals do NOT defend the Occupation or the settlements. Even liberals know that neither of those things has ever been about democracy.

If your arguments were correct, LGBT Palestinians would be DEFENDING the presence of the IDF and all the restrictions that presences imposes. Yet none of them do.

[shira]

54. All data shows things getting worse WRT the Arab Spring, with Islamist extremists....

...like the MB and al-Qaeda becoming stronger.

You support that?

Because there's absolutely NO evidence liberal Arabs are becoming more empowered politically in those nations.

[Ken Burch]

57. That isn't true. They've already scheduled elections in Libya

and that can only strengthen the liberal Arabs.

Keeping Mubarak in power was never going to lead to any liberal ends. And you know it. Mubarak never wanted Egyptians to be free. The old leader in Tunisia never wanted Tunisians to be free. The Shah always opposed democracy for Iran.

Stop pretending that there can be a "positive tyrant".

Why can't you accept that there was no hope for anything democratic in preserving any part of the pre-Arab Spring status quo?

[shira]

83. Electing the MB or al-Qaeda into power in Libya doesn't strengthen Arab liberals. Here's an article

...showing how the Arab Spring is really more of an Islamic revolution:

http://www.hudson-ny.org/2541/arab-spring-islamist-winter

No need to pretend the Arab Spring is good for Arab masses. You should deal with reality. THEY have to, so should you.

[Ken Burch]

108. It is good. Change is good.

What good came to the Arab masses from keeping the OLD dictators in power? What good came to Iranians from keeping the Shah in power?

Unless you were a millionaire, there was no meaningful difference between Mubarak and Shah on the one hand and the Islamists on the other. There's no difference between and "authoritarian" and a "totalitarian" if you're a worker or you are unemployed.

Why are you so afraid to admit that Arabs and Muslims can change their societies on their own? Do you WANT the colonial era back? That was an era where those regions had no hope at all.

[shira]

121. Oh really? Was Iranian change from the Shah to the Ayatollah good too? Be honest now. NT

[Ken Burch]

127. The Shah HAD to be overthrown. There was no alternative to doing that

And it couldn't be known at the time that the mullahs would take over.

You know perfectly well that democracy could never have emerged in Iran while the Pahlevis stayed in power. They were never ever going to allow themselves to be reduced to a British-style constitutional monarchy(which is ironic, since the Pahlevis were only ever in power because the British put them there in order to prevent secular egalitarian democracy(and, naturally, the nationalization of the Iranian oil reserves as a democratic Iran would always have demanded)from happening.

In 1979, the Shah had no remaining support at all in Iran. You can't seriously think he could have been kept in power under those conditions, even if keeping him in could have had positive effects, which we both know it could never have had. And the current anti-Israeli feeling in Iran is largely a product of Israel's sickening allegiance to the Pahlevis. Had they not aligned with those phony monarchs, the Iranian opposition would not have had the feelings of anger it has had towards Israel.

[pelsar]

131. actually your wrong again....

Khommeni was the "leader" of choice.....and as a religious leader, he's beliefs were well recorded (you'll probably make the same claim when the MB takes over egypt, the fanatics get Libya....)

and just for argument sake,
if you claim know one could read the future about one thing,

And it couldn't be known at the time that the mullahs would take over.

then you sure can't claim to be able to read the future about something else
You know perfectly well that democracy could never have emerged in Iran while the Pahlevis stayed in power.


-----
jesus...its bad enough you make up stuff about the IDF/israel, and its people, now your claiming you know about the iranian people and the mullahs?
i'm impressed you seem to have absolute knowledge about every single social/political group on the face of the earth?...is there any group that you don't know about?

Iran is largely a product of Israel's sickening allegiance to the Pahlevis. Had they not aligned with those phony monarchs, the Iranian opposition would not have had the feelings of anger it has had towards Israel.

[Ken Burch]

132. You improperly edited that last quote

I didn't say that "Iran" was largely a product of the Israeli alliance with the Pahlevis...I said anti-Israeli feelings within Iran were a product of that. There's a huge difference between that and what your edit falsely implied that I said.

And the fact remains...Iran never could have become anything other than it was(a police state)as long as the Shah remained on the throne. The Pahlevis were never going to allow democracy. They had to be overthrown for democracy even to have a chance in Iran. You can't dispute that.

[pelsar]

141. oops ..i made a mistake ..sorry..

nti-Israeli feelings within Iran were a product of that.

yes you wrote that and you also wrote another false claim:

And the fact remains...Iran never could have become anything other than it was(a police state)as long as the Shah remained on the throne

thats not a fact...you clearly do not understand the definition of the word fact. A belief about the future about what people will do or what they don't do is not a fact, it is a belief.

perhaps you should use the dictionary before you write...its makes if extremely difficult to have a discussion if one doesn't understand the definition of words.
and if this insults you, it should, basic english and its definitions is a basic requirement for discussions, making up definitions is not a good thing.

[Ken Burch]

148. No, it's not a belief. It's a product of study of the situation.

The Shah's conduct up until the end of his reign proves that he would never, under any circumstances, have, allowed democratic reform. Pahlevi had been on his illegitimate throne since the U.S. overthrow of the emerging secular democratic Mossadegh regime, and in all that time he had never allowed any political liberalization. If he hadn't done that in twenty-six years, why would anyone ever think he would do it later?

By the same token, the fact that Mubarak had never allowed any democratic reforms in THIRTY YEARS(when he had no justification whatsoever for preventing Egypt from becoming a democracy)proves he never would have allowed any in the future. Why would he ever do what he had refused to do for three full decades?

[pelsar]

154. lets take your product 'study" as fact for a second

then this is EXACTLY what your propose for the Palestinians.....a dictator who has no interest in civil rights, but you agree because he is of the proper "race".

correct?


dumb statement:
f he hadn't done that in twenty-six years, why would anyone ever think he would do it later?
circumstances change, sometimes people change with them, sometimes they don't....i don't have your particular powers of knowing who will and who won't...but i'm impressed that you do.

but to bring that back down to earth:
Predicting what people will do in the future cannot be a "fact" as you claim...its an impossibility.

[shira]

134. Ken, why can't you admit that the overthrow of the Shah made matters far worse for Iranians?

It appears you're still supporting the replacement of the Shah with the Ayatollahs, 30 years later, despite conditions getting far worse for the average Iranian.

Why?

[Ken Burch]

138. I'm supporting the FIRST part of that...the overthrow of the Shah

I do not support the mullahs. We both know the Shah couldn't have been kept in power in 1979 even if keeping him in power had made any sense.

It didn't have to end up being the mullahs, and I believe the Iranian people will overthrow them.

We both know no hope of anything good for Iran existed under the Shah.


BTW...would you agree that the world needs to make sure that no one from the Pahlevi family ever ends up ruling Iran again?

[shira]

146. See #145. As for your question....

If it were up to me, and the only bad choices were between the Shah or the Ayatollah, I'll take the Shah.

I believe you understand that a theocratic fascist dictatorship is worse than a secular one, but I can't yet figure out why you're attempting to defend the indefensible.

[Ken Burch]

150. In Iran, those WEREN'T the only choices

There was a secular opposition as well, but the U.S. did nothing to help it. I wish Shapour Baktiar had actually been able to consolidate power in Iran, but he sabotaged himself by his ridiculous refusal to either disaband the secret police(SAVAK) OR to promise the Iranian people, as he should have done, that the Shah would never return to Iran and would never return to power in that country.

There are still heroic dissidents in Iran, and I support their cause, a cause I believe to have a greater likiihood of success now that the pro-democracy movement is sweeping the Arab and Islamic worlds.

My support for them is a major reason I oppose a missile strike on Iran(the senseless tactic you refuse to condemn, so I assume you support Bibi on that). A missile strike can only harm the efforts to democratize Iran and can only strengthen the mullahs, since all external attacks against a regime cause a "rally 'round the flag" effect that drives up support for that regime.

And here's the other question you need to answer...since it was clear, in 1979, that even if it had been a good idea to keep the Shah in power, nothing could keep him there(since everyone in Iran wanted him out), why do you still bother arguing that people SHOULD have supported him?

(And you do realize that your support for the Pahlevis, a dynasty that would never have allowed democratic reform in the future if they hadn't allowed it in the previous twenty-six years, is a contradiction of your claim to be a "liberal" who defends human rights and freedom when the Left allegedly doesn't, don't you? You've hung yourself on your own petard with that stance).

[shira]

159. Ken, are Iranians better off under the Ayatollahs now or under secular dictatorship? n/t

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[King_David]

63. Sick nt

[Ken Burch]

47. I will agree that you are the "go-to guy" about immature ramblings.

That's what every post you've made has been: drive-by childish snark.

You never engage ANYONE in conversation or argument-you only post random personal insults.

Why are you afraid to actually make a case for your own positions?

[King_David]

61. Edited

Some miniscule things are not worth the curse.

[pelsar]

29. i just commented on your hierarchy of values..just you, nobody else

you clearly stated that a Palestinians state SHOULD have civil rights as its base, but you clearly stated SHOULD, not MUST, because you don't believe they MUST.

hence you clearly believe that nationalism takes precedent over individual civil rights. (just as those on the far right believe).

i believe that any govt regardless of who's genes are in the controlling govt that does not have civil rights of the individual as a basic building block for the nation is in an occupation govt. (as in syria, iran, saudi arabia, hamas and the PA)

so from my point of view, you just want to change the israeli occupation for a Palestinians one....the difference being only the genes (the race)
_______________________________

its your values i'm commenting on, nothing else, if you want some help in defending nationalism over individual rights, try the right wing websites, they should help.

[Ken Burch]

32. I want those things at the start

Keeping the Occupation in place can't GET them there at the start.

Therefore, I don't have to defend the Occupation to want those things there at the start. End of discussion.

Continuing the Occupation can never be good for civil rights in Palestine.

[pelsar]

34. yes you want those things..but its not essential..and that is the point

you want to replace one occupation with another occupation......the only difference is the genes of the occupier. (guess what that means?)

and your premise that civil rights/minority rights cannot be written into the PA constitution, guaranteed by the PA govt is simply false......perhaps you can explain why they can't do it?

(i got examples that show that it can be done....)
_____

the point is your position as a "progressive" is based far more on racial issues than civil rights or freedom, you've clearly put them as a secondary issue and its not so much that i care about that position, but it does reduce the chances of a stable govt that can live in peace with israel. (dictatorships are inherently unstable).

[shira]

40. Of course rights aren't essential for Palestinians...

Here's a well respected Communist writing about a major problem that our Progressive Leftwing friends have....

It is an anti-colonial movement whose perspectives coincide with that of the ruling classes in the so-called Third World. This grouping is on the side of the ‘colonies’ no matter what goes on there. And their understanding of the ‘colonies’ is Eurocentric, patronising and even racist. In the world according to them, the people in these countries are one and the same with the regimes they are struggling against just as the ‘Muslim community’ here is one and the same with reactionary Islamic organisations, Sharia councils, and parasitical imams. Which is why at Stop the War Coalition demonstrations, they carry banners saying ‘We are all Hezbollah;’ at meetings they segregate men and women and urge unveiled women to veil out of ‘solidarity’ and ‘respect’.

This type of politics denies universalism, sees rights as ‘western,’ justifies the suppression of rights, freedoms and equality under the guise of respect for other ‘cultures’ implying that people want to live the way they are forced to and imputing on innumerable people the most reactionary elements of culture and religion, which is that of the ruling class.

In this type of politics, the oppressor is victim and any criticism racist…

http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/2009/10/pathetic-excuse-of-much-of-european.html

[Ken Burch]

48. I have said here that I disagree with Hamas on its religious agenda and many other things

Why isn't that enough for you? Why do I have to denounce them every time you DEMAND that I denounce them? What makes you the supreme authority on when denunciation is necessary.

What I actually believe is that opposing Hamas is not more important than everything else-why is THAT such a terrible thing? Hamas, horrible as it is, isn't the cause of this situation-and every Palestinian who opposes the Occupation would still do so even if Hamas didn't exist-so why are you so obsessed with them, when they simply aren't more important than all other factors combined?

[shira]

53. The Progressive Left rarely, if ever, criticizes Hamas, the PLO, Hezbollah, Syria, etc.

Not even all the Progressive Left's criticism on all of Israel's extreme rightwing neighbors combined comes close to adding up to the criticism they aim at Israel.

Why do you think that is, Ken?

[Ken Burch]

45. It's a lie to say that the only way to get civil rights in the PA constitution

is to keep the IDF in the West Bank until those rights are added.

And you know perfectly well that civil rights are NOT the reason the Occupation goes on. It goes on to prevent the people of Palestine from gaining independence.

And I never said that those rights CANNOT be written into the PA constitution...only that continuing the Occupation can't GET them written there. And you know that I'm correct about that.

The Israeli government is NOT entitled to act as if the Occupation is about democratizing Palestine. It never has been.

[shira]

55. If Israel never occupied anything, those territories would be Jordanian/Egyptian....

The PLO made it very clear they were NOT after those territories prior to 1967.

You should admit without Israel's occupation, there wouldn't be a Palestinian national movement for their own state.

Only Israel has given Palestinians autonomy and more rights than any other Arab nation....

[Ken Burch]

59. the PLO was formed in 1964, when Palestine was UNDER Jordanian rule

That, by itself, proves you wrong.

And no, Israel has not been the benefactor of the Palestinians. Those people have always had a national conscience, no matter what other nations held their lands.

BTW...Ireland was occupied by the British for 800 years(they still hold a small part of it). Does that mean you deny that the Irish existed prior to 1922?

[Shaktimaan]

70. It proves him RIGHT.

The PLO formed in 1964, when Palestine was mostly under Jordanian rule. And the PLO's official position on that was that the West Bank belonged to Jordan, was never part of Palestine and will never be part of Palestine. Their line was that Palestine was occupied by Israel.

The idea that the WB is Palestine is post '67.

[Ken Burch]

60. Yitzak Rabin proposed that a Palestinian state, made up of the West Bank and Gaza

Be created right AFTER the Six-Day War.

(according to Tom Segev).

Would you agree that everything would be better for everybody in the region if that had happened?

[independentminded]

171. As true as that is, shira,

There's really no excuse for Israel continuing her occupation of West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. The time for Israel to pull its troops and settlers out of those territories and allow the Palestinians to create their own independent, sovereign nation-state alongside Israel is long, long overdue, and should occur...now.

[shira]

172. Twice, the PLO has turned down offers to end the occupation and have their own state, in 2000/2008

It doesn't appear they're all too eager to end the occupation.

At least that is, without taking down Israel as a result....

And the 'excuse' for occupation now is rockets. Learn from history and you'll see that when Israel decided to end the occupations of Gaza and Lebanon, that didn't work out too well. You can't blame Israelis for not wanting all Israel becoming Sderot.

[vminfla]

173. The PLO will reject any offer that results in Israel surviving

It is not about an arab state, it is about the destruction of Israel. "First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people".

[pelsar]

65. now concentrate on the question...you keep answering what is not asked

this is not about the IDF, this is not about israel, this is about your own personal progressive viewpoint.

you are very clear, notice the list of what is most important to you:

1) nationalism- having ones own people, based on genealogy/history/culture, be the rulers-including dictatorship, pseudo democracy. monarchy

2) survival rights- rights of the individual to have security (food, living, job etc)- protected by the state.

3) civil rights - the rights of individual freedom, speech, etc
_________________________


you will notice that the first one is NOT a democratic value, more of religious one, power grab, (see arab states for examples, or or mid-century, europe and pre WWII for some examples)

your job is to confirm that hierarchy if you dare. (try not to mention israel, the occupation, IDF if you can, they are not relevant to the this post)

[azurnoir]

72. Israel as the Jewish state would a stunning form of nationalism wouldn't you say?

survival rights yep that would also apply to Israel again as the Jewish state

but I like how you proclaim Israel is not relevant to your post could that be due to it being an example of the first 2 items you mention? and the #3

civil rights an interesting question indeed

[pelsar]

76. israel is very nationalistic

but the basic laws of civil rights are far more important...without that israel is no better than iran. Its those basic laws that allow for a country to improve and fix its imperfections..those are where the people get a say in the way the govt is run.

actually i see #2 first, as without survival there isn't much to do, but within the govts foundation has to be #3, for once the survival stage is worked out, they can move on to fix what was necessary at no 2. Without having the rights "built in" to its foundation, clearly the country may stay in "survival mode" the people have less ability to demand change.



the question is aimed at the principle, the value, not the politics, we are clarifying Kens position if he can manage to concentrate and answer the questions.
and yours as well if you care to join in.

[Ken Burch]

81. Those rights should be built in to EVERY country's constitution

But Israel isn't keeping troops in the West Bank in the name of establishing those rights in a Palestinian state(whatever you or I might think of the value of such rights).

If your country's government actually cared about such rights for Palestinians, it would never have given backing to Hamas as a counter to the PLO(the PLO was always much more likely to create a democratic Palestine than Hamas or any other religious force in Palestine was, and Israeli governments of the past should never have focused on delegitimizing the PLO before all other objectives).

Or, it COULD offer to remove, say, 10,000 settlers for every article of a Bill of Rights the PA were to adopt. That would actually be a constructive approach. Keeping the troops there can't be.

[pelsar]

82. this is difficult for you isn't it?

explain to me why you believe those rights they SHOULD be part of the constitution and not HAVE to be

why is nationalism to you more important than minority rights?

now concentrate on the question..and answer ONLY the question.

this is what you believe isn't it?

[Ken Burch]

103. I NEVER said nationalism was more important than rights

What I said was that continuing the Occupation cannot do anything to enshrine those rights.

There's a huge difference in those two ideas.

I PROVED that I don't believe what you say I believe.

You're being abusive and I've done nothing to deserve this.

My position on this does not harm Israel's security.

[pelsar]

111. ...you've made that very clear, you just don't want to admit it

you keep adding the occupation in this little mini discussion....its not about what israel, the IDF does or doesn't do..this is about your value system, try to to concentrate and stick to the subject. and yes you deserve this, as you keep avoiding the core subject:

first off, nationalism and civil rights are very much related, the emphasis on one, takes away from the other, but more to the point;

1)we've already shown and you have reluctantly agreed that democratic culture can in fact be developed under an occupation as history has shown.

2) you've already mentioned that dictators have nothing positive about them "Stop pretending that there can be a "positive tyrant".

3) you've mentioned twice that the PA SHOULD have civil rights, but not that they have to.

so what is the conclusion?
you firmly believe that the Palestenians should have a government that does not necessary believe in civil rights....that in effect is a dictatorship of which you have claimed: there is nothing positive about that. (see hamas for latest example of the will of the Palestinians as per the last elections there.

just your values, your words....

[Ken Burch]

113. NOT my values and you've consistently twisted my words.

Why are you so obsessed with getting me to accept the idea that the Occupation is necessary to democratize Palestine?

Why can't you see that the Occupation actually works AGAINST the goal of a democratic Palestinian state?

If anything, continuing the Occupation gives the anti-democratic factions with Palestine an excuse to campaign against democratic values...because the Israeli government will argue that any democratic advances that occur while the Occupation continues are the sole result of the IDF's presence, that Palestinians themselves had nothing to do with them, and that any such advances are somehow a vindication of the arrogant idea that the Israeli government are "the betters" to which Palestinians must prove themselves.

Continuing the Occupation, in truth, has the horrible effect of making Palestinian democrats look as if they are collaborating with the Israelis. Can you not see what kind of damage this does to the cause of Palestinian democracy? You are putting the lives of pro-democracy Palestinians at risk with your attitude here.

The ultimate irony here, of course, is that no Israeli government has EVER tied the withdrawal of the IDF from the West Bank to any democratic gains there-so you are, absurdly, making an argument for a position that the government you have fought for as a soldier doesn't hold and has never held in the past.

It is simply wrong to insist that a person HAS to defend the Occupation to prove that that person cares about having the Palestinian future be democratic. They can do it on their own. Why shouldn't they be ALLOWED to do it on their own?

And with that I've proven that I don't put nationalism before democracy.

[pelsar]

142. ken..you have poor reading comprehension....

plus you do not understand the definition of the word "proof"...but that is for another post....

you have an interesting habit of attempting to move the conversation to the same point...the occupation. I'm not even talking about that, that the occupation is necessary to democratize Palestine, those are your words not mine.

nor am i talking about the IDF, its withdrawal or the israeli govt...you seem obsessed with both of them.

i'm just trying to straighten out why you have no problem in the supporting the creation of a non democratic (i.e. facist) state?
The Palestinians in gaza already had the opportunity to elect a govt and they chose a fascist theocracy as theirs, i think its reasonable to assume that given the opportunity the west bankers might do the same. Furthermore as we've seen in iran, once they get power, they don't let go. The "iranian spring" was very short lived.

so why do you support the creation of a non democratic state?....(and with that: to use your words: i have proven that you support fascist governments.)

btw this paragraph of yours has zero logic to it, nothing, nada.....words fail me to explain just how little sense it makes.
Continuing the Occupation, in truth, has the horrible effect of making Palestinian democrats look as if they are collaborating with the Israelis. Can you not see what kind of damage this does to the cause of Palestinian democracy? You are putting the lives of pro-democracy Palestinians at risk with your attitude here.

[Ken Burch]

151. I do oppose the creation of nondemocratic states.

Nothing in any of my positions contradicts that. I don't have to support delaying Palestinian independence(and preserving the inherently repressive and unjust status quo in the West Bank)to prove that. Stop lying about my views.

I support democracy everywhere.

I also reject the idea that democracy, IN THIS DAY AND AGE, can possibly take hold in a country if, rather than allowing the people of that country to create it themselves, it is imposed on them from without, by force, as a spoil of conquest.

And my last paragraph is correct. Using the rhetoric of "democracy" to justify continuing the Occupation puts sincere Palestinian democrats at political and physical risk. They cannot work for democracy if "democracy" is reduced to a code phrase for kowtowing to a foreign army. Look at how little purchase the "democracy" imposed by the U.S. in Iraq has among the Iraqi people. It's tenuous at best and considered ridiculous at worst by the bulk of Iraqis, who consider the political choices the Bush Administration left them with to be totally irrelevant to their needs and their lives.

[pelsar]

155. you make up your own arguments...contradict yourself and then complain...

but this one is funny as well as obvious:
The ultimate irony here, of course, is that no Israeli government has EVER tied the withdrawal of the IDF from the West Bank to any democratic gains there-so you are,

and then you write:

Using the rhetoric of "democracy" to justify continuing the Occupation puts sincere Palestinian democrats at political and physical risk. They cannot work for democracy if "democracy" is reduced to a code phrase for kowtowing to a foreign army.


here let me help you out...but read it slowly:
the only one who is taking about imposing democracy on the Palestinians is YOU, i never have, nor as you wrote truthfully has the israeli govt.

I dont lie about your view, i just bring them to their conclusions, and you don't like them:
Nothing in any of my positions contradicts that. I don't have to support delaying Palestinian independence(and preserving the inherently repressive and unjust status quo in the West Bank)to prove that. Stop lying about my views

you want an independent Palestinian state, even if it means they have a dictatorship as its government....personally i believe that is an anti democratic viewpoint and one cannot believe in democracy while promoting the creation facist dictatorship as you do (to use your logic)

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pelsar]

77. you reject the hierarchy...hmmm

....there is no such thing as not having some kind of hierarchy when time and resources are limited. Somethings are always more important than others.

you for instance say the occupation is the most important thing that has to go....correct? more important than anything else? correct?

that means you have a hierarchy, we're just clarifying whats secondary......

as far as civil rights go:
i'm not saying your "anti civil rights, i'm just clarifying your position on it, that its less important that nationalism

you can confirm if you want or go off on some kind of irrelevant rant again. ( i think your avoiding it, as you don't like to where it leads or what it implies....but, its your values not mine)

[Ken Burch]

79. You're trying to get me to admit to a position I don't take

There is NO conflict between wanting an end to the Occupation now and wanting civil rights in Palestine now. The two things are totally unrelated, since continuing the Occupation isn't about civil rights and never has been.

Stop accusing me of not caring about civil rights. I care about them equally with all other things. Opposing the Occupation doesn't mean that I don't care about them equally. Why do you insist on distorting my views?

Supporting self-determination for Palestine is not about supporting "nationalism"(a usage which makes it sound like supporting Palestinian self-determination is no different than being an apologist for Slobodan Milosevic). It's about supporting the will of the people of Palestine.

I don't have to defend the Occupation to prove THAT, for God's sake.

If the Occupation could have produced civil rights guarantees in the PA consitution, it would have done so by now. The fact that it hasn't yet, after more than a decade of the PA's existence, proves that it never can. Even you would have to accept that fact by now.

So stop accusing me of taking positions you know perfectly well I don't take.

You're not entitled to act as a Grand Inquisitor here.

[pelsar]

86. but you do support nationalism over civil rights

There is NO conflict between wanting an end to the Occupation now and wanting civil rights in Palestine now. The two things are totally unrelated,

on the contrary they are very related......they are attached at the hip at least for liberal

the occupation is about the civil rights/national rights of the Palestinians Give them a a new govt that does not have civil rights is simply exchanging one occupation for another..and this second one, the one your support is based on race...

if that is not your position, explain it

____

good point:
nationalism"(a usage which makes it sound like supporting Palestinian self-determination is no different than being an apologist for Slobodan Milosevic)

nationalism without civil rights at its base is exactly that......and that is precisely what you are proposing. (see gaza for one example of Palestinian self determination)

and didn't you write above in a different post
Stop pretending that there can be a "positive tyrant".
yet that is what you are proposing for the Palestinians....a non democratic state.

[Ken Burch]

105. I do not support nationalism over civil rights

A person does not have to defend the IDF presence in the West Bank to prove that he doesn't support nationalism over civil rights, because the IDF presence is not about civil rights at all. There is nothing that the Occupation can ever do in Palestine to promote civil rights.

[shira]

123. Then prove it. What will you and your leftist network do once Israel ends the occupation & Hamas...

...and the PLO are in charge? What will you guys do to bring about true democracy and the whole civil/human rights package to the Palestinians you purport to care about so very, very much?

And back it up with some proof.

Like pointing to other situations around the mideast and elsewhere in which you and your leftist network are trying REALLY hard to bring about democracy and human/civil rights to 3rd world tyrannies.

This should be good.

:eyes:

Or would you all just do as you do now? Which is nothing.

[Ken Burch]

125. We'll support human rights.

It's problematic to offer proof, since you'd reject any proof I could possibly offer.

BTW, defending people like Mubarak and the Shah(as you have)is NOT an example of "trying REALLY hard to bring about democracy and human/civil rights".

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ken Burch]

139. There was no alternative to overthrowing the Shah

You know he couldn't have survived in power any longer at that point anyway.

It's a tragedy that the leftists were killed(and you have no right to question their sincerity by putting the word in quotation marks, since it could never have been leftist or liberal to defend the Shah)but, at that point, EVERYONE in Iran who wasn't named Pahlevi wanted the Shah out of power.

If the Shah had stayed in power, Iran would still be exactly like it was in 1979. No change is ever possible when people like that remain in power.

[pelsar]

143. except that iran is now in a worse situation.....

No change is ever possible when people like that remain in power.

well duh...now they have the mullahs...

do you know whats worse then a dictatorship?.....i'll tell you, a theocratic dictatorship, and do you know why? because religious dictators get their orders from god and hence are less vulnerable to geo politics, and by definition are racists.

so there were two basic bad options:
secular dictatorship
religious (racist) dictatorship

and you prefer the second

[Ken Burch]

147. I do not prefer the second.

I wanted(and still want)Iran to become a secular democracy. That could never have happened with the Shah remaining in power...there was never going to be an Iranian "Magna Carta" to force the Pahlevis to become a constitutional monarchy.

It's a despicable lie to say that I support the mullahs. A person did not have to support the continued rule of the Shah(and we both know his rule couldn't have continued at that point anyway)to prove that she or he does NOT support the mullahs. Understood?

[pelsar]

156. yet would support getting rid them knowing full well

that the 'go guy" to take his place is religious leader and according to khommenis many many many speeches was clear what he believed.

you don't get to support one action and pretend there is no consequence for that action....thats one of the very first things little children learn as they grow up.
there are consequences for ones actions and in geopolitics the options may only be bad or worse:

your position is clear, you believe the shah had to go, irreguardlless of the consequences and infact even if the results were much worse, your STILL believe he had to go

your not much of a "people person" are you, believing that it was the better thing to do, even though the iraninan people are now much worse (is it the gene thing again, that the mullahs are "home grown."?)

[shira]

37. Ken, you don't get that it's not progressive replacing one occupation for another that is far worse.

Well maybe it's progressive because you guys don't seem to have a problem with rightwing totalitarian dictatorships....

But it's certainly not liberal.

Here you go Ken, from Palestinians themselves....

"The journalist adds: "There are two options today that could take us out of this situation: Someone strong in the Gaza Strip who does not care about a confrontation with the clans, or an Israeli occupation. Many people in the Strip hope that Israel will reoccupy it because these phenomena were not prevalent during the Israeli occupation."

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/as-gaza-burns-1.219146

=======

Bassem Al-Nabris
Palestinian poet from Khan Younis, Gaza Strip

"If a there was a referendum in the Gaza Strip 'would you like the Israeli occupation to return?' half the population would vote 'yes'... But in practice, I believe that the number of those in favor is at least 70%, if not more - much higher than is assumed by the political analysts and those who follow. For the million and a half people living in this small region, things have gone too far - in practice, not just as a metaphor. with the internal conflicts, but even earlier, in the days of the previous Palestinian administration, which was corrupt and did not give the people even the tiniest hope. The fundamentalist forces which came into power also promised change and reform, but got a siege, with no security and no making a living... If the occupation returns, at least there will be no civil war, and the occupier will have a moral and legal obligation to provide the occupied people with employment and food, which they now lack."

=======

Al-Hayat Al-Jadida columnist Yahya Rabah wrote: 'When the national unity government was formed, I thought: "This will be a government of national salvation." If a government that includes Fatah, Hamas, other factions and independents associated with various factions has not been able to save the day, it means that no one can, unless Israel decides that its army should intervene. Then it will invade the Gaza Strip, kill and arrest people - but this time not as an occupying force but as an international peace-keeping force. Look what we have come to, how far we have deteriorated, and what we have done to ourselves.' (Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, PA, 15 May 2007)

=======

Palestinian journalist Majed Azzam wrote: 'We should have the courage to acknowledge the truth... The only thing that prevents the chaos and turmoil in Gaza from spreading to the West Bank is the presence of the Israeli occupation in the West Bank... as opposed to its absence from the Gaza Strip.' (Al-Risala, Gaza, 14 May 2007)

=======

"People in Gaza are hoping that Israel will reenter the Gaza Strip, wipe out both Hamas and Fatah, and then withdraw again... They also say that, since the massacres, they miss the Israelis, since Israel is more merciful than who do not even know why they are fighting and killing one another. It's like organized crime, . Once, we resisted Israel together, but now we call for the return of the Israeli army to Gaza."

Faiz Abbas and Muhammad Awwad:
Al-Sinara (Nazareth), May 18, 2007

=======

"Between one murder and another, between one kidnapping and the next... our leaders continue to sit in their seats and to speak of 'resistance,' 'liberation,' 'unity,' and 'return'... They are all liars. The weapons they wish to retain, as the weapons of resistance, are actually weapons of internecine terrorism and murder... You are murdering the cause, people and future... Oh murderers, you have ruined our world, castrated our nationalism, prostituted our resistance... You have turned our lives into hell. hell is preferable... Take your government, your militias, and your gangs and go to hell."

Al-Ayyam (PA), May 17, 2007

=======

"The whole world seems to be talking about the future of the Arabs of Jerusalem, but no one has bothered asking us. The international community and the Israeli Left seem to take it for granted that we want to live under Mr. Arafat's control. We don't. Most of us despise Mr. Arafat and the cronies around him, and we want to stay in Israel. At least here I can speak my mind freely without being dumped in prison, as well as having a chance to earn an honest day's wage."

The Daily Telegraph (London), Jan. 28, 2001.

====

"The hell of Israel is better than the paradise of Arafat. We know Israeli rule stinks, but sometimes we feel like Palestinian rule would be worse."

‘Abd as-Samiya Abu Subayh, quoted in The Washington Post, July 25, 2000

If Israel's occupation isn't progressive, then neither are the occupations of Hamas or the PLO, which are far worse according to actual Palestinian moderates who can't stand their extremist rightwing leadership.

You can't be taken seriously when you're against the former while supporting the latter.

[Ken Burch]

49. the defeat of Hamas is not MORE IMPORTANT than everything else

And I don't have to agree that it is just to prove I don't support "rightwing extremism"(btw, the West Bank settlers are an example of right-wing extremism in many cases...even if some are only there because it was low-cost public housing, it is impossible to be a West Bank settler and have progressive, humanistic values. You can't have such values and take part in the subjugation of another people.

[shira]

51. You favor one occupation (by Hamas/PLO) over another (Israel). Why not admit it?

Those quotes from Palestinians who are fed up with PLO/Hamas "occupation" - and who favor Israel over Hamas - prove the point.

Why aren't you standing up for those Palestinians whose rights are being trampled by Hamas?

It's as if they're non-existant to folks like yourself who purport to care about them.

[Ken Burch]

56. Those people do not really want the Occupation returned in Hamas

And no, I don't favor one occupation over another.

It's right wing to defend any part of the status quo, or to want Israel back in Gaza. It's also anti-Israel to defend those things, since they ultimately endanger Israel.

it can't be progressive to keep the IDF in the West Bank, or to return it to Gaza. And you know it.

Stop being so shrill and hysterical.

[shira]

84. Yeah, not really despite what they say. They prefer zero rights over the rights they used to have.

You see the Palestinians only as objects, not real people who prefer basic civil rights over the totalitarian theocracy they now have in Hamas.

You're an Israel hater.

Not a supporter of Palestinians.

[Ken Burch]

109. Palestinians never had rights under Israeli rule in Gaza

They have none under the Occupation.

I don't hate Israel...I support Israel's right to exist on the pre-Six Day War lines...that is all Israel needs...it doesn't have to dominate the Palestinians to survive.

[shira]

122. Post #37 shows most Palestinians prefer Israeli occupation over Hamas/PLO occupation.

Obviously Palestinians had more rights under Israel than Hamas or the PLO. Otherwise they wouldn't say that. For one, they had complete freedom of speech under IDF control.

So what do you with that information other than ignore and deny it, wishing it never existed?

[pelsar]

157. wrong again....and again and again and again and again....

Palestinians never had rights under Israeli rule in Gaza
freedom of speech is a universal right i believe that arafat actually took away and so it remains today.
_______________


Three years ago I began writing a daily report for the Jerusalem Post. The irony is that, as an Arab Muslim, I feel freer to write for this Jewish paper than I do for any Arab newspaper. I have no problem writing for any Arab newspaper if it will provide me with a free platform and not censor my writing. My editors at the Jerusalem Post do not interfere with my writing.

When Arafat arrived in Gaza in 1994, there was a lot of hope that now Palestinians would have a free media like the Jews have. Unfortunately, the first thing the PLO did when they arrived was to order an immediate crackdown, not on Hamas or Islamic Jihad but on the Palestinian media. The result was that many local Palestinian journalists - including those who were working with Reuters, AP, those who had independent press offices - had their offices torched. Some of them were arrested, some were beaten, some had their equipment confiscated. It was even sadder to see how the foreign media did not really cover the story
_________

http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief005-14.htm


you do realize that your wrong so many times that what ever you write requires a fact check?

[Ken Burch]

50. What I don't "get"(because it isn't actually true) is the claim that occupying the West Bank

or re-occupying Gaza(an act that could NEVER cause the defeat of Hamas, btw, since all such an invasion could possibly do would be to rally Gazans to Hamas' side, which neither of us wants)could possibly be progressive or secular.

Nothing Israel has done to Palestinians has been progressive-because subjugating another people can't ever be progressive.

You have to have self-determination to have freedom-freedom is never the product of military occupation(and it wasn't even that product in postwar Germany, since there was no chance, after Hitler's suicide and VE Day that the Nazis could ever have regained power there).

[shira]

52. Ken, you can't favor an occupation that is worse (Hamas/PLO) over another.

That's what you favor.

Why?

[Ken Burch]

58. That isn't what I favor

And it's absurd to say that only the IDF can stop Hamas. The IDF doesn't want freedom for the people of Palestine. No occupying soldier ever wants freedom for the people she or he helps occupy.

Are you going to start arguing that progressives should have stood up for the Shah again?

Or for Mubarak?

[Shaktimaan]

66. ???

The IDF doesn't want freedom for the people of Palestine. No occupying soldier ever wants freedom for the people she or he helps occupy.


So no Israelis in the IDF who serve in the territories support freedom for the Palestinians? That's just untrue. I happen to know many who do just that. Why do you make these kind of absolute statements, about things which you have zero experience. They have no chance of being accurate.

[pelsar]

68. absolute statements are his standard.....

its a constant in all of his threads........its the kind of thing you see amongst the "newly religious", the ones who have just 'found themselves" and are in the euphoria stage

or if shown wrong he just "dismisses it" as if it simply can't be, incomprehensable
"Those people do not really want the Occupation returned in Hamas"...after quotes showing the exact opposite

[Ken Burch]

71. OK, a handful might...but those who really believe in the Occupation

Don't want anything to change.

If they did, they'd refuse to serve in the Occupation force.

[shira]

87. The IDF serves in the territories b/c they know what will happen if they don't. See Gaza/Lebanon...

I know it's easier for you to pretend there's no good purpose for the IDF to be there. It's best to ignore the Gaza and Lebanon withdrawals and pretend things would be magically different WRT the W.Bank. That way you can keep demonizing Israel and its supporters rather than holding Israel's enemies even slightly accountable for their actions. You treat them like animals or children who can't be held responsible for anything they do, so it's all the evil Israelis' fault.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Shaktimaan]

98. that is just flat out untrue.

What in the world is your basis for thinking this?

You clearly have no idea what the relationship between the average Israeli and the IDF is like from a cultural standpoint. People might disagree with the occupation, but they have an obligation to serve. This is not something that is so lightly dismissed, even for those who disagree completely with the occupation. I say this as someone who has two cousins who refused to serve based on this ideology. It's rare. While my entire family rejects the continuation of the occupation and rejects the settlements strongly, they also disagreed with their decision to refrain from serving.

Also, you make the assumption that change can come from soldiers' refusal to serve. Wanting change and wanting the IDF to just immediately pull out are not necessarily the same thing. Everyone wanted Israel out of Gaza, remember. When they finally left they were chastised for doing it "unilaterally" and blamed for the resulting chaos.

Your post is the equivalent of saying that you can't support 'occupy wall street' while still investing in a 401k.

[Ken Burch]

107. Look, Shaktimaan, you know as well as I do that keeping the IDF in the West Bank

cannot possibly have a democratic result. You know the Palestinians do not need to have democracy imposed on them from without as if they are incapable of creating it themselves. You, unlike shira and pelsar, are a reasonable person so you DO know these things.

You can't point to ANYTHING positive for Palestinians that comes of the IDF staying in the West Bank. The IDF are not a liberation army there.

[Shaktimaan]

130. Hey, I do realize that...

without the occupation there would have never been any chance for a Palestine. There's just no way around that. Just as you say there couldn't have been democracy under the Shah, the same goes for the King of Jordan. They simply would not have been able to obtain the opportunity to self-govern. Remember, every Palestinian in the WB back then was a Jordanian citizen and even the PLO had to officially renounce any claim to that land to be allowed to operate.

The IDF might be there to bring security to Israel, but it has acted as a liberation army all the same, whether or not this was their main intent. Israel wants whatever will make them the most secure. If that means a Palestinian state, then most Israelis will support a Palestinian state. You heard pelsar speak about this plenty of times... the Israelis don't get off on oppressing the Palestinians. The Israelis just don't care about the Palestinians. They care about their own safety. Now the opportunity for a Palestinian state may have been an inadvertent effect of the occupation, but no one will really oppose it if it jives with their own interests as well. The Palestinians job is to make that happen.

You can't point to ANYTHING positive for Palestinians that comes of the IDF staying in the West Bank.

But I can. If the alternative is a Gaza-like situation then the current situation is far preferable. I don't know that the Palestinians are capable of creating a functional democracy. For their sake I hope they are. But if they aren't able to curb violence against Israeli towns themselves once Israel leaves then it leaves very few options, all of them bad. If Israel no longer occupies them then their defensive options are limited to means such as sanctions and military actions. And if that is what would happen then an occupation IS preferable, at least for the time being.

Israel pulled out of Gaza and the situation there for both sides grew measurably worse.

[Ken Burch]

75. An independent Palestinian state would NOT be an Occupation.

And you have got to accept that crushing Hamas is NOT more important than everything else. Hamas will go the boneyard on its own once self-determination is in place. The Palestinian people, like the other Arab people, don't support dictatorship and are capable of removing dictators on their own.

[shira]

85. Under Hamas/PLO control, it certainly would be an occupation as those quotes prove

The best evidence you have of Arabs removing dictatorships is the Arab Spring, but the problem with that is NO movement is leading to Liberal empowerment.

Just the opposite, extreme Islamist groups like the MB and al-Qaeda are the beneficiaries of the Arab Spring.

Just as predicted.

And like Iran, once in power they will not give it up.

=====

Sadly, no matter what Palestinians will say about such leadership, you will pretend they're much better off trading in one occupation for another that's much worse.

You'll advocate doing absolutely nothing about it while they suffer worse.

[Ken Burch]

106. Nothing that YOU advocate can possibly help democratize Palestine

The IDF are not there to support democracy. They don't give a damn about the Palestinians. If they did, they wouldn't abuse, regiment and repress them on a daily basis. They'd let them have breathing space.

And it's been proven that keeping Mubarak in power could never have led to a liberal outcome, because Mubarak never wanted one. Same with the Shah. Why do you refuse to admit that?

[pelsar]

112. and now finish the thought...

And it's been proven that keeping Mubarak in power could never have led to a liberal outcome, because Mubarak never wanted one. Same with the Shah.

and neither do hamas nor the PA leadership, want a democracy....which means your promoting the addition of one more dictatorship in the world.
which in essence is the same as an occupation (just ask the syrians, the iranians, the gazans.....)

[Ken Burch]

114. It isn't possible for Israel to forcibly remove the PA leadership OR Hamas

from the Palestinian scene. If it was possible, the IDF would have done that by now.

I don't like Hamas...you know I don't like Hamas...I simply don't accept that they are the main issue here. Hamas is a product of this dispute, not its cause. Why are you so obsessed with getting everyone to talk about NOTHING but Hamas, Hamas, Hamas?

If Hamas disappeared tomorrow, every Palestinian who insists on statehood now would STILL insist on it. NONE of them would suddenly start arguing that the Occupation is a beautiful thing and should go on indefinitely and should be restored in Gaza.
Nobody on the planet sees subjugation to another country as their natural station in life. Some people just put up with it for short periods until they can find another way to resist.

And the Arab Spring is very young, shira...to say it's discredited already because of some early outcomes would be like a person arguing, in 1800, that the British Empire should return the United States to colonial status because John Adams, the second president, had imposed a state of emergency known as the Alien and Sedition Acts...and because slavery still existed in that country.

[pelsar]

67. jesus...you just make stuff up

freedom is never the product of military occupation

notice the word NEVER.....with world history showing you the exact opposite....so germany, japan, israel are NOT free countries...i remind you, you used the word NEVER.

[Ken Burch]

73. Those countries are free because of the U.S. victory in the war, not because of the occupations

after the war. Germany was certain to return to democracy once the Nazis were defeated on the battlefield.

[pelsar]

78. They were OCCUPIED

by the US and others......and after a revision of their complete education and cultural systems, demanded by the occupation forces, only then did the occupation "let up"

so much for your NEVER terminology. Perhaps you want to revise your post?

[Ken Burch]

80. They may have been occupied, but everyone knew those occupations would end in five years or so

And that the occupiers in those instances weren't trying to keep those countries from regaining independence. There was never a chance that Germany or Japan would be annexed by the U.S.

And that was a different era. The U.S. government had positive intentions in those occupations. The Israeli government has no positive intentions in what it's doing in the West Bank. It just wants to preserve the status quo for as long as possible, and forever if possible. The Israeli government doesn't WANT Palestinians to be free, it isn't offering to withdraw IDF troops in exchange for civil rights provisions in the PA constitution(and never has made any such offer)and it doesn't give a damn about LGBT Palestinians or any other minorities within Palestine.

So please end the condescending argument about civil rights-you know perfectly well that civil rights have never been the justification for keeping IDF troops in the West Bank.

[pelsar]

89. one point is finally established

so we now have established that the occupation of germany and japan did in fact produce two working democracies. It did in fact involve changing their cultures but never the less, two democracies were establishes under an occupation before there were "free"...even though US forces remain in those countries to this very day.

so that means you will never again mention that democracies cannot be made under an occupation.......it sure takes you a while to accept such an obvious fact of history.

we shall book mark this post for future reference when you fall back in to your "never has an occupation established a democracy mode"

[azurnoir]

96. but you quite conveniently seem to forget that it was a "working democrcy" that produced Nazi

Germany the culture of that country changed very little, Japan changed its Imperial system of its own will not that of its occupier of course that was only after being nuked are you suggesting that is the answer here?

[Shaktimaan]

97. snore...

yeah, he's saying we should nuke palestine.
christ.

[azurnoir]

99. I pointed out the reasons the examples were 'problematic'

your response says a nerve was struck, thanks

[Shaktimaan]

100. nope.

my response says I think you are being intellectually dishonest.

[azurnoir]

101. How so ? Germany was a democracy that is how the Nazis came to power

and Japan gave up its Emperor as ruler of its own will after a stunning defeat that included a nuclear strike

[Ken Burch]

116. Good point.

n/t.

[pelsar]

102. i didn't forget...it was not relevant to the discussion..

democracies are very vulnerable, and require a strong democratic culture to protect them, hence what the allies did post WWII was actually go in and change the education, change the school books, change the system to strengthen the value of democracy.......

the culture was changed dramatically.

is ken influencing you?...
Japan changed its Imperial system of its own will thats the kind of thing ken would write.

japan post WWII had zero knowledge of what a democracy was, furthermore they were under an occupation, under the thumb of MacArthur, who ran a "tight ship." and devised the MacArthur Constitution the Japanese has little say in that.

[Ken Burch]

152. It's not like Macarthur was creating American settlement blocs in Japan

Or threatening to prevent Japan from ever regaining sovereignty. The Japanese people knew the Occupation was going to be a short, transitory phase-they never had any reason to think it might last, say, forty-three going on forty-four years, as is the case in the Occupation you've taken part in as a soldier.

As to Germany, the German people themselves were going to remove all the Nazi propaganda from their educational system anyway. They DID realize that Hitler's lies had led to their country being pulverized in a brutal war, after all.

They did "get it", at least on that level.

There was no significant support for the Third Reich in postwar Germany. Please stop acting as if they would have kept using the lies of Goebbels if left to their own devices. The returning anti-fascist exiles, joined with the large groups of Germans who had never actually supported Hitler, would have made sure that nothing remained of Nazi propaganda and ideology no matter how many American soldiers remained on German soil. Plus, as was the case with Japan, there was no one in the U.S. advocating American annexation of Germany, which is another major difference with your Occupation.

It's absurd for present-day Palestine to be getting worse treatment than postwar Germany.

[pelsar]

161. stay on "target"....your confusing yourself again

you've already admitted the under the US occupation two democracies were created, the creation of those democracies required some pretty heavy handed stuff by the allies, including cultural change, but it did happen.

the jews also created a democracy, under an occupation, without any influence from outside countries.

those are historical facts, that are petty wildly known. 3 count them 3 .....

3 democracies created while under an occupation. Now i expect you never again to makes some false statements that democracies can never be created while under and occupation....to do so is not just a lie, but a stupid one at that.

[azurnoir]

163. You mean stay on your target lol which of course excludes Israel

however this discussion while in a rhetorical sense proves that yes democracy can be created at least in Japan under an occupation where that is the goal, however it also shows the exact problem with thee Israeli occupation of Palestine where as the goal is not to create democracy or anything like that in fact the goal seems to be colonization of the land. but lets note that during the nearly 30 years that Israel had total control of the West Bank it did not lift a finger towards creating democracy or the so called protection of Palestinian women and minorities there as it does not lift a finger today to protect Palestinian women or minorities living in area C or the 60% West Bank which under total Israeli control

[shira]

164. The Palestinians have lost MANY civil rights they used to have under IDF control...

It's not the business of Israel to demand democracy within Gaza or the West Bank.

If they did, they wouldn't be taken seriously by Palestinians or folks like yourself.

That's your job, as an advocate for Palestinian rights.

So what's your excuse?

[azurnoir]

165. name exactly what rights Palestinians lost when no longer under IDF control

or should we just take your good word for it?

eta I'll be waiting for the multiple replies gotta keep that comment count up along with the threads at the top of page

[shira]

168. Rights like freedom of speech, far better law and order, no restrictions on women and minorities...

...better work conditions, no abuse of children as we see now WRT them being used as shields, martyrs, and militants.

To name but a few...

Here are some Palestinians admitting it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=370185&mesg_id=370388

Ignore or deny it all you wish.

[azurnoir]

169. you chuck up a bunch of unlinked stuff from years ago and we're supposed to think

it represents all Palestinians? the part about most Palestinians wanting the Israeli occupation was particularly rich however

[pelsar]

166. your getting more like ken.....

the first part of the discussion is to have ken stop with his absolute comments that are wrong.
democracies can be created under occupations.

step two (which we haven't gotten to yet) is to realize that the occupied does not necessary need help from the occupiers to create their own democratic institutions: the jews did exactly that.

as far as the israel creating a democracy out of the Palestinian society, people like you would have been "screaming your head off" and be 100% against it....israel, knowing that it would get no world support for such an expensive endeavor and would be fighting a losing battle, wisely steered away from it.

its none of israels business of how the Palestinians decide to govern themselves other than when an how it affects israels security.

[azurnoir]

167. People like me? that seems so popular amoung some

and do not look now but most of the world seems to feel that the PLO/PA has developed democratic institutions but your implied Jews are better Arabs is noted -again

oh and Israel steered away from creating Palestinian democratic institutions because the world would not support it, like the settlements, lol try again last time something like this came up claimed human rights or some such

and if its no business of Israel's how the Palestinians govern themselves except for security, which there is cooperation between the PA security forces and Israeli security forces why all the crying about it by Israels supporters , just making conversation?

[pelsar]

170. yes, i believe in your past posts...you've made it clear

that every culture has its own intrinsic worth and no other culture has the right to influence/change another one....am i not correct? (multiculturalism)

for israel to do the changes you inquired about, would require israel to change their culture -social/education (women's right etc). This has come up before and when i've asked you directly which do you believe:
should israel go in and change their culture with western values? or not...you never answer, so now you have another chance.
__________

your arguing with yourself...more like ken on every post.
our implied Jews are better Arabs is noted -again
I don't "imply" anything, i just write it out clearly. Western culture and and values are the best this world has. All cultures are different, and as being different some therefore are more western oriented (better) and others are not (you will notice there is nothing about genes, DNA, religious groups within those comments). I believe (and you can pick out the ones you want) that the western democratic cultures of the US/England/Germany etc that have western values as part of their foundation to be better for its citizens than those you will find today in Egypt, Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc...the jews that created israel, simply came from those western countries.....

you may not believe that is true, but isn't that the essence of multiculturalism (so we can deduce that you probably believe in respecting honor killings, FGM and other local cultural traits)

oh and Israel steered away from creating Palestinian democratic institutions because the world would not support it
i'll write this simpler: to create/impose a new culture one needs to have the world support it or at least not interfere in the changes being made, such was the case in germany and japan, there was no way the arab states would sit ideally by, as israel changed the Palestinian education, social and justice systems of the Palestenians....now do you get it?

and finally.....have you missed the latest happenings in the region? Egypt is under military rule, syria is busy killing its own, Libya, now being separated into tribal areas, is probably going extreme islamic, gaza with its self determination has got hamas,.....it seems dictators are not all that stable in terms of governing. That is why israel should not/cannot accept a PA/Hamas govt that is a dictatorship....its a very dangerous temporary solution.

most of the world seems to feel that the PLO/PA has developed democratic institutions
well this world of yours should spend less time with its feelings and do bit more research: the PA/hamas (forgot about them?) has nothing in their foundations that talk about civl rights and minority rights, freedom of speech etc..those are the foundations for democracy, without those you've got nuthin.

which means we're back to the moral clarity issue:
do western progressives who believe in multiculturalism also support the creation of facist/racist/ dictatorships?...it appears to be true.

[Ken Burch]

104. The situation in postwar Germany and Japan has nothing in common with the situation in Palestine

The IDF are not in Palestine as liberators.

Why can't you stop this abuse already?

[pelsar]

117. i'm helping you....

from whom or where you receive your information, you were not taught to analyze the info, just to regurgitate and repeat it. Whenever your views are questioned you retreat to your "prepared answers", which are fine for simplistic answers, but not for a serious discussion.

you keep repeating the somethings that the IDF is not in the west bank to be liberators, progressive etc.....your only arguing with yourself, no one here is claiming that...and you keep repeating it

occupations all have similarities as well as differences, the post war occupations were simply factual examples to show that in fact democracies can come out of occupations as is israel an example. You've been claiming that it NEVER happens. Hence you were wrong, just admit it, never mention it again and were done!

[Ken Burch]

118. The postwar occupations were a ONE TIME situation

in which democracy occurred(or, as another poster helpfully pointed out, was restored in Germany's case) during an occupation. That will never be repeated.

I agree that Palestine should have human rights at the start. I reject the idea that continuing the present Occupation can have anything to do with achieving that. Can you accept the legitimacy of that position?

Read this very carefully:

A...person...does NOT...have to support...preserving the IDF occupation of the West Bank...to prove...that that person...supports a democratic Palestine...end of discussion...

And thank you for admitting, in the post above, that the Occupation is not about even trying to democratize Palestine.

[pelsar]

144. you spend too much time arguing with yourself

And thank you for admitting, in the post above, that the Occupation is not about even trying to democratize Palestine.

i never claimed that it was....you were always arguing with yourself that it was, i'm glad to see that you worked it out.
____

you can claim as much as you want to support a democratic palestine, that is all very nice, but when it comes down to decisions, you have made it clear that you prefer a facist, (theocratic) dictatorship for the Palestinians if they can get that sooner.

and as you wrote earlier...nothing good comes out of governments like that......

your words, your beliefs...you perhaps don't like where they lead but you might as well face up to it.

[Ken Burch]

153. I do not believe what you say I believe. Stop lying about me

It's enough to say I support a democratic Palestine. That's all that is required. Other than you, nobody really believes that a person is obligated to call for Palestinian independence being delayed, and the status quo preserved in the West Bank, UNTIL the establishment of full democracy in Palestine, just to PROVE that that person supports democracy unconditionally.

This is the historical parallel you need to look at...

If you were alive in 1780, would you argue that what eventually became the U.S. should remain a colony of the British Empire until slavery was abolished?

(For the record, unless I'm VERY much mistaken, none of the 18th Century opponents of the North American slave trade ever took that view).

The United States also imposed a state of emergency, the Alien and Sedition Acts, in 1800. Even the opponents of that act in the U.S. (such as Thomas Jefferson, who was writing underground pamphlets against the Act at the time, at the risk of imprisonment) categorically rejected the idea that this situation meant that American independence should have been revoked.

In fact, with the continuation of legal slavery in the U.S. until 1860, slavery's deliberate replacement by the apartheid conditions of Jim Crow after 1876, the persecution of and attempted extinction of Native Americans well into the twentieth century, and the continued efforts by the state to stop working people from defending themselves by organizing their workplaces into unions, a fair case could have been made that the U.S., by the logic of your position, should have been denied independence until 1964, or perhaps even STILL denied it(given our reactionary treatment of LGBT people even now, among other repressive acts).

You cannot absolutely link support for democracy to the question of when a people are granted self-determination. Yes, everyone has a right to democracy, but that right cannot be used as a smokescreen to keep a people in what amounts to colonial subjugation. Democracy requires self-determination or it cannot truly take root.

Kindly NEVER accuse me of being pro-dictatorship again. You know damn well that that's not the case.

[pelsar]

158. your logic not mine

didn't you claim that "no israeli soldier can serve in the west bank and be against the occupation"
thats a pretty black and white view point.

so i'm just applying the same black and white view point to you:
no one who supports democracies can support the creation of a dictatorshp.
____

if we don't get to have gray areas of belief, neither do you..its called have a single standard to judge by.
______________________________

your US example doesn't work, as its a poor parallel
The first representative assembly in English America convened in Jamestown's church July 30, 1619, that meant the colonies had over 100 + years of cultural democracy established within the culture. The Palestinians have a bit under israeli occupation but nothing under abbas dictatorship.

furthermore i don't advocate perfect democracy, i advocate for having the rights built in to the foundation of the state, you do not believe that is necessary...(as far as I'm concerned that speaks a lot louder than your claim that you believe in democracy, you just believe its less important that having your own state)

[Shaktimaan]

69. But of course...

occupations/invasions/subjugation CAN often lead to something better than what may currently exist. I'm not making that argument for the Palestinians vis a vis Israel, but your above statement is just untrue. Off the top of my head, consider Cambodia. Occupied by the Vietnamese who overpowered the Khmer Rouge. Their current leader, Hun Sen is a Vietnamese puppet. Not progressive, no. But far better than what existed before.

[vminfla]

174. Why is it that those who argue so fervently for arabs go silent for Kurds

I would believe the sincerity of those professing the necessity of another arab state if they were as equally vocal for a Kurdish state. After all, there was a Kurdistan, however there was never an arab Palestine.

[provis99]

4. the Palestinians won't even get the land they're on right now.

[Ken Burch]

17. Nothing short of at least the land they're on now can possibly be acceptable

It's wrong for the Israeli side to insist that a Palestinian state be pathetically small. ONly the entire West Bank gives them enough territory to be viable. Noncontiguous states can't be sustained.

[vminfla]

6. Well duh,

the false hope that the arab nations would drive the jews to the sea, wherein the arabs could have all of palestine was short sighted. Now Abbas needs to decide if that same group think bent on conquest and the destruction of Israel is still worth pursuing.

[Ken Burch]

18. No Arab leader EVER used the phrase "drive the Jews into the sea"

That was something Ben Gurion made up.

Please stop spreading a disgusting historical lie. It's unworthy of you.

There were equal mistakes on both sides in this.

[BeenThereDoneThat]

19. Google it yourself

Mahmoud Al Zahar

HAMAS leader or doesn't he count?

[Ken Burch]

20. One guy said it decades AFTER 1948...I'll accept that...

That doesn't justify the repeated use of the phrase to describe Arab and Palestinian intentions BEFORE that.

And even his words don't justify the Occupation...or the settlements...vile scumbag though he is.

[BeenThereDoneThat]

21. Then explain to me

If it was only said once in history, how did it become a staple slogan world wide by pro-Palestinian supporters?

[Ken Burch]

22. It isn't

It's a staple of Israeli propaganda to INSIST that it is.

[BeenThereDoneThat]

24. Really

All the You-Tube videos are Israeli propaganda?

You can do better than that

[BeenThereDoneThat]

90. Can't I guess

N/ T

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aranthus]

8. This seems close to something big.

It doesn't look like he actually used the word, "wrong," but this is a start. It's not Sadat coming to Jeruslaem, but it does seem to be a step to accepting some responsibility for the 47-49 disaster.

[Ken Burch]

14. Now, to match it, we need an Israeli political leader to admit

that the post-1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza was wrong, as were the settlements.

You're going to have to accept, at some point, that both sides are at fault in this.

[aranthus]

162. Well, no.

Just because one Palestinian leader takes a step closer to the real world, that doesn't mean that Israelis are obligated to take a giant step out of it. The original occupation of the West Bank and Gaza was neither wrong, nor a mistake. But Israelis can, and I think do, recognize that the settlements were a mistake.

[Ken Burch]

13. That doesn't mean that the whole thing was solely the Arabs' fault, though

And it does NOT justify what the Israeli government has done to Palestinians since then.

[vminfla]

30. best educated arab population in the world

Why would Israel need to justify the fact that, when it was running the arab school system, that palestinians were the best educated arab population with the highest literacy rate in the world. Strange thing to feel sorry about.

[Ken Burch]

33. They could have done that WITHOUT the Occupation

The Occupation was NEVER progressive. Just accept that already.

[vminfla]

38. What occupation?

Israel accepted statehood in the 40s. The arab population did not. The arab population repeatedly rejected any deals since then.

[King_David]

62. Yep not your type of 'progressive'

Because your views as expressed here do not fit at all into the classic definition.

(Gay rights and fighting Jew hatred are progressive ideals )

[shira]

88. Gay rights and fighting Jew hatred are not as important as empowering extreme rightwing fascists...

...like Hamas to run - and ruin - Palestinian lives.

[Ken Burch]

119. I support gay rights and oppose the hatred of anyone, including Jews

We both know the Occupation has nothing to do with either, of course.

[shira]

124. But you won't advocate for gays when Hamas/PLO gains power - once the occupation ends, right?

Just like you don't now WRT any other country in the mideast?

Maybe a little lip service.

But not much else, right?

You'll still criticize Israel 1000x more than Hamas and the PLO once the occupation ends, right?

[Ken Burch]

126. I support the Arab Spring, and the cause of liberation for all.

And that movement is the only chance for making life better for gays in the Arab world-doing what YOU want me to do and simply assuming that any possible Arab government, even any that may emerge in the future, would automatically be repressive cannot help gays, religous minorities, or ethnic minorities in the Arab/Muslim world.

We have to give them a chance to build democracy in their way and on their terms. That is the way to end oppression, and the people of the Arab world have proven that they WANT to end it...your approach, to denounce for the sake of denouncing and to covertly insist that only Western or Israeli military intervention can ever democratize Arab or Muslim countries, cannot have that effect.

You don't give a damn about gays in the Arab/Muslim world, or any of the other groups-you're just using them as a pretext to fight to eternally preserve the Occupation in the West Bank-even though continuing that Occupation, AS WE BOTH KNOW, can never have the effect of liberating anyone. Democracy in Palestine cannot come from the barrel of an IDF gun.

[shira]

136. And if the Arab Spring results in another Islamic revolution like Iran, you support that?

Be consistent.

You still support Khomeini taking over for the Shah 30 years ago.

That's what you wish upon all Arabs trying to get out from under more secular Islamic leadership?

[Ken Burch]

140. Supporting the overthrow of the Shah does NOT equate

to supporting the rise of Khomeini. Supporting the Shah always meant never ever wanting Iran to become a democracy. Keeping the Shah in power meant freezing Iran in time forever. How can you pretend otherwise?

Only right-wing Republicans think the Shah should have been saved by U.S. force(which he couldn't have been, since everyone in Iran wanted him out at the end, including the Iranian Jewish community).

Why can't you admit that there was never a good reason to back people like the Shah or Mubarak? That people like that will never allow freedom a chance in their lands? That there can't be such a thing as a "benign tyrant"?

[shira]

145. You prefer the worst of 2 bad choices. A theocratic fascist dictatorship over a secular one.

I'm not arguing things weren't bad under the Shah or Mubarak.

I'm arguing things are even worse than that in a theocratic fascist dictatorship.

I don't wish that on anyone.

You OTOH don't mind what that means for the population effected.

[Ken Burch]

149. I do not support the worst of 2 bad choices

I support the end of the dictatorships that were in power. It was not obvious in Iran that the mullahs would take power(and it's still not clear that they're any more eternal than any other regims)and it's not clear that the Muslim Brotherhood will take over in Egypt.

As to Egypt, you've never laid out a clear alternative to overthrowing Mubarak. You would have to agree that he was never going to allow any meaningful change in Egypt if he'd refused to do so for thirty years.

Opposition to Mubarak and the Shah NEVER equaled support for the mullahs or the Muslim Brotherhood. The story isn't over in either country. And it's really disturbing that you and pelsar seem to be the world's last believers in Jeane Kirkpatrick's delusional notion that there is a difference between "authoritarians" and "totalitarians". Can't you just admit that all dictators are the same?

Consider this...you've spoken of the need to fight antisemitism in the Middle East(it does need to be fought there, although the Middle East isn't singular in its devotion to that sentiment). Mubarak and the Shah, to the best of my knowledge, NEVER fought antisemitism in the countries they ruled. The Hashemite monarchy, again to the best of my knowledge, has NEVER fought it in Jordan(even among the Hashemite minority themselves). Why didn't you ever call out THOSE regimes for going easy on hatred of Jews?

[shira]

160. The only 2 bad choices in hindsight were the Shah and Khomeini. Which is worse? n/t

[azurnoir]

35. The same could have been said about Blacks in the US south

during the Jim Crow era, what did they have to feel bad about, right?

[vminfla]

39. The same could be said about American Astronauts in the Soyuz capsules

But nutty comparisons are just that -- nutty comparisons.

[azurnoir]

41. yes your reply is quite nonsensical I will agree n/t

[vminfla]

43. Just like yours

that was the point, your comparison has no basis in fact.

[azurnoir]

64. oh but painfully it does the comparison between the state of Palestinians with or without

Israeli citizenship to that of Jim Crow era American Blacks is quite valid and that it makes you so 'uncomfortable' is only the confirmation of that

[shira]

94. The occupation isn't about racism. You know that. n/t

[Ken Burch]

115. You defend the occupation and your posts DRIP with anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab racism

including your relentless argument that Arabs are incapable of democratizing themselves but can only have "democracy" imposed on them by the use of non-Arab force as a spoil of conquest.

[shira]

120. Try backing that bullshit up, okay?

1. I've made it clear here many times I'm against occupation. To the point I'm all for Israel withdrawing from at least 60% of the W.Bank and ceding it to the PA. From what I recall, you and your pals here are against that. Imagine that. You guys are against Israel ending the occupation. Sure, it may not be 100% of the W.Bank, but it's something. Just like Gaza. It adds up.

2. My posts aren't racist or bigoted at all. Unlike posts from you and your friends here, mine don't go beyond genuine criticism into irrational demonization. THAT's racist and bigoted. You're merely projecting.

[Ken Burch]

128. I don't demonize anyone. I simply criticize a government

Criticizing the Israeli government's policies does not equate to demonizing all Israelis. A lot of Israelis oppose those policies. Israel is not, and has never been, a country in which the people see themselves as inseparable from the state. If it were, it wouldn't have at least two dozen major political parties-it would be a one party state of some sort.

[shira]

137. You demonize the entire IDF when you claim they only serve because they wish to rule/subjugate

....Palestinians and keep them from achieving self-determination.

You demonize all of them when you refuse to consider that the vast majority feel it's in Israel best interests - as a matter of national security due to Gaza and Lebanon rockets - to remain in the W.Bank for the time being.

Always attributing the very worst, malicious motives to Israelis - without proof of such - is demonization.

[vminfla]

95. Throwing about bombastic jingoism like "apartheid" and "jim crow" does not make it true

The separation barrier clearly demonstrates that the Israelis want the arabs to govern themselves. That the arabs have, thus far, demonstrated an inability to self govern is a a different matter. The only Jim Crow laws are on the arabs side as they subjugate Christian minorities.

[Shaktimaan]

93. actually...

that was when the UNRWA was running schools I believe.

[vminfla]

110. Actually not

The Israelis ran the school system until about a decade or so back. Since that time, illiteracy rates have risen amongst the arab population.

[Shaktimaan]

129. yes, but...

it was the UNRWA run schools in the entire region that gave the Palestinians such a high literacy rate. That literacy rate included Palestinians in the entire region, not just the OPT.

Really, look it up. The national literacy rate in Palestine proper is 99.8! It's astoundingly high even without Israel.

[vminfla]

133. Again, it was the Israeli run schools that resulted in the high literacy rates

Currently, the literacy rate has dropped to 93%, a direct result of the UNRWA taking a more active role in the arab education system. As older arabs pass, the percentage grows lower, replaced by less educated, less literate, UNRWA educated younger arabs.