[Winstonm]

Thanks, Peter.

Quote

In 1920 at the Conference of Sanremo, Italy, the League of Nations mandate over Palestine was assigned to Britain. This territory at this time included all of what would later become the State of Israel, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, a part of the Golan Heights, and the Kingdom of Jordan. The majority of the approximately 750,000 people in this multi-ethnic region were Arabic-speaking Muslims, including a Bedouin population (estimated at 103,331 at the time of the 1922 census [2] and concentrated in the Beersheba area and the region south and east of it), as well as Jews (who comprised some 11% of the total) and smaller groups of Druze, Syrians, Sudanese, Circassians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Hejazi Arabs

This is the point, isn't it? Although Brittish led, the vast majority of the popullation were Arabs, yet the minority interest was served in creating Israel. What became of those 750,000 Arabs suddenly living in Israel and not Palestine?

[mike777]

"....But you run into the challenge of hard-core fundamentalist Islamics, who think the dark ages were the "best of times" and today is the "worst of times", and when poverty and ignorance is rampant, these types of leaders have a built-in following...."

I think this is a small but important point, the problem is not fundamentalist Islamics but radical Islamics.




Are you guys suggesting nothing will improve unless Israel does not exist as a Jewish state?

[Winstonm]

Here is something I ran across which may alter the debate - what exactly DID
Iranian President Ahmadinejad say about Israel?

We have heard he would "wipe Israel off the map", suggesting an annhiliation of the country and possibly genocide. But is that what he meant?

The Bush clan has been resourceful in using bumper sticker slogans to pound in their world views - has it happened once again?

Here are some quotes:

Quote

According to numerous different translations, Ahmadinejad never used the word "map," instead his statement was in the context of time and applied to the Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem. Ahmadinejad was expressing his future hope that the Zionist regime in Israel would fall, not that Iran was going to physically annex the country and its population.

To claim Ahmadinejad has issued a rallying cry to ethnically cleanse Israel is akin to saying that Churchill wanted to murder all Germans when he stated his desire to crush the Nazis. This is about the demise of a corrupt occupying power, not the deaths of millions of innocent people.

The Guardian's Jonathan Steele cites four different translations, from professors to the BBC to the New York Times and even pro-Israel news outlets, in none of those translations is the word "map" used. The closest translation to what the Iranian President actually said is, "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time,"

"It's important to note that the "quote" in question was itself a quote, writes Arash Norouzi, "they are the words of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Islamic Revolution. Although he quoted Khomeini to affirm his own position on Zionism, the actual words belong to Khomeini and not Ahmadinejad

Professor Juan Cole concurs, arguing, "Now, some might say, "So he didn't say, 'wipe off the map,' he said 'erase from the page.' What's the difference? Anyway he's saying he wants to get rid of Israel. Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope -- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government. Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that 'Israel must be wiped off the map' with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time."

Are we being misled into war once again?

[pbleighton]

"Are you guys suggesting nothing will improve unless Israel does not exist as a Jewish state?"

No, just explaining that there are two sides of every coin.

Peter

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Jan 26 2007, 09:59 PM, said:

"....But you run into the challenge of hard-core fundamentalist Islamics, who think the dark ages were the "best of times" and today is the "worst of times", and when poverty and ignorance is rampant, these types of leaders have a built-in following...."

I think this is a small but important point, the problem is not fundamentalist Islamics but radical Islamics.




Are you guys suggesting nothing will improve unless Israel does not exist as a Jewish state?

I don't think you should separate by much hardcore fundamentalist from radicalists - fundamentalism is by its nature a radical departure from norm - it is extreme by its nature - it is radical.

This is akin to saying the problem is David Koresh, not Seventh-Day Adventists; however, without the basic hardcore fundamental teachings of the SDA, there would have been no David Koresh.

Regardless of the religion, it is subjugation to blind faith instead of reason and logic and education that is the flaw - to belive as the terrorists do, the faith must be deep-seated and beyond appeal of reason and logic - and this is the heart of fundamentalism.

I am saying that the inception of hostilities commenced with the creating of the state of Israel. How to solve the problem is more complex than simply uncreating Israel, which should not be done.

Maybe someone here can enlighten me on this, but my understanding is the Palestinians living in Isreal are basically treated as second-class citizens, that they do not have political equality and suffer mightily. If true, wouldn't this suggest that it is Israel who acts racist? Or is this simply a power struggle of religions, Jew verses Islam, not much different than Shiia/Sunni or any other religios difference?

If Israel allowed itself to become a melting pot, would it still be Israel?

[mike777]

Well I would call the Pope a fundamentalist Catholic or Desmond Tutu a fundamentalist Protestant. IMHO they are part of solution not the problem.

No Israel as a melting pot would be a very different country. As I pointed out in a 100 years there may be more Muslim babies than Jewish in this very tiny country.
How can a minority govern a majority without violence or expulsion?

I do not know the answer.

[Winstonm]

Quote

No, just explaining that there are two sides of every coin.

Peter

I don't mean to dominate the topic, but this "two sides" comment spurred my thinking.

Look at it this way, as if a debate.

Jews: We have a right to this homeland that was given to us by god.
Islamics and Arabs: We have similar claims and history proves it is our land.

Jews: We suffered the holocaust and were threatened with annhilation, complete genocide. We deserve a country where we can be safe.
Arabs: We agree. All people have the right to be safe from threats of genocide. But we didn't do it. The Germans did. So why are we punished by loss of our lands? Why are the Palestinians homeless because of Germany's sins?

Hmmmm. Why indeed?

[Winstonm]

Quote

Well I would call the Pope a fundamentalist Catholic or Desmond Tutu a fundamentalist Protestant. IMHO they are part of solution not the problem

As is so usually the case in a dialogue, the problem lies in each person's understanding of the meaning of the word. To me, fundamentalist are extreme - the ones in christianity who claim every word of the bible is literal truth and refuse to accept science over religion if science disagrees with their faith. (My grandfather, for example, could "prove" the world was only about 5000 years old by counting the generations presented in the bible.) From my perspective, the fundamental christian is one with whom you can never have a reasonable discourse, who always falls back on, Well, the bible says...

A fundamental Islamic in my mind was Ayatollah Khomeni - if that helps.

[DrTodd13]

Since no one else will say it I will. For there to be peace in the middle east, one of several things have to happen.
1) Israel is destroyed. Even then the Sunnis and Shias would kill each other so I'm not sure if this would count as peace.
2) Islam ceases to exist.
3) All muslims fail to take their religion seriously.

In Islamic theology, it is unacceptable that lands once controlled by Islam would subsequently not be controlled by Islam. That point seems to be very clear. If they don't take their religion seriously then they can ignore this requirement. Israel and Iran actually had pretty good relations until the the Ayatollah took control. Along with him came people who took Islam seriously.

For the record, it isn't like a country called Palestine existed and then the mean world decided to break it up and give part to the jews. The British were in control and could damn well do what they like with it. They chose to relinquish control and form two countries but the Palestinians rejected this. In terms of Germany being the one who should have ceded land to the jews, what jew would want to live right next to country that had just tried to exterminate them? While the jews may believe the land is theres because God gave it to them, in a secular sense, the country is theirs because the British and the UN gave it to them. Islam can deny that Jews ever lived in the land but that is pretty silly. The Philistines may have lived there are one time but the jews did as well. Should we give all the US back to native americans because of the way they were treated 3 centuries ago? These ancient claims to land can get tricky but from a practical standpoint the British were in control and chose a disposition of the territory. Israel hasn't acted perfectly since its creation but if Islam were defenseless, Israel wouldn't invade but we all know the reverse is totally not the case.

[pbleighton]

"Since no one else will say it I will. For there to be peace in the middle east, one of several things have to happen.
1) Israel is destroyed. Even then the Sunnis and Shias would kill each other so I'm not sure if this would count as peace.
2) Islam ceases to exist.
3) All muslims fail to take their religion seriously.

In Islamic theology, it is unacceptable that lands once controlled by Islam would subsequently not be controlled by Islam. That point seems to be very clear. "

So there will be no peace in Europe until Muslims win back the parts of eastern Europe which were formerly parts of the Ottoman Empire?

Peter

[hrothgar]

DrTodd13, on Jan 27 2007, 10:05 AM, said:

For the record, it isn't like a country called Palestine existed and then the mean world decided to break it up and give part to the jews. The British were in control and could damn well do what they like with it.

....

Should we give all the US back to native americans because of the way they were treated 3 centuries ago?

Grow up Todd.

Its ridiculous to claim that the native inhabitants of the territories that we now call Palestine and Israel have no rights because they were conquered by the Turks and later the French and the British. The European colonial model worked very well for a time, but the French, the British, the Belgian, and the Boers were forced out of their colonial possessions. In some cases, like India, there was a largely peaceful transition. In others (Vietnam, Algeria) the transition required a long and bloody struggle. Israel is one of the last European colonies. I don't think that its going to fare much better than Rhodesia...

As for your claims about the United States: The great difference between the United States and Israel is that "we" did a much better job of ethnic cleansing. Most of the dirty work was done by disease rather than military force, however, the US government was also willing to help things along with a opportune delivery of smallpox ridden blankets or a well timed massacre.

Even so, I believe that the US government should be doing a lot more for Native Americans. I'm a firm believer in the so-called "Buffalo Commons", which advocates letting large parts of the Great Plains go fallow

[Winstonm]

Let me ask this knowledgeable group a question or two. I have to rely on reading, but that reading suggests that until Israel was created there was tension but not outright hate coming from the Arab world.

So what is the the basis of the conflict? Is it religious based, Islam verses Judaism? Is it culture based? Is it ethnicity based? Or is it land based?

When the Palestinians rejected the U.N. division offer and Israel declared its independence, the Arabs attacked - was this because of hatred of the Jews as a people? Was this an attempt at genocide? Or was it simply a land battle?

I wonder if the problem within Israel is not so different than the problems within Iraq, Iran, or most other middle eastern countries in that you have a ruling party dominated by a segment of a religion or culture - Jew verses Palestinian in Israel, Sunni verses Shiia in Iran and Iraq and elsewhere.

Israel has a large problem within its borders, i.e., the significant Palestinian population still living there. They cannot nationalize them and incorporate this segment into the country itself without losing much control and in effect becoming Un-Israel; they cannot force them out of the country without appearing to be no better than Pharoah letting the Jews wander off into the desert; and by keeping them under their thumb financially and politically they cause resentment, anger, and hostilities throughout the region.

Truly a difficult problem with no simplistic answers.

Quote

The great difference between the United States and Israel is that "we" did a much better job of ethnic cleansing. Most of the dirty work was done by disease rather than military force, however, the US government was also willing to help things along with a opportune delivery of smallpox ridden blankets or a well timed massacre.

Remember, too, that the U.S. over time created an overwhelming population advantage - it is much easier to eliminate the few than the many.

[pbleighton]

"Let me ask this knowledgeable group a question or two. I have to rely on reading, but that reading suggests that until Israel was created there was tension but not outright hate coming from the Arab world."

Yes. Or to put it another way, Muslims treated Jews badly, but Christians treated them worse.

"So what is the the basis of the conflict? Is it religious based, Islam verses Judaism? Is it culture based? Is it ethnicity based? Or is it land based?"

All of the above, but it was IMO primarily the rage of the displaced - land.

Religion has done what it normally does in conflicts - act as an accelerant, and as a complicating factor in any solution.

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

Call an Egyptian an arab. Or an Iranian, or a Syrian etc. etc. They will all claim to not be "arabs" which in their eyes are nomads and itinerants with little or no social standing.

Warfare and rivalry existed long before the Ottoman conquest of the middle east. The Europeans that carved up the territory were extremely politically motivated. Fundamentalism is the first "unifying" force in this region since Mohammed (The turks held it together by main force....) Forewarned is fore armed.

[Winstonm]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 27 2007, 04:59 PM, said:

Call an Egyptian an arab. Or an Iranian, or a Syrian etc. etc.  They will all claim to not be "arabs" which in their eyes are nomads and itinerants with little or no social standing.

Warfare and rivalry existed long before the Ottoman conquest of the middle east.  The Europeans that carved up the territory were extremely politically motivated.  Fundamentalism is the first "unifying" force in this region since Mohammed (The turks held it together by main force....) Forewarned is fore armed.

It would seem to me that a part of the solution would be no different in this part of the world as in others - and that being greater economic and educational evenness.

When you have a polarization between rich and poor, the poor grope for reasons to justify their meager existence, and therefore are the perfect set up for extreme fundamentalist pitching their wares.

On the other hand, when an area or country has a vast and somewhat comfortable middle class, a small poor class and a small rich class, the majority then is less compelled to look for reactionary solutions to non-existent problems - life isn't so bad.

We may have witnessed a metamorphisis that has changed the opiate of the mases into the crack cocaine of the downtrodden.

[Al_U_Card]

Someone who has nothing to lose....will risk it every time. The end result is always violence.

[mike777]

All we are saying....is give peace a chance

[pbleighton]

"All we are saying....is give peace a chance"

I think there will be peace in the Middle East.

Very unlikely in the next 20 years, though.

The more people act as if "well, if it's not in the next 20 years, screw it, let's just kill", the longer it will be. The longer it is, the more likely nuclear war becomes.

The hawks on both sides are crazy, just as the hawks in the U.S. and U.S.S.R. were crazy when we almost had a nuclear war over Cuba.

Kennedy and Kruschev pulled back from an acute crisis. The present Middle East crisis is not acute, it is long and drawn out, and therefore more difficult to resolve. Crisis may not be the right word.

Peter