Arab liberals - endangered species

[drdon326]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1071541096042

I don't want to list here all the Arab world's political, economic, and social disasters of the last half-century. One should not have to be a genius to see how the existing systems and dominant ideologies - both radical Arab nationalism and revolutionary Islamism - have failed. Equally, the region's poor performances in almost every index for measuring progress have been amply documented.

WHAT is there to counter the status quo? A few hundred, at most, Arab intellectuals writing columns and op-ed pieces with devastating critiques of these problems, and a much larger amount of private muttering about how rotten the situation is for Arabs today. This stands in opposition to powerful regimes with giant armies and massive Islamist movements with many tens of thousands of followers.

Why the disparity? Some of the reasons are apparent:

The strength of repression.

snip

But foremost reason why this situation persists is due to the real WMD - Weapon of Mass Deception - xenophobic demagoguery: teaching people that everything is the foreigners' fault. It is the systematically exploited hatred of the West in general and of Israel and the US in particular that is the most effective tool of the Arab regimes and their Islamist opponents.

....................................................................

intelligent article

[bluesoul]

1. Jpost should sometimes look itself

in the mirror. Self-criticism is not their virtue...

[drdon326]

2. bluesoul...

no bs...i thought of you alone when i saw this.....
seriously.

what did you think of the article??

[bluesoul]

3. Too generalizing

Which is common when speaking about Arabs and Muslims is done by RW sources. Left-wing tend to be more objective, fair and balanced and less black-white imagery.

That's why Haaretz wins hands down in Israel ;)

[drdon326]

4. uhhhh......

yeah.....sure.....too generalizing.

Thanks....i think.

[bluesoul]

5. Duh

"xenophobic demagoguery: teaching people that everything is the foreigners' fault."

Duh, as though that is the case with ALL and as though every Arab hates anything to do with the west, Israel or Jews for that matter. As though they're ALWAYS blaiming foreigners for everything..

Black-white mentality as I said. If you buy this mentality then I really don't have much to say. To me it's just BS...

[Gimel]

64. The writer

is working on a book about the subject, so I'm sure there is detail to it. Perhaps you didn't read the entire article:

Outside of Kuwait, there is arguably no organized liberal grouping at all. Though some Western observers - motivated both by wishful thinking and a belief that a moderate triumph is inevitable - magnify each individual action, there just isn't that much to talk about.

This reality does not detract from the heroism of reform advocates. On the contrary, it makes their courage even more impressive, because the odds against them are so stupendous. Yet it seems more realistic to call the liberals an endangered species rather than an ever-growing wave of the future.


It is not all that black-and-white, but there is a lot of gray.

[Blitz]

6. Very interesting article ...

Thanks for posting this.

[Cry Freedom]

7. 2 interesting sentences from the article:

The relative lack of democratic experience in the Arab world (though a half-century ago there were many elected parliaments there).

Nationalism and religion were often forces pressing for democracy in the West, while in the Middle East they are aligned against it.

[Forkboy]

8. Drop the word Arab from the title

Liberals are an endangered species period.And it doesn't help that many are ashamed of the word instead of proud of it.

[number6]

26. or ....

Arabs are an endangered species in Israel period.

[MikeGalos]

9. One problem Arab liberals have

is that western liberalism seems to be happy to support the most right-wing Arab groups and skip the liberal Arab groups.

As an example, we've seen plenty of US and EU liberal group supporting Hamas who are religious fundamentalists with absolutely no concept of human rights. On the other hand, the same US and EU liberal groups are silent in discussion of Arab liberalism.

Perhaps it's because if they discuss Arab liberalism, they'd have to admit that they're supporting right-wing groups in their fight against a liberal democracy. And there's no way to criticize any Arab nation in their eyes without being accused of being "anti-Arab"
or a "Zionist sympathiser".

[bluesoul]

10. Some have no problem in supporting

Israeli right-wing (Sharon) and then they're talking about supporting right-wing Arabs...

[Jack Rabbit]

11. Actually, I believe Mr. Galos has a good point here

Let's face it. Islamism is fascism. It is a belief that if one is a Muslim, and more importantly a devout Muslim who interprets Islam after the fundamentalists, then one is better than others and should have more rights and privileges in society, including society's political institutions.

Let's face something else. For those of us who support Palestinian nationalism, there are alternatives to supporting Arafat, who is backed by Islamic fascists. There are moderate and progressive figure in the Palestinian community, such as Hanan Ashwari, Yasser Abed Rabbo, Dr. Musfata Barghouti and Professor Sari Nusseibeh who are worthy of support. These are people with the talent to govern a nation. They are far more reasonable than Ahmed Yassin or Abdel Rantisi and more honest than Arafat, to say the least. They are the kind of people liberals and progressives can support.

Again, this is a point where we dissidents can lead. Just as we do not support Mr. Bush's vision of endless colonial wars, but demand alternatives, we don't have to accept the militants' vision of Palestine as an Islamic state. We can insist that western powers lend credibility to people like these instead of Arafat. There are things we can do to voice our support for a Palestine that will be a progressive, secular state and much more likely to be a democratic one as well.

While Sharon's attempts to crush the Intifada by brute force have been a disastrous failure, so too has the Intifada itself. Rather than direct its energy at targets that can directly harm everyday Palestinians, the leaders of the Intifada have chosen a strategy of war crimes. This has gotten the Palestinians nowhere. Suicide bombing a crowded cafe or a bus load of commuters did not prevent the bulldozing of one home or the construction of one settlement or one kilometer of any segregated road to access that settlement.

The Palestinian people are worse off now than they were three years ago. The only reason that they aren't further from realizing the goal of establishing a state in the West Bank and Gaza is that, in the long run, time is on their side.

A Palestinian nation already exists in the West Bank and Gaza. That the nation will become a self-governing state is inevitable. That also will benefit Israel by allowing her to remain a democratic state with a Jewish majority. We have the power to help determine what kind of state will come into being in Palestine. Instead of a state where the only devout fundamentalists will rule, we can assist progressive Palestinians to establish a democratic Palestine. A Palestine that is peaceful, prosperous and democratic is a possibility if we help the right people reach for it.

[bluesoul]

12. What is then Zionism?

If Islamism is fascism? I have a problem with such equations...

[MikeGalos]

13. Zionism is very different than Islamism

Zionism is the nationalist movement of one people. It is manifested through the creation of a social-democrat, leftist (by US standards) nation with equal rights for all citizens guaranteed by a civil court.

Islamism (as used by the above poster) is a multi-national movement tied to specific religious beliefs with open acceptance that all other people should be, at best, second class citizens of an Islamic theocracy and guarantees limited if any rights to anyone who is not a straight, male fundamentalist Moslem with some variants restricting those rights only to straight, male fundamentalist Moslem Arabs with those rights enforced by a religious court.

See the difference?

Some of us really hope to see a growth in an Arab equivalent of Zionism in the Palestinian community but there seems to be NO chance of any Arab nationalist movement with the goal of creating a social-democrat, leftist (by US standards) nation with equal rights for all citizens guaranteed by a civil court while Arafat and his corrupt right-wingers maintain power by their mobs of armed thugs.

[Jack Rabbit]

14. Zionism

When I moderated this forum and enforced rules against making loose use of loaded words like Zionism, I suggested that an acceptable definition was: The belief in the establishment and maintenance of a Jewish state as a positive goal. Benny Elon is a Zionist. So is Uri Avnery.

Again, this can be consistent with democracy only in an area where Jews are a majority, preferably a large majority. For whatever reason they came about -- you and Mr. Galos can dispute it until the cows come home -- the conditions under which a state that is at once Jewish and democratic exist within Israel's recognized borders, the Green Line; were Israel to annex the West Bank and Gaza (or merely claim that those territories are in "integral part of Israel" and begin treating them as such), those conditions would cease to exist. Either Israel would become a bi-national democracy (not a Jewish state) or would have to undertake repressive measures against Arab residents of the land that contradict democratic principles and would be met with wide, popular resistance.

[MikeGalos]

15. I'd agree

with that definition of Zionism (well, I don't think "as a positive goal" is necessary) but I have to take strong disagreement that the "Green Line" is Israel's recognized border.

The "Green Line" is the cease-fire line in the 1949 cease-fire agreement. It was recognized in 1967 as part of UN Security Council Resolution 242(1967) that this border could be adjusted by Israel as part of a lasting peace treaty to make it a defensible border.

Since the border is arbitrary due to being formed by where troops stopped rather than by any logical process of border establishment, the UN realized that it was not a likely or desirable exact border.

For documentation of this, please read any of the descriptions of the 242 debates at the time, especially those involving the USSR ammendment to change the 242 wording to establish a return of "all territories" which was voted down by the Security Council for precisely the reasons I've stated.

[bluesoul]

16. There will be no peace

if you'll insist that the Green line is not the border. The Palestinians are not going to give up that little that was left to them after the WW2 agreement. Remember that!

[MikeGalos]

17. So you advocate war as opposed to UN Security Council Resolution 242

I have no idea what you mean by the WW2 agreement. The agreements that are involved in the area were:

• Transfer of control over the Ottoman territories after WWI that established the British Mandate of Palestine
  
• Splitting of the British Mandate of Palestine into an Arab-Only TransJordan (including the "ethnic cleansing" of non-Arabs including all Jews)
  
• Several proposed 3 state (Israel/Palestine/Jordan) ideas in the 1930s that were turned down by the Arabs
  
• The 1947 partition which established a 3 state (Israel/Palestine/Jordan) solution which was accepted by the UN and Israel but which was politically and militarily opposed by multiple Arab states causing the 1948 war
  
• The 1949 cease-fire boundaries which set up the "Green Line" border
  
• The 1967 war where Israel captured the Golan Heights, Gaza Strip, West Bank and Sinai Penninsula and offered (as called for by UN SC 242) to return them to Syria, Jordan and Egypt in exchange for a peace treaty (as called for by UN SC 242) with adjustments as allowed in 242
  
• The 1973 war where Israel recaptured the Golan Heights, Gaza Strip, West Bank and Sinai Penninsula and offered (as called for by UN SC 242 and 338) to return them to Syria, Jordan and Egypt in exchange for a peace treaty (as called for by UN SC 242 and 338) with adjustments as allowed in 242 and 338.
  
• The return of the Sinai Penninsula to Egypt in exchange for a 242-style treaty.
  
• Multiple proposals to give control of the West Bank and Gaza to a Palestinian Government in exchange for guarantees (in accordance with 242 and 338) that have been turned down by the Palestinian representatives.

But, apparently, you'd prefer to have ongoing war rather than a peace treaty as called for by Israel for decades...

Sad

[bluesoul]

18. What's sad is you insisting on Israel

grabbing Palestinian land. Gaza and the West Bank as well as the rest of the OT are NOT Israel!

[MikeGalos]

20. Care to say why?

besides wanting it to be so?

Please, cite treaty or proposal or legal basis...

[bluesoul]

21. So you're telling me that Gaza, West Bank and the rest of the OT

is Israeli land and it will stay so? And just what have the Palestinian got then? 50 metres of land?

These are such extremist views that I really never imagined I would come upon on DU, but that's just another surprise after another. No wonder then....

[MikeGalos]

22. No

I'm saying that whatever you think "little that was left to them after the WW2 agreement" is, it is not anything that exists in the law nor in any previous agreement.

Now, you still haven't said what you meant by the "WW2 agreement" so perhaps you could explain what you meant besides "pity the poor oppressed Palestinians"

[number6]

27. I am very suprised too

that this view is on DU

so the Palestinians don't even get their tiny little
West Bank and Gaza , its down hill from there
maybe they'll get a square mile mud hole somewhere ....

[MikeGalos]

61. Perhaps you could read post #39

which should explain how the poor Palestinians already have most of Palestine and not jut "a square mile mud hole"

[number6]

103. ok I read it, read the thread again

I'll go with Jack Rabbit and the Magistrate
they make more sense than post # 39 ...

[MikeGalos]

19. btw: here's a map of the British Mandate of Palestine

Note that it was split into an area where Jews were prohibited and an area for a Jewish State. The "Palestinian Arabs" were given most of "Palestine" in 1921. That they called it TransJordan rather than Palestine hardly means it is not a "Palestinian State". It is only the British backing out on their agreements that this was not the borders of Palestine and Israel in 1921.

[Jack Rabbit]

23. The British Mandate is of little relevance today

It greatest value I can find in your argument is that is shows how the canard Jordan-is-Palestine-and-Palestine-is-Jordan is a rhetorical slight of hand.

True, the entire region that now encompasses Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian Territories was once lumped together under the name Palestine. Leave it to British colonialists to muck things up. They were good at it.

At the time, the majority of the people living in Transjordan were Bedouin. They were only called "Palestinian" by virtue of living within the boundaries of British Mandated Palestine, as were Jews in the Mandate and the Arabs in the Jordan valley all lumped together as "Palestinians". Only this latter group is the people we still call Palestinian. As The Magistrate pointed out several weeks ago in an argument with a now-banned member who was advocating that the Arabs west of the Jordan River move to the kingdom of Jordan (which he declared to be the Palestinian state), the contact between the nomadic Bedouins in the east and the Palestinian farmers in the river valley was usually in the form of raids by the former against the villages and farms of the latter.

The Palestinian population of Jordan increased with a flood of refugees as a result of the the 1948 war. We aren't sure what percentage of the population of present-day Jordan is Palestinian. Some estimates go as high as sixty percent, but others make it something less than a majority. Most authorities agree that Palestinians outnumber Bedouins in present-day Jordan.

In any case, the British gave up on their plans to partition Palestine into two states, one Jewish and the other Arab; the turned the matter over to the United Nations which drew up its own map for partition in 1947:


Source: British Broadcasting Corporation

This plan, like the British plan in Mandated Palestine, was never implemented. Instead, the British withdrew, the Israelis declared a Jewish state and the Arabs, who had all along rejected any attempt to establish a Jewish state, went to war. After some months of fighting an armistice was agreed, establishing more or less the map as we have known it since:


Source: British Broadcasting Corporation

[MikeGalos]

24. It hardly shows how Jordan isn't Palestine

It really shows that the Palestinians are playing the old negotiating game of:
Phase 1
Side A Side B
100 0

Side B says: "We're not happy, split the difference and we'll stop attacking your people"

Phase 2
Side A Side B
50 50

Side B waits a while than says: "We're not happy with what you have, split the difference and we'll stop attacking your people"

Phase 3
Side A Side B
25 75

Side B waits a while than says: "We're not happy with what you have, split the difference and we'll stop attacking your people"

Phase 4
Side A Side B
12.5 87.5

It's a bogus negotiation technique that relies on blackmail rather than justice.


Now, as far as the 1960s, there were no "Palestinians" in the sense we use today. The leadership in the area insisted that they were Syrians. It was only in the 1960s that the concept of a "Palestinian" applied to an Arab group. Prior to that it had been used to apply to everyone in the mandate including Jews. Note, for example, that the Jerusalem Post used to be the Palestine Post.

As for the Bedouin, they happily became Israeli citizens and, in fact, are one of two Arab groups who requested that their members be included in the Israeli draft so they wouldn't be considered different than other Israelis. (The other group were the Druze)

You might note, also, that the Palestinian Covenant counts people like Arafat as "Palestinian" though his family moved from Cairo relatively recently but doesn't count Jews who moved to the mandate much earlier.

[Jack Rabbit]

31. Interesting

How come Side B ended up with only about 25% of the land? That's as things stand now.

Now, as far as the 1960s, there were no "Palestinians" in the sense we use today. The leadership in the area insisted that they were Syrians. It was only in the 1960s that the concept of a "Palestinian" applied to an Arab group. Prior to that it had been used to apply to everyone in the mandate including Jews. Note, for example, that the Jerusalem Post used to be the Palestine Post.

Exactly what I said. In Mandated British Palestine, all groups were Palestinians. That fact that the term "Palestinian" did not come into common usage until later does not change that fact that Arab farmers living in the Jordan valley (including the West Bank) are distict from Jews and Bedouins.

They aren't Israelis and they are aren't Jordanians. They are Palestinians. The West Bank isn't Israel and it isn't Jordan. There are about 2.2 million Palestinian Arabs living there and another 1.3 million in Gaza.

[MikeGalos]

32. Let's look at that claim

Israel makes up by far the smaller part of the Mandate of Palestine.

Only by the Palestinians claiming "the really big part that we already got shouldn't count" does Israel have most of the land.

To do the same, I could say that Israel inside the Green Line doesn't count and the Jews and Palestinians should split the West Bank. It would be equally as fair as claiming that Jordan doesn't count.

Also, don't you think it odd that the Palestinians didn't claim the West Bank back when Jordan stole it from them? It was only after 1967 that the West Bank became the holy land of their people. Prior to that, it was land that Jordan held that was of no importance.

Guess all they want is whatever Jews control.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[bluesoul]

35. Israelis already have their country

and territory as agreed after WW2. Anything more is simple land grab at the expense of others (Palestinians in this case)...

[MikeGalos]

36. Where do you keep dreaming up this WW2 thing?

Israel got their country in 1948.
The Palestinians got their two countries in 1922 and 1948.

Of course, I wouldn't expect somebody who thinks anybody there got something as part of WW2 to actually have a clue about history but it DOES amaze me that you keep repeating the WW2 line when it clearly means nothing.

[bluesoul]

37. Whatever

....

[MikeGalos]

39. Here's an analogy to make it simple for you

Your parents budgeted $100 for birthday presents for you and your little sister.

On your birthday in February they give you $70 and, since it wasn't her birthday, gave your sister nothing.

On your sister's birthday in April, your parents, who like you better and frankly are a little afraid of you and your bully friends, give your sister $20 and give you an additional $10 in hopes that you wouldn't raise too much of a fuss over your sister getting anything.

Your response is to get a bunch of your friends together and beat up your little sister and steal her $20 since you think you should get everything. Amazingly, your sister holds you off and two of your friends steal the $10 that your parents gave you.

Later your friends try to beat up your sister again and steal her $20. You cheer them on but, surprise, your sister takes the $10 your friends stole from you. She offers to give it back to you if you and your friends promise to stop picking on her and leave her alone.

You refuse and spend the rest of the year saying how unfair it is that your sister hasn't given you the $10 back without making you promise to let her keep her birthday present since you still think it's awfully unfair that you didn't get the whole $100.


And that, in short, is the history of the British Mandate of Palestine.

[MikeGalos]

63. An updated analogy

With updates to make it match the actual areas involved...

---

Your parents budgeted $100 for birthday presents to split between you and your little sister.

On your birthday in February they give you $78 out of that $100 and gave your sister nothing since it wasn't her birthday.

On your sister's birthday in April, your parents, who like you better and frankly are a little afraid of you and your bully friends, give your sister $17 and give you an additional $5 in hopes that you wouldn't raise too much of a fuss over your sister getting anything.

Your response is to get a bunch of your friends together and beat up your little sister and steal her $17 since you think you should get everything. Amazingly, your sister holds you off and two of your friends steal the $5 that your parents gave you.

Later your friends try to beat up your sister again and steal her $17. You cheer them on but, surprise, your sister takes the $5 your friends stole from you. She offers to give it back to you if you and your friends promise to stop picking on her and leave her alone.

You refuse and spend the rest of the year saying how unfair it is that your sister hasn't given you the $5 back without making you promise to let her keep her birthday present since you still think it's awfully unfair that you didn't get the whole $100.


And that, in short, is the history of the British Mandate of Palestine.

---

For those keeping track the actual percentages are:

Jordan (77.37% of the Mandate of Palestine)
Israel (17.41% of the Mandate of Palestine)
West Bank and Gaza (5.21% of the Mandate of Palestine)

Under the "Green Line" borders:
Jewish part of Palestine: 17.41%
Palestinian Arab part of Palestine: 82.69%

[Jack Rabbit]

38. The British plan for Mandated Palestine was not implemented

The British abandoned it and turned the problem over to the UN. We needn't concern ourselves with its specifics.

The UN partition plan included an Arab state west of the Jordan River. That plan was not implemented. Instead, a war ensued and Israel got the coastal plane of the Levant, the Negev and West Jerusalem. The armistice lines served nicely as borders for decades, and still do. When we speak of Palestinian workers entering Israel from the West Bank, we are speaking of them crossing the Green Line, are we not?

The West Bank and Gaza are no more Israeli than Ireland is British. Jordan is no more a Palestinian state than France is a German state. However, Jordan is doing nicely and we needn't concern ourselves with her. We are talking about how to divide up what lays between the river and the sea.

What extremists among the Palestinians want doesn't concern me any more than what extremists among the Israelis want. The worst of them want the same thing: a single, ethnically cleansed state stretching from the river to the sea. I don't support that and I don't think anybody here does. The next worst thing is a single state stretching from the River to the sea in which, based on one's heritage, some will have rights and others will be subjugated. I don't support that and I certainly hope nobody here does.

There are two nations existing west of the Jordan River; each should have its state on the land where each is a majority. The will give each nation-state the best opportunity to develop or maintain a cohesive society with democratic values. The Green Line serves as a convenient demarcation between the two; that can be the basis for any land swapping negotiations to give Israel more defensible borders.

The alternative to using the Green Line in that way is to allow one nation or the other to unilaterally determine the borders. That's a terrible way to conduct international relations.

Now, before anyone weighs in with a to quoque fallacy, I will readily concede that for decades the history of the Middle East has been one long series of examples of poor ways to conduct international relations, of which no one party in the conflict holds a monopoly.

[Gimel]

68. Let's say that it was plan #1

And it was rejected by the Palestinian leadership. Now we go to plan #2, which was presented when? After the 6-day war? Resolution 242?
http://www.ariga.com/treaties/242.shtml
As we all know, this was never implemented either.

Then Plan #3 has to wait until Oslo, if I'm not mistaken. Does anyone know of an actual proposal prior to Oslo?

http://www.ariga.com/treaties/interim.shtml

Partially implemented agreement.

ARTICLE I

Transfer of Authority
Israel shall transfer powers and responsibilities as specified in this Agreement from the Israeli military government and its Civil Administration to the Council in accordance with this Agreement. Israel shall continue to exercise powers and responsibilities not so transfer.

<snip>
ARTICLE II

Elections
In order that the Palestinian people of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip may govern themselves according to democratic principles, direct, free and general political elections will be held for the Council and the Ra'ees of the Executive Authority of the Council in accordance with the provisions set out in the Protocol concerning Elections attached as Annex II to this Agreement

<snip>

ARTICLE III

Structure of the Palestinian Council
The Palestinian Council and the Ra'ees of the Executive Authority of the Council constitute the Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, which will be elected by the Palestinian people of the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip for the transitional period agreed in Article I of the DOP.


The Council shall possess both legislative power and executive power, in accordance with Articles VII and IX of the DOP. The Council shall carry out and be responsible for all the legislative and executive powers and responsibilities transferred to it under this Agreement. The exercise of legislative powers shall be in ...

<snip>

CHAPTER 2 - REDEPLOYMENT AND SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS


ARTICLE X

Redeployment of Israeli Military Forces
The first phase of the Israeli military forces redeployment will cover populated areas in the West Bank - cities, towns, villages, refugee camps and hamlets - as set out in Annex I, and will be completed prior to the eve of the Palestinian elections, i.e., 22 days before the day of the elections.


Further redeployments of Israeli military forces to specified military locations will commence after the inauguration of the Council and will be gradually implemented commensurate with the assumption of responsibility for public order and internal security by the Palestinian Police, to be completed within 18 months from the date of the inauguration of the Council as detailed in Articles XI (Land) and XIII (Security), below and in Annex I.


The Palestinian Police shall be deployed and shall assume responsibility for public order and internal security for Palestinians in a phased manner in accordance with Article XIII (Security) below and Annex I.


Israel shall continue to carry the responsibility for external security, as well as the responsibility for overall security of Israelis for the purpose of safeguarding their internal security and public order.

http://www.ariga.com/treaties/interim.shtml

the implementation of Oslo was stalled and reversed due to terror attacks. Camp David under Clinton was to negotiate a better arrangement. That failed. Plan #4. finished.

http://www.ariga.com/treaties/campdavidtrilateral.shtml

So Bush had the "brilliant" idea of a new peace plan the Road Map. Plan #5 seems still-born.

That is really Ariel Sharon shoving it up the ass. :eyes: :crazy:

[Violet_Crumble]

40. Here's an article on Resolution 242 for you to read, Mike...

I'd be interested to hear yr thoughts and possibly an attempt to refute what it says...

Resolution 242: A Legal Reappraisal of the Right-wing Israeli Interpretation of the Withdrawal Phrase with Reference to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians

This is by John McHugo and appeared in the International & Comparative Law Quarterly in October 2002. It's a pdf file, so if yr unable to access pdf, let me know and I'll arrange to get a version in another format to you. It gives a lot of background and documentation on what the delegates intentions were, and it's clear that the intention wasn't to pass a Resolution that allowed Israel to pick and choose what territory it withdrew from, which is why whether or not the word 'all' was there or not is irrelevant....

Violet...

[MikeGalos]

41. No thanks - I take my history raw not rewritten

I'll stick to the actual text, the voting history and the statements of the authors rather than scrape around for revisionist essays.

As it happens, actual history agrees with me which is good since I've never been big on the "lets all agree to lie about history and pretend it happened the way we wish it did" philosophy.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. How about reading it before commenting on it?

There is no way you could have read it in the space of a few minutes. And if you'd read it, you'd be aware that it discussed the statements of the authors and it wasn't a revisionist essay at all...

Sorry, but the because I say so! approach isn't particularly convincing when it comes to discussing this Resolution and what the intention of the SC was. If you claim there's lies in the documentation I posted for you to look at, feel free to back up that claim with some examples. My suggestion is you actually take the time to read things before passing them off as rubbish, Mike...

Violet...

[MikeGalos]

43. Gee, it was long, it was PDF, it was silly. What did I miss?

It wasn't really hard to go through enough of it to understand the premise and conclusions and skim the rest.

[Violet_Crumble]

44. What you missed...

Was that you claimed after a space of six whole minutes 'skimming' at most, that it didn't contain documentation on the intentions of the SC. You also claimed it contained lies, yet fail to produce a single example. Now you claim it's silly. Why? Because it doesn't agree with yr interpretations of the Resolution? Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it silly, Mike. If it's so silly, then you should be able to point out exactly why you thought it was. Me, I didn't think that particular journal was in the habit of publishing 'silly' essays...

Violet...

[MikeGalos]

45. I gave it what it was worth

As I said, I'll stick to the original documents, comments by the authors and other involved individuals and voting histories.

If you'd rather trust essays written to justify neo-history, fine. I don't really place much value on "what I wish had happened" pseudo-history.

[Violet_Crumble]

46. How would you know as you didn't read it?

As I've already said, anyone who'd even skimmed it would have spotted that it did contain statements from the authors and other involved individuals. And as you haven't bothered reading the essay, any claims that the essay was full of lies, silly, written to justify neo-history etc is just the same as someone who hasn't listened to the latest Radiohead CD going on about what a pile of garbage it is. The fact is that just because interpretations of that particular Resolution from experts in international law don't gel with yr own doesn't make it pseudo-history or silly...

Any time you do feel like having a constructive discussion about this Resolution, I'm all ears. I just thought that as you'd urged bluesoul to go reading about some of the debates concerning 242 that you would have been interested in reading this essay...

Violet...

[MikeGalos]

48. I've read it now and my comments stand

What a waste of time. I hope nobody took this seriously in any academic journal since if so, the concept of peer review has lost any meaning.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. Okay, so you've read it now...

Explain then where the lies are in it and why it's so silly. I have my doubts that even a speed-reader could read it in the ten or so minutes you would have had to read it, but I'm not a speed-reader, just a reasonably fast reader and it took me a fair bit longer than that to read it...

Anyway, I'm waiting for you to back up yr claim before you read it that it contained lies. Anytime yr ready, Mike :)


Violet...

[MikeGalos]

51. I didn't say it lied

So don't lie about me.

I think it was a bad excuse for academic opinion referencing. The actual contemporaneous documents support the conclusion that these authors label "right-wing". They, for reasons barring understanding but obviously having nothing to do with the facts, they decided to base a lengthy article not on those facts but on other essays on why the facts should be ignored in favor of what they wish was true.

Bad academics. Bad legal research. Actually, just plain bad.

[Violet_Crumble]

53. Yes, you did...

Here, when you were talking about the essay before you'd even read it: 'As it happens, actual history agrees with me which is good since I've never been big on the "lets all agree to lie about history and pretend it happened the way we wish it did" philosophy.'

Mike, the essay went into great detail explaining how the Resolution and the intent of those involved in it didn't support the right-wing conclusion (and if you'd read the article, you'd know why they called it the right-wing conclusion). They also used statements from people involved at the time saying what the intent of the Resolution was...

As you claim there was bad legal research involved in an article that surely would have been peer-reviewed before it appeared in a reputable journal, do you mind me asking what yr background in international law is, or if you even have any expertise or have studied in that area? I'm just not spotting anything shoddy about the research involved, so could you be a bit more specific and point out some examples?


Violet...

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

56. Yr the one who claimed there were lies in the article...

I don't recall ever claiming that *you* lied, so why on earth do I have to come up with something I never claimed? What's supposed to happen here is yr supposed to come up with some evidence to support yr claims about the essay, which you haven't done yet...

on edit: Mike, can you try and stick to discussing the essay, hopefully in a constructive way?

Violet...

[MikeGalos]

58. Sorry, bad wording

Again, I never said they were lying. I said they were practicing the oldest academic scam. First decide the result you want then cite weak essays by people you like to "prove" your theorum.

[Violet_Crumble]

59. Mike, you keep on claiming this article cites weak essays...

Since when have the minutes of UNSCOR meetings been 'weak essays'? These are statements from the delegates explaining their intent in supporting the draft resolution. That stuff is, as you would put it, 'raw history', which I guess means a primary source rather than a secondary source. Also, if this essay was indeed practising an academic scam, you'd have pointed out some examples of where it's flawed, which you haven;t, plus the essay wouldn't have been published in this particular journal, which is highly reputable. Here's what it says about the essays it publishes:

"When founded in 1952, the ICLQ was unique. It was the only journal which offered the reader coverage of comparative law as well as public and private international law. It has maintained its pre-eminence as one of the most important journals of its kind encompassing Human Rights and European Law. It continues to offer practitioners and academics wide topical coverage without compromising rigorous editorial standards.

Under the general editorship of Alan Boyle and Mads Andenas, the journal continues to attract scholarship of the highest standard from around the world. Articles are submitted from all over the globe from both members and non-members of the Institute and the Editors continue to welcome contributions which are selected on the basis of excellence, reflecting the independence of the Quarterly and the Institute as a whole."

http://www.biicl.org/index.asp?contentid=17&menuid=12

Violet...

[MikeGalos]

47. On further reading

my initial comment stands with the addition that all the actual contemporaneous documents they cite agree with me and their chief arguments against that interpretation are from other later papers claiming that the meaning really shouldn't mean what everyone at the time said it did.

In other words, academics quoting academic quoting academic quoting wishful thinking.

Thanks for the waste of time.

[Violet_Crumble]

50. The documents cited DON'T agree with things you've said...

In fact, they show the complete opposite and explain why. Documents cited in the essay ARE from people who were at the time saying what they intended the Resolution to mean....

Violet...

[MikeGalos]

52. Nonsense

Did YOU actually read the article?

[Violet_Crumble]

55. Mike...

Of course I read the article. That's why I posted a link to it. Rather than imply that anyone who doesn't agree with what you say obviously hasn't read something, I think it'd be much more convincing to point out the statements that you claim agree with yr interpretation of Resolution 242 and explain why *you* think they agree with you...


Violet...

[MikeGalos]

57. I've already posted that

many times, in fact.

Care to tell my why you're refuting it specifically? Or do you totally agree with all 30+ pages of the "article" and they speak for you?

[Violet_Crumble]

60. Sorry, but you haven't...

Not once in this sub-thread have you pointed to any specific statements in the essay. If you have and I've somehow missed these many times, then tell me what post number to go and look at, because that's the sort of discussion that should be going on....

Huh? I'm NOT refuting the essay, and never claimed I was. Yr the one who claimed it was silly even before you'd read it, and it's up to you to refute it, not me. I happen to think it's a sound and logical essay, and no serious flaws came jumping out at me when I read it....

Violet...

[Jack Rabbit]

73. Thank you for posting, Violet

I'm one of those people who can't read Resolution 242 to mean anything other than withdrawal from all territories occupied. I've tried to understand where any other interpretation comes from, but cannot. The alternate interpretation that the resolution means only some territory simply does not make sense. As Professor McHugo states, such interpretations are untenable.

If the resolution meant withdrawal from only some territory, it would have specified what territory could remain occupied or what alternative there is to withdrawal. It does not. Dogs may swim in the pond means any and all dogs, unless there's something specifying exactly which dogs intended to be included or excluded. With this, McHugo presents a very lucid illustration of why the Resolution means all territory.

The Resolution establishes a land-for-peace formula; if the Arabs want their land returned, then they must negotiate for it. However, the occupied land is still their land -- all of it. The resolution makes that clear by emphasizing "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war."

Israel may desire border changes for security purposes but must seek them through negotiations. This problem shouldn't have been as difficult as it has. After all, Israel is holding the cards, that is to say, the land. However, there is nothing in the resolution that allows Israel the right to unilaterally determine what changes are to be made.

[MikeGalos]

75. Here, I'll make it simple for you

A proposal to change the wording to "all territories" was voted on by the same Security Council when they were working out the language. It failed because the SC did not want to guarantee that the peace treaty border had to be the same as the 1949 cease-fire border. Their thinking was that the 1949 border was indefensible and arbitrary and if a better, negotiated border improved the chances of a lasting peace more than a border decided by where troops stopped on a given minute in a prior war, they were all for it.

Now, isn't that simple?

[Jack Rabbit]

76. No, it isn't

It failed because the SC did not want to guarantee that the peace treaty border had to be the same as the 1949 cease-fire border.

I have no problem with negotiating more defensible borders. However, to do that implies that present borders exist. I think they do. You seem to have a problem with that.

If you really want to make things simple, then use the Green Line as the starting point of negotiations. To do otherwise complicates the matter. The Green Line may have been arbitrary in 1949, but it is less arbitrary now than anything else that could be proposed. It has been a border, at least in a de facto sense, for over half a century. If the Green Line isn't to be used as the starting point for negotiating borders, then what is and why?

Do you really want to have negotiations to determine the starting point of negotiations? That's hardly making anything simple.

Their thinking was that the 1949 border was indefensible and arbitrary and if a better, negotiated border improved the chances of a lasting peace more than a border decided by where troops stopped on a given minute in a prior war, they were all for it.

Again, fine and well. Negotiate the borders. There's still nothing here that gives Israel the right to unilaterally determine where those borders are. No state should have that right.

Resolution 242 means that Israel has no right to make a permanent claim to any of the land overrun in the '67 war without negotiating for it; she may continue to occupy the land until a satisfactory agreement is reached.

[MikeGalos]

77. So we agree

That's exactly what I'm saying. The Green Line border is a starting point but NOT, I repeat NOT, a permanent internationally recognized border that cannot be changed. What 242 says is that Israel CAN make a permanent claim on lands taken in the '67 war if those lands are acquired as part of a negotiated settlement for a lasting peace treaty. It also says that until and unless that treaty is signed, Israel has the right to hold those lands. It does NOT say that the Green Line is sacred. It does NOT say that no land can be taken over the Green Line.

[Jack Rabbit]

78. Okay, I'll go with that

I would emphasize that it is an occupation and that Israel has no right to impose Israeli law on any part of the territroy occupied. However, I don't see you saying otherwise.

As far I am concerned, in the absence of a peace agreement, Israel may occupy the land until doomsday.

[MikeGalos]

79. In what possible way

is it an occupation?

In what possible way does Israel not have the right to impose law?

I'd say that it is not an occupation because Israeli control over the lands was sanctioned by both the UN in 242 and 338 and by both of the previous nations that controlled those lands (Egypt and Jordan).

Now since, in another thread, you say that Oslo is dead, then Israel is the ONLY government with any authority to enforce law. I disagree but given your position, Israel MUST be able to impose law. It is not just their right but their responsibility to govern and protect the residents. If, on the other hand, you recognise the existance of the PA government, then THEY are charged with enforcing PA law, but then they are also responsible for the actions of their citizens and the comittments to international treaty that they have signed. You ca't have it both ways.

[The Magistrate]

80. It Is An Occupation, Mr. Galos

Merely one sanctioned, as you point out, by the United Nations. That permission by the international body does not alter the fact that it is an occupation. People use, and perhaps at times attempt to avoid using, that term, as if it had some moral quality inherent to its meaning, but of course it does not. The term itself is neutral, and simply means a territory which is not part of a state, but is held and controlled by that state's armed forces. This condition may arise in any number of ways.

An occupying power is supposed to leave intact the civil administration of the area occuppied, in so far as that is compatible with holding militarily powerless any state organs of the original possessor. In World War One, for example, in the portions of the north of France German forces overran in 1914, French law continued in application in business and commercial and marital matters; even in criminal matters, where these did come under jurisdiction of military decrees aimed at enforcing order, German authorities applied French law. In Palestine, when the English took over from the Ottoman, they did the same, maintaining prior to the Mandate the old Turkish laws in force, only under English administration. Great portions of the Mandates laws, in matters relating to the daily life and business of the people, were taken over intact from the previous Turkish statutes.

In the question of the territories overrun in '67, it is the old Mandatory law that ought to apply, for this was the last legitimate rule over this territory. Neither the Jordanian nor the Egyptian occupation of these areas had any legal legitimacy. Israel does not have the right to, say, institute a criminal or a new divorce or a new contract law to apply in these territories by act of the Knesset. It does have the right to enforces martial law for the preservation of order and the protection of its occupying forces, under its own decrees and regulations.

[MikeGalos]

81. Ah Magistrate

here we must disagree as by that definition, every Trust Territory and Mandatory Territory would be an "Occupation".

The Israeli status with regard to the West Bank and Gaza Strip is closest to a Trust Territory. Israel has decreasing control over the land as the new government meets certain obligations that were established by treaty. It makes no difference how Israel came to control the lands. If Israel had returned the land to Jordan and Jordan had handed control of it back to Israel to adminster until the new Palestinian Goverment was mature enough to govern, it would make no difference.

Now, if we are to agree that Arafat's government is not legitimate and should be disbanded, at that point, and only at that point, could it be considered an Occupation. And even then, that would be with the assumption that no further action was being done to establish a permanent government.

Note that I'm reflecting the status change made when Jordan and Egypt ceded control of these lands to Israel with the intent of a negotiated treaty with the Palestinians. Prior to that it was a very different matter.

[The Magistrate]

83. Well, My Friend

It would not trouble me to agree on that proposition. Certainly the original League Mandates were mere regularizations of military conquest of some defeated nation's colonies, disguised under a form of uplifting words: in all cases they were imposed by the Mandatory power against some unhappiness on the part of the native population. There remains very little by way of Trust Territories nowadays under the United Nations; mostly little island specks conquored by the United States during the Second World War in the Pacific. These do have this in common with the Levantine territories of which we speak, however: for one reason or another, the inhabitants of these little places had never wielded a state authority recognized by the Western powers.

In that congruence, there is some sense in which the Israeli occupation is analogous to a trusteeship, and this sense could be further pressed on the ground that the United Nations is itself the real legitimate titleholder to that ground, having in effect inherited it from the League, and set it aside as part of the Arab Zone under the '47 partition, on which it was intended an Arab state be formed. That this intention was balked was not owing to any act of Israel, but to the actions of Trans-Jordan and Egypt after the '48 war. With the thieves, in effect, evicted, title ought to be viewed as reverting to the original legal possessor.

Still, the United Nations has not explicitly charged Israel as a trustee, but only recognized the fact of Israel's armed control over that ground until there is a comprehensive peace negotiated in the region. It has certainly not formally directed Israel to rule it, and prepare it for self-rule.

It is true that Arafat has not lived up to his obligations under the Oslo treaty. Israel also has played rather fast and loose with its obligations under that treaty. Each side has used the bad conduct of the other to justify its own.

The ceding by Jordan and Egypt of the territories in question to Israel pending negotiation with the Palestine Authority does not seem to me much to matter, as neither of these legally possessed those territories. The Jordanian annexation was a sham without lawful foundation, and Egypt did not even bother with a form of annexation over Gaza, but simply ran the place by garrison.

Again, there does not seem to me to be any particular reason to shy away from the term occupation, for it is a mere neutral description. It would seem beyond dispute that Israel's control of those territories rests on military conquest that no one is likely to reverse against its will.

[MikeGalos]

104. As usual, well thought out

but with two exceptions. You say that the term "occupation" is a more neutral description and at one time that might have been so. Of late, however, the term has become a loaded rhetorical phrase with serious baggage attached to it and while the technical meaning may be neutral, the practical usage is far from such.

I would also argue that your closing sentence is incorrect. Israel's history has shown that it is quite willing to return land in exchange for a meaningful peace treaty even at grave costs. The return of Sinai was one such, the treaty with Jordan another. While not said, it could be inferred from your sentence that Israel's hold is tied to force when, ironically, it is held only in hopes that there will be no need for force.

[The Magistrate]

111. My Closing Sentence, My Friend

Was not meant to suggest anything about Israel's willingness to relinquish control; forgive my innexact expression. My intent was simply to state Israel holds the ground by force of arms, and no one is likely to change that. Israel, certainly, may alter that condition of its own will, and we are in agreement there is no reason to suppose that, in a negotiated settlement acceptable to the Israeli people, it will do so. Among the problems is that negotiations on the point meet a good many difficulties, among them that there does not seem at present any reliable agency to negotiate with acting with authority for the people of Arab Palestine.

Regarding the terminology, that sort of debasement of a perfectly good descriptive word ought to be resisted, rather than caved in to. The radical rhetoriticians cannot really be appeased, and will twist what they will, but they wil be ignored in doing so if serious people are not imposed upon by that.

[MikeGalos]

114. Two points

As I stated, while not said by you, the other meaning might well be inferred. I merely pointed it out to make sure that incorrect inferrence was not made.

Secondly, while I normally agree quite strongly about the debasement of the language, I also understand that when the common meaning is likely to cause misunderstanding then the meaning must be avoided even to preserve the language since the purpose of language is to aid communication and not to stand in its way. Perhaps we can, at some point, retrieve the correct meaning of occupation but, on this topic, and at this time, I fear it cannot be.


As for the problem of negotiating with Arab Palestine, I'd say it is best summed up that those who act with authority for them lack the actual authority and those who could rightly act with authority dare not claim it.

[Violet_Crumble]

118. Happy to share, Jack...

I figured there may be one or two folk posting here who'd like to read it. I thought it was an excellent essay that anyone interested in that Resolution should read...

Like you, I've never been able to read 242 to mean anything else than withdrawing from all occupied territory. The Resolution becomes contradictory and illogical if read any other way. The pond analogy that McHugo used was a good one, but he also pointed out that there's other parts of the Resolution where the word 'all' isn't used, such as the right to safe and secure borders, and no-one tries to argue that because it didn't say a right to all borders being safe and secure, that secure borders between Israel, Jordan and Egypt mean that part of the Resolution has been fully complied with...

The way I understand it also is that there must be negotiations about the return of the territory. And that until those negotiations are finalised, Israel can legally hold onto that territory for however long it takes. But seeing this has dragged on now for over thirty years, and I have real doubts there's been much in the way of serious attempts at negotiations on Israel's part in the past, could Israel be within it's rights to hold onto that territory forever by trying to sabotage negotiations?


Violet...

[Gimel]

65. Thanks

The most sense I've read here in a long time. A fresh approach, as it were. The Palestinians campaign of suicide attacks started before Sharon was elected PM of Israel, 2002. Sorry, but it takes fire to fight fire, and that's exactly what was necessary.

No, suicide attacks were not the first or only terrorism that Israel has faced over the years, but it was an especially vicious form of terror.

[bluesoul]

66. And state

terrorism is also not exactly something new to Israel and it's policy...

[Gimel]

67. If you mean

by "terrorism" the targeted killings of the leaders of terror groups, that is widely accepted as legitimate defense.

[ClaraLemlich]

69. It really doesn't matter

whether or not that is what he meant.

"Targeted killings of the leaders of terror groups" is quite different from all the innocents who always die and/or are injured in these actions. How do you justify that?

[Gimel]

70. Not entirely true

Many have been carried out with no collateral damage. Only in about 30-40% is there collateral damage or deaths of innocents.

[ClaraLemlich]

71. Link

proof from a legitimate source

[Gimel]

72. Not in the bios

The proof isn't in your link. I guess you meant that you wanted me to find a link for proof. I've provided the link before, but I will find a proof again, just to satisfy your thirst for actual facts.

This article from Oct 19, 2001 gives a 30:13 ratio of militants killed to bystanders. Well within the 30-40% I quoted above.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0110190199oct19,1,5984433.story


I'll post more as the become available.

[Jack Rabbit]

74. You're welcome

The problem is how to go about supporting the progressive alternatives to Arafat and the Islamists. I know that the late Dr. Edward Said, with whom I did not always agree, desired to organize a progressive alternative to Arafat. Perhaps someone knows how at what stage that effort is. Although Said was a supporter of a single bi-national democratic state, a solution that is too unacceptable to too many people to make it worth serious discussion, I believe he intended to include points of view other than his in this group.

Other problems that might be tossed out:

• It means that sympathetic Israelis and supporters of Israel may have to deal with Palestinians with whose views they are not entirely comfortable. This shouldn't be a big problem as long as everybody has an end goal of two states west of the Jordan; if the Israelis could deal with Arafat in the nineties, then they can deal with the people named above now.
• Just as the slogan "the settlements are the occupation" has some validity, so does at present the notion that the Islamists are the armed resistance. How does one go about negotiating with progressive Palestinians and leaving out the Islamists if the Islamists have all the guns? That could be a messier problem.

[MikeGalos]

62. Funny how quickly

the subject of supporting Arab Liberals and thus having to criticize right-wing Arabs got quiet.

You'd think that support for Arab Liberals would be, by far, the major point for all the pro-Arab people on here but they, in particular, seem to shun the subject.

Could we actually have some discussion on this important topic?

[Violet_Crumble]

119. What about it would you like to discuss?

Mind you, I'm not pro or anti-Arab. Personally, I couldn't give a toss whether someone's Arab, Jewish, European, etc. I'm not sure where you get the idea that people shun discussing progressives, especially Palestinian ones. Earlier last month there was a lot of discussion of Hanan Ashwari, who in my opinion is worth a thousand Arafats and Sharons rolled together, and would make a great leader for the Palestinian people. Unfortunately after seeing the carry on here over the Sydney Peace Prize, it appears that moderates like her are feared for the very fact that they're moderates. If the hardliners and right-wingers on both sides move aside and moderates are given a chance, there's a real chance the conflict will be resolved in a way that's fair and reasonable to both Israelis and Palestinians...

Violet...

[_Jumper_]

25. This is much more common than people want to admit

"But foremost reason why this situation persists is due to the real WMD - Weapon of Mass Deception - xenophobic demagoguery: teaching people that everything is the foreigners' fault. It is the systematically exploited hatred of the West in general and of Israel and the US in particular that is the most effective tool of the Arab regimes and their Islamist opponents."

Most Muslim fundies I know blame Jews and "the West" (a code word for the "white race") for all the problems in the Muslim world. If you don't believe me just walk into your local mosque and find out for yourself...

[number6]

28. so, you know whats going on in my local mosque...

when were you there eh .....

[_Jumper_]

29. Do you attend a black mosque?

Black mosques are not afflicted with this cancer. Of course, there are some exceptions but it is not common like it is at Middle Eastern and South Asian mosques.

Do you honestly believe that that type of thinking is not widespread among Muslim fundies?

[number6]

30. so only black mosques are ok then ...

Arab mosques = bad ???

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[The Magistrate]

84. This Is Romantic Nonsense, Sir

You are proclaiming your own disinclination to any form of progressive development for the people of Arab Palestine, and regarding them as nothing but cannon-fodder in an ideological crusade.

Were the political leadership of Arab Palestine comprised of reasonable and rational humanists, rather than criminal ideologues and reactionaries of the worst obscurantist stripe, it could be stated to a moral certainty that this conflict would long since have been ended, and in a manner satisfactory to the greatest portion of both the troubled peoples.

History, Sir, is on the side of no one, save perhaps the most militarily powerful and economically productive. You will search it in vain for indication of anything else, save in the speeches of various delusionists. If matters continue on their present course, the people of Arab Palestine are certain to be defeated, and at best sequestered in cantonments, without political or economic power, and if this comes to pass, those who fetishize "people's struggle" and similar sloganeering swill will bear a good portion of the blame, and will have to come to terms, in the dark of night, at least, with the thrill of personal pleasure they got from spouting such tripe as if it constitute a coherent and practical program, or meant anything at all but a personal glow of self-righteousness as they uttered it.

You closing paragraph, Sir, is merely offensive, and so needs no engagement.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[The Magistrate]

86. It Is Most Fun When They Wriggle, Dear

Clearly the shaft went home, or the protest could not have been so entertaining.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[Jack Rabbit]

88. Having read your posts

You have nothing at all to say about my posts.

You don't want to know what I've been saying about them.

[Saudade]

89. Rabbit

"You don't want to know what I've been saying."

I am not talking to you.

But since you feel compelled to express yourself, go ahead, tell me what "you've been saying."

[Jack Rabbit]

90. I can't say those words

I promised my mommy.

[The Magistrate]

92. They Do Not Often Manage To Make Me Laugh Out Loud, Sir

But this one has....

Such kindness to an old man deserves the favor of Heaven!

[MikeGalos]

106. Bravo

although I missed the initial post (and assume it is from the apparent college freshman Saudade), I gather from your reply that I'd have found it "interesting".

[Saudade]

91. Doubtful

"You don't want to know what I've been saying about them."

I suspect that you are another apologist for colonialism.

I suspect that you know nothing about history, about politics, about philosophy, about morality and nothing at all about liberation, which is the meaning of history since the Enlightenment.

I think you live in the dark ages of Israeli politics, which forms the ideology of the jewish state, which is an anachronism, an ethnically-defined political entity engaged in colonial expansion, which is a lost cause, and this is something that the world's fourth most powerful military is about to discover, namely, the fact that when you try to destroy a people and steal their land, those people will fight and they will win.

This is why Israel is now a pariah state, a rogue nation, a lying welfare-queen of a state that survives via handouts as it thumbs its nose at the international community with demands justice on behalf of those whom Israel oppresses and exploits.

Israel is on the wrong side of history.

[drdon326]

93. Jack ??? An apologist for colonialism??

hardly.

laughable.

[The Magistrate]

94. Never Travel Without A Tour Guide, Dear

You will not last long anywhere interesting, if you do....

[Saudade]

98. Patronizing

"You will not last long anywhere interesting, if you do...."

No need to call me "dear," just as there's no need to use the word "sir."

It's so patronizing, and useless.

And, I've traveled the world and I don't think that you have any idea what the word "interesting" in that context means.

Stick with playing nice with colonialists, in your own peculiar little academic way.

[Darranar]

99. A question for you, Saudade...

When will the Native Americans liberate themselves?

[The Magistrate]

100. You Need To Be Able To Suss Things Out Quickly And Reliably, Dear

As must be clear to you by now, you are not very good at that, here in these friendly confines.

My definition of interesting, by the way, is where the police keep their records in Faber #2....

[Violet_Crumble]

102. Why do you keep calling him 'dear'?

He's quite right. It's incredibly patronising...


Violet...

[The Magistrate]

105. The Fellow Earned It Fair And Square, Violet

It is possible he may climb back out of the pit he has digged: stranger things have happened....

[Violet_Crumble]

110. I didn't ask if they earnt it...

I asked WHY you called him 'dear'....
Violet...

[drdon326]

101. So I quess...

everyone who disagrees with you is an "apologist for colonialism".

[Jack Rabbit]

95. Me? An apologist for colonialism?

You should spend more time on DU, my good man.

[drdon326]

97. jack....

that really is the funniest line in DU history.

[MikeGalos]

107. Hey Jack

welcome to the colonialist lick-spittle jackal side of the world!

[Jack Rabbit]

108. Gee, thanks

Festive occasion, eh?

[drdon326]

109. Yeah...

when I think of knuncle-dragging colonialists,

jack is the first person i think of. :crazy:




eosarcasm

[MikeGalos]

112. Hey

Maybe the "Jack" in Jack Rabbit is really named after Jack Philby? :-)


(OK, that may be obscure, but if it is, look him up. Colonialist extrordinaire, basically created Saudi Arabia, screwed up most of the Middle East. Fascinating character if lacking in any possible morally redeeming qualities. Really a must know person in the area...)

[drdon326]

113. I KNEW IT !!

THE TRUTH IS OUT!!

JACK....CONFESS YOUR COLONIALISM !!

[Jack Rabbit]

116. I am not a colonialist

But I have been known to traffic in slavery now and then.

[Lithos]

117. Hmmm

is it Jack "King Leopold" Rabbit or Jack "Cecil Rhodes" Rabbit?

In all seriousness, I think it's time to end this sub-story and move on.

L-

[Darranar]

96. I suggest...

that you pay more attention to what he says if you believe that Jack Rabbit is a defender of or an apologist for colonialism.

[drdon326]

115. Saudade....you still there?? n/t

.