This was a good overall interview, but Mr. McGeough could have done without the belittling and demeaning of Khaled Meshaal’s responses. I’m sure if he conducted an interview with, say, Winston Churchill during WWII, many of Churchill’s responses would have been the same. But Churchill would have been regarded by the likes of McGeough as heroes and representatives of freedom and liberty. Yet, his basic approach to Mr. Meshaal is that he is an outcast, and a bombastic propagandist at best, insinuating and implying that it is Hamas’s duty to accept western conditions “renounce violence” and “recognize Israel”.

Of course no such demands are made of “Israel” and western journalists and correspondents, for the most part, don’t see a need for such demands to be made. In other words, the Palestinians, whose rights have been violated and whose land has been occupied by a force that doesn’t recognize their basic humanity, are required to recognize that usurping entity as a legitimate state without getting anything in return. This is the justice that western states have been advertizing. Unfortunately, with such attitudes, we will continue to see a prolonging of the war and the rise of more resistance groups who see no other way to defend their rights and restore their freedom and independence.

But Churchill would have been regarded by the likes of McGeough as heroes and representatives of freedom and liberty.

Nour,

Of course, because Churchill and the Brits never wired suicide vests to their soliers with the hopes of killing as many civilians as possible.

OTOH, the Brits were much less careful than the Israelis in Gaza when it came time to defend themselves. I’d love to see how the BBC would cover WW2 today…

Akbar Palace,

Are you suggesting Nazi Germany’s abilities are somewhat comparable to those of Hamas? I just want to understand… 😉

AP,

Britain did not need to have people strap suicide vests as they had a modern military arsenal which they used to bombard Germany on a daily basis. In fact, your second point contradicts your first. You say Britain was not as “careful” as “Israel” in fighting Germany, well Britain also killed exponentially more germans than Palestinians have “Israelis.”

Paul McGEOUGH has worked for The Sydney Morning Herald for a very long time. I always enjoy his reports and analysis. In true Australian style, “he tells it as it is”.

Most if not all his writings are devoid of bias. He is not in the league of Pro Israeli writers who back the state through all its adventures. He is a very strong critic of the settlements and the plight of the Palestinians in the territories.

Nour, Pauls approach to Meshaal is very Australian-they distrust and have little respect for politicians or those in authority, and despise them utterly. Maybe Pauls approach to Meshaal is warranted, given that he has seen and covered the conflict for so many years, and can see the utter helplessnes of those that suffer under his (Meshaal’s)leadership.

“Of course no such demands are made of “Israel” and western journalists and correspondents, for the most part, don’t see a need for such demands to be made. In other words, the Palestinians, whose rights have been violated and whose land has been occupied by a force that doesn’t recognize their basic humanity, are required to recognize that usurping entity as a legitimate state without getting anything in return. This is the justice that western states have been advertizing. Unfortunately, with such attitudes, we will continue to see a prolonging of the war and the rise of more resistance groups who see no other way to defend their rights and restore their freedom and independence.”

In Pauls defence he is no friend Of Israel, neither is he her enemy, he is a very good journalist who calls a spade a spade! Or in colloqiual australian a wanker a wanker!

Shai:

Yes the V Rocket has very similar performance parameters as the Qassams! As a former military man, I am surprised that you failed to see the difference!

Are you suggesting Nazi Germany’s abilities…

Shai,

Er, no. Nowhere in my post did I say anything about Nazis or even Germany. I was responding to Nour’s comparison between Khaled Meshaal and Winston Churchill.

A bit like comparing apples to oranges.

Shai,

I’m noticing you are very sensitive about what pro-Israelis like my self write here on this blog (of course when a clear anti-semite writes crap here you “mostly agree” with them).

Nour writes:

Britain did not need to have people strap suicide vests as they had a modern military arsenal which they used to bombard Germany on a daily basis. In fact, your second point contradicts your first. You say Britain was not as “careful” as “Israel” in fighting Germany, well Britain also killed exponentially more germans than Palestinians have “Israelis.”

Nour,

Points taken. However, going back to your orignal “complaint”, you seem to be wondering why Churchill “would have been regarded by the likes of McGeough as heroes and representative of freedom and liberty”:

This was a good overall interview, but Mr. McGeough could have done without the belittling and demeaning of Khaled Meshaal’s responses. I’m sure if he conducted an interview with, say, Winston Churchill during WWII, many of Churchill’s responses would have been the same. But Churchill would have been regarded by the likes of McGeough as heroes and representatives of freedom and liberty.

My point is that those regarded (by history) as “heroes and representatives of freedom and liberty” depend on how they fight their enemy.

For example, blacks in the US fought using “civil disobedience”. Britain fought by engaging Nazi aircraft and bombing Germany in retaliation for the horrible Nazi “Blitz”. 43,000 civilians died.

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

This is why I think few would put Churchill, Dr. King and Meshaal in the same category.

AP,

Blacks, during the civil rights movement and during the slave revolts, also fought using violence. Nelson Mandela used violence in fighting Apartheid South Africa. Great Britain used extreme violence in fighting Germany. Let’s not forget the entire fire-bombing of Dresden in the last stages of the war which killed about 200,000 German civilians. But this is all justified in the eyes of westerners, but for our people to resort to arms in defending their rights and their land is always viewed with condemnation. This is why they demand of us to “renounce violence” in our struggle against “Israel.” No one ever demanded of Mandela and the ANC to “renounce violence.” No one ever demanded of the French Resistance to “renounce violence.” And no one especially demanded of the allies to “renounce violence” in their war against Nazi Germany.

Churchill is viewed as a hero by westerners because he is from them and of them; nothing more nothing less. Many of Churchill’s writings and statements carry blatant racist connotations, yet no one minds because it is directed at “inferior peoples”. Churchill is the one who stated, when referring to the Palestinians and connecting them to the displacement of natives in America and Australia: “I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.” He also declared, with respect to Iraq,”I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.”

This is the “hero” that westerners are so proud of and who is regarded as a true statesman among the “civilized” peoples.

Churchill condemned Irgun as a terrorist organization. When Churchill was on the peak of his power it were the Jews who were using “suicide belts” and trying to kill as many civilians as possible. Throwing bombs on market places, attacking civilian villages, exploding trains and hotels, killing polices, murdering foreign diplomats and Jewish opponents etc. Akbar you have obviously forgotten that part of your “proud” history.

One could say that “sadly” Churchill and his follower did not use enough force against terrorists in Palestine.

I see it rather strange to desperately trying to find from history events which could give a justification for what Israel is doing. Isn’t it so that if Jews have the right to isolate millions in ghettos and bantustans that others have/had the same right even with the Jews. So we could say that “Zionists” consider Warsaw ghetto and South African bantustans were justified. Same with taking land by force or with torture and humiliation. Can we then condemn if Palestinians after one hundred years put the Israeli Jews in slave camps and offer them “economical peace”? I suppose in that case Akbar’s offspring would fiercely condemn the situation which their grandfather hailed as normal historical behaviour when his tribe was on the stronger side.

By the way Akbar Churchill suggested in 1944 creating a Greater Syria to avoid the creation of the Jewish state.
https://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/950373.html

“Peace Process” NewZ:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5980794.ece

We will definately need the help of our resident Phds and Professor to make sense of all this…

Responding to Nour:

Nelson Mandela used violence in fighting Apartheid South Africa.

Nelson Mandela was mostly in jail, and the ANC’s use of violence detracted from their goal to end Apartheid, which could have ended much sooner if they employeed civil disobediance instead of violence. I think violence and terrorism hurt their campaign.

“Archbishop Desmond Tutu criticized the ANC for its willingness to resort to violence, arguing that tactics of non-violent resistance, such as civil disobedience were more productive.”

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

Great Britain used extreme violence in fighting Germany. Let’s not forget the entire fire-bombing of Dresden in the last stages of the war which killed about 200,000 German civilians.

That’s right Nour. But like I showed, the Nazi blitz of London killed 43,000 British citizens.

The point is, history has shown that the British response was justified, and their approach was justified. I think we both agree that Churchill is considered a “hero”, not a terrorist. I’m just trying to explain to you why that’s so.

The Arab-Israeli conflict really pales in comparison to the events and the carnage of WW2, but that doesn’t stop the MSM from covering these two conflicts “disproportionately”.

But this is all justified in the eyes of westerners, but for our people to resort to arms in defending their rights and their land is always viewed with condemnation.

Nour,

But here’s your fallacy and here’s the reason for the “condemnation”:

1.) Gaza is considered Palestinian land and Israel removed herself from the area. Most observers expected at least calm due to their removal.

2.) What you consider “resort to arms”, most people consider “resort to terrorism”. The missiles and mortars have been fired with great frequency, in great number, and totally random.

It is considered by you and others on this forum as being a “right”. Most consider it unconstructive at best and, more likely, terrorism.

This is why they demand of us to “renounce violence” in our struggle against “Israel.”

Because Israel left Gaza, most expected quiet, hoped for peace talks and a renunciation of violence. But because Hamas continues to consider Israel an illegitimate state and still has a charter condemning all Jews to violence, you can also add this as reason 3.) why most people condemn Hamas and Meshaal.

The ANC eventually made peace with the whites and vice-versa.

No one ever demanded of Mandela and the ANC to “renounce violence.”

No one demanded it perhaps because Mandela was againt violence. In his address after winning the Nobel Prize Mr. Mandela said:

The value of our shared reward will and must be measured by the joyful peace which will triumph, because the common humanity that bonds both black and white into one human race, will have said to each one of us that we shall all live like the children of paradise.

Thus shall we live, because we will have created a society which recognises that all people are born equal, with each entitled in equal measure to life, liberty, prosperity, human rights and good governance.

The ANC struggle was equal rights to her citizenry. The Arab-Israeli struggle is a border dispute.

No one ever demanded of the French Resistance to “renounce violence.”

I’m not saying they had to. I’m just explaining why some “resistors” are given medals and why some aren’t.

And no one especially demanded of the allies to “renounce violence” in their war against Nazi Germany.

Of course.

Churchill is viewed as a hero by westerners because he is from them and of them; nothing more nothing less.

I don’t think so.

Many of Churchill’s writings and statements carry blatant racist connotations, yet no one minds because it is directed at “inferior peoples”. Churchill is the one who stated, when referring to the Palestinians and connecting them to the displacement of natives in America and Australia: “I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”

If Churchill said that, it is unfortunate. But he still will be remembered as a great man, who led his country to victory against a very evil power. Mind you, Churchill wasn’t always kind to Jews:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/11/news/winston.php

This is the “hero” that westerners are so proud of and who is regarded as a true statesman among the “civilized” peoples.

Yup.

AP,

Your response contains many logical and analytical fallacies, as well as factual errors.

First, Nelson Mandela was actually the first to argue for the establishment of a military wing to the ANC back in 1960, which led to the formation of Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation) which was classified by the South African Apartheid government as a “terrorist” organization. Nelson Mandela was very much in support of the use of violence to retrieve the rights of his people on their land.

Second, yes the Nazi blitz of London killed 43,000 British citizens, and the terror attacks of Zionist militias in 1948 resulted in the death of thousands of Palestinian civilians, the destruction of up to 418 Palestinian villages, and the expulsion of over 700,000 Palestinians. Moreover, “Israel” has killed tens of thousands of additional civilians over the years, including its attack on Lebanon in 1982 killed over 20,000 Lebanese and Palestinian civilians, it’s attack on Lebanon in 2006 that killed over 1200 Lebanese civilians and the latest Gaza campaign that killed over 1400 Palestinian civilians. Therefore, the response of the Palestinians, as well as others in the region, has been quite mild in comparison to what the Europeans did to Germany.

Third, the “removal” of “Israeli” soldiers from Gaza does not mean that “Israel” no longer retained control over the strip. In fact, the removal of those soldiers made it easier for “Israel” to seal the Gaza strip and turn it into an actual prison camp, where the starving population was dying a slow death. The refusal of “Israel” to lift their siege and allow the Palestinians access to the basic necessities of life, as well as its continuous killing of Palestinians, is what led to the confrontations. Palestinians have a right to use all means at their disposal to attempt to lift the siege being imposed on them.

Finally, it says a lot that you categorize Churchill’s blatantly racist and hateful comments as merely “unfortunate.” I can only imagine what your position would be if similar statements were made by Meshaal or Nasrallah.

Nour,

Your response contains many logical and analytical fallacies, as well as factual errors.

Not sure where the errors are. Can you spell them out? Most of my comments were opinion.

Both Nelson Mandela and Yassir Arafat employed terrorism to further their causes. Both won Nobel Peace Prizes.

IMHO, both have a history/legacy that is marred by some degree because of their use of terrorism. Could any of them have achieved their goals w/o the use of terrorism?? I’m not sure.

Second, yes the Nazi blitz of London killed 43,000 British citizens, and the terror attacks of Zionist militias in 1948 resulted in the death of thousands of Palestinian civilians, the destruction of up to 418 Palestinian villages, and the expulsion of over 700,000 Palestinians.

Yes, however, if Israel WASN’T attacked by 5 invading armies, if the Arabs ACCEPTED the Partition Plan, and if Israel DIDN’T also lose 1% of her population defending themselves, perhaps Israel would not have gained any world sympathy.

Moreover, “Israel” has killed tens of thousands of additional civilians over the years, including its attack on Lebanon in 1982 killed over 20,000 Lebanese and Palestinian civilians, it’s attack on Lebanon in 2006 that killed over 1200 Lebanese civilians and the latest Gaza campaign that killed over 1400 Palestinian civilians.

The Israelis LOST world sympathy for the war in Lebanon because Israel went too far beyond her borders, the war lingered on too long, the massacre of the Sabra/Shatilla refugee camps, and the increasing death toll took its toll internally at home.

The 2006 war, IMHO, was much more justified even though Israel “lost” (this is debatable).

Therefore, the response of the Palestinians, as well as others in the region, has been quite mild in comparison to what the Europeans did to Germany.

No question about it.

Third, the “removal” of “Israeli” soldiers from Gaza does not mean that “Israel” no longer retained control over the strip. In fact, the removal of those soldiers made it easier for “Israel” to seal the Gaza strip and turn it into an actual prison camp, where the starving population was dying a slow death.

Noted. This is where we are today. The Palestinians control the land, the Israelis control access. And this is where I will offer advice.

Israel has to control the borders of Gaza as the past 8 years of missiles firings prove. The bottom line is, what does Hamas think it is going to affect by continuing this war:

1.) Sympathy for their cause?
2.) Increase their borders beyond Gaza?

They’re still fighting with their rivals in Fatah. And they’re still putting all Jews in Israel into their cross-hairs. All this while Israel allows hundreds of trucks to enter Gaza to keep Gazans fed and healthy.

If Hamas really wanted to help the Palestinian people, they would:

1.) alter their charter
2.) come to an agreement with Fatah
3.) comply with whatever ceasefire they plan with Israel and stop firing rockets into Israel

The refusal of “Israel” to lift their siege and allow the Palestinians access to the basic necessities of life, as well as its continuous killing of Palestinians, is what led to the confrontations.

You mean allow the Palestinians to rearm with rockets and missiles. No country expects the Israelis to commit suicide, not even the US.

Palestinians have a right to use all means at their disposal to attempt to lift the siege being imposed on them.

OK. But this isn’t (by far) the best method to “lift the seige”, or better the lives of the Palestinians. The opposite.

Finally, it says a lot that you categorize Churchill’s blatantly racist and hateful comments as merely “unfortunate.”

Nour,

I try not to label thinks “black” or “white”, and, of course, it is easier for me to do that when it isn’t part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Churchill’s record was, by far, influenced by how he led Britain through WW2. For this is was held in high esteem.

I can only imagine what your position would be if similar statements were made by Meshaal or Nasrallah.

Sorry, I can’t put these 2 “knuckleheads” in the same category as Churchill.

Nour,

Thank you for the civilized exchange.

AP

I fear that AP and AIG have essentially hijacked this site to talk about one thing and one thing only: the pure good and endless victims who just came to the land to live in peace and tranquility and the rest of the world in general and the resistance groups who do not share in this world view in particular and wish harm out of pure unreasoned hatred of the little Davids in their ancestral lands.

Pathetic really to respond to such self delusion and outright denial.

On a more interesting note it seems that Time magazine had a piece about Abdullah of the Saud family and it seems that he is trying to reform the kingdom.

The article to which I am sorry to say I do not have a link to truly shows that since the death of King Faisal there has been complete abdication of the kindgom’s policies to Washington and complete reliance on those policies.

Now that Obama is reciting Hafez and courting Iran they are in a panic as to what to do.

I wrote before that they have produced two types of cadres: extreme Wahabis and dumb clerics. No middle ground no strategy no coherence. Their allies are Mubarak La Vache qui Rit, the pygmy King of Jordan, the stupid Playboy Hariri, and the stooge Abbas.

The clerics are issuing fatwas declaring that a woman can fraternize with men if she breast feeds them five times hence they become her sons by gavage.

The other group are straight recruits for the Jihad front.

Now the moderate countries in the world and I call them moderate because they have accepted the right of the Palestinian people to a sovereign and secure future are Bolivia, Venezual, Syria, Turkey, Iran, Qatar, Sudan and others. I am baffled by the intransigence and the fanaticism that the EU and particularly France and Germany are showing the Palestinian people and their collusion in the massacres of Gaza. Can someone explain to me why this is happening?
Can someone explain to me how a cartoon by Pat Oliphant can produce such outrage when we were told that the emotional Muslims do not understand freedom of speech and should accept degrading cartoons? Can someone tell me why is it that Sarko le premier vetoed the deployment in Chad of 20 000 UN troops in the border with Darfur as it undermined the two French bases located there and would have allowed for Chad to chart an independent foreign policy course? How is it that the ICC does not take him to task as it did Bashir even though the Sudan is not a signatory to the ICC protocol? How come the use of white phosphorus and the deliberate killing of civilians ordered to leave their homes at point blank range by snipers is considered part of the war action of the most “moral” of all forces in the world?
How is it that the world continues to tolerate this double standard and how is it the West cannot understand that its double talk and double standard generate endless hate and contempt?

Enlightened,

As a former military man, I believe I would rather have Qassam rockets rain down over my head than Nazi V-2 missiles. From Wikipedia, one learns that some very slight differences exist between the two. For one, the Qassam rocket weighs between 5-90 kgs (depending on the version), while the V-2 weighed a mere 12,500 kgs. Second, the Qassam carries an explosive payload of between 0.5-10 kgs, while the V-2 warhead consisted of 980 kgs. In the single year that the V-2 was fired at Britain, some 7,250 civilians and military personnel were killed. In 8 years of Qassam rockets, a little less than 30 Israelis were killed.

Yeah, I think I’ll take the Qassam. It has a somewhat smaller existential-threat coefficient than the V-2 did… ‘Course, I’m not sure AIPAC would agree.

AP,

As a self-hating Semite and Israeli, I find myself agreeing “with most” of what anti-Semites have to say… It’s a bug I can’t get rid of.

Btw, have you considered that even an anti-Semite could have certain legitimate claims against Israel?

I fear that AP and AIG have essentially hijacked this site to talk about one thing and one thing only: the pure good and endless victims who just came to the land to live in peace and tranquility and the rest of the world in general and the resistance groups who do not share in this world view in particular and wish harm out of pure unreasoned hatred of the little Davids in their ancestral lands.

Observer,

Are you saying Arab armies didn’t invade Palestine in 1948? Are you also saying the Arabs accepted the Partition of Palestine?

Shai states:

As a self-hating Semite and Israeli, I find myself agreeing “with most” of what anti-Semites have to say… It’s a bug I can’t get rid of.

Shai,

“Whatever floats your boat”

Btw, have you considered that even an anti-Semite could have certain legitimate claims against Israel?

I consider a lot of things:

1.) legitimate claims

2.) illegitimate claims

3.) bias

4.) objectivity

5.) word usage

6.) ability take opposing point-of-view

7.) family of origin issues

8.) bloodtype

9.) criminal background

10.) IQ

11.) political leanings

12.) graduate degree level

13.) Syrian political party affiliation

14.) frequent flyer airline of choice

15.) madrassa affiliation

OBSERVER,

I looked in the entire archive of Time for that article and I couldn’t find it. It’ll be very helpful next time to be thorough and provide a link or a copy of such articles. Considering the tone of your comment, my take would be either you are reading your own wishful thinking into an article that may or may not exist or you may have misunderstood the article. Egypt under Mubarak (without your slur) is the leading State of the region. It is not Iran nor Syria and they will never hope to attain such status. KSA and Jordan are also much more important (particularly KSA) than your backward Syria and equally backward Iran – these two countries have much more social and economic problems to deal with before they can be taken seriously by any US administration.

AP,

Yes, both Nelson Mandela and Yasser Arafat received the Nobel Peace Prize, but no one in the world places these two figures in the same class (nor should they, in my opinion, but for different reasons than the ones you would use). But Yasser Arafat was required to “renounce violence” and “recognize Israel” before he was rewarded with petty and meaningless recognitions. Mandela on the other hand was never required to recognize Apartheid South Africa, but was nevertheless recognized as a freedom fighter and admired across the globe.

In the case of 1948 Palestine, the attack on Palestinians began long before then, when the Zionist plan of transfering Jews to Palestine and establishing a state exclusively for them on land inhabited by others was put into effect. It was only natural that the Palestinians and the rest of the peoples of the region would reject such a plan. Moreover, the United Nations had no authority under its charter to grant a piece of someone’s land for someone else. The inception of the state of “Israel” was completely illegal and illegitimate. All other peoples of the world would have rejected a similar situation on their land. Zionist terror groups then used the natural opposition of Arab countries to this plan as justification to massacre civilians and expel an entire population from their land in order to annex it to their ever-expansive Jewish state. The crimes committed by these Zionist hoodlums were crimes against humanity of the worst kind but were allowed to happen by the western world because they fit nicely with their plans for the region.

Regarding Gaza, Hamas tried everything in its power to have the siege lifted, but to no avail. The pleadings and cries of Palestinians fell on deaf ears as the western world didn’t care to act so long as “Israel” was safe, even if Palestinians were dying a slow death, as Palestinian lives are not worth very much to them. Hamas agreed to a truce agreement with “Israel” and kept its end of the bargain by effectively curtailing rocket attacks. On the other hand, “Israel” refused to be held to its obligations under the agreement by opening border crossings in Gaza. Hamas repeatedly pleaded with everyone to help lift the siege on Gaza and even offered, on several occasions, a long term truce with “Israel.” “Israel”, however, continually refused, as it did not wish to improve the lives of Palestinians, and it knew exactly where its behavior and policies would lead. The rocket attacks were a desperate, last resort for Hamas who saw no other way than to use some method to shake the world into action. When the world refuses to act against a clear aggressor, sometimes the victims are forced to take desperate measures, which include violence.

As pertaining to Winston Churchill, I know that his legacy is largely shaped by his role in WWII, and therein lies the double-standard. While Churchill is viewed by the western world as a brilliant statesmen and a stalwart in defense of his country against Nazi attacks, those leaders of resistance against “Israeli” aggression are not viewed by westerners with the same perspective. And it is with this “inferior” viewpoint that you consider the likes of Nasrallah as “knuckleheads” in comparison to Churchill, when in fact Nasrallah is a much more able and effective speaker, and a more brilliant strategist, given his conditions, than Churchill was.

The inception of the state of “Israel” was completely illegal and illegitimate.

Nour,

Perhaps according to you, but certainly not according to international law. The State of Israel is a 60 year old fact.

Nevertheless, thank you for showing this website’s owner, Professor Josh, Co-director, Center for Peace Studies, University of Oklahoma, how most of the participants here are rejectionists.

Nour,

The reason why AP will never see a Churchill in Nasrallah, and why you continue to call it “Israel”, is because we see each other as belonging to different civilizations. We both view one another as backwards and uncivilized. We both want the other side to go away, to evaporate. And we are ready to delegitimize each other to achieve that.

We must fight this tendency, before we lose the last remaining shreds of humanity still left in us.

Shai,

You’re making assumptions about my position. I don’t view anyone as backwards and uncivilized, and that’s not why I do not recognize “Israel.” I hold that position because I am opposed, on principle, to the idea of an exclusive state for a particular group of people, especially when that state is created on land inhabited by others. A recognition of “Israel” would, in my opinion, set a precedent in recognizing the right of other people to take chunks of our land and make it their own.

AP,

Actually, even according to international law, the inception of the state of “israel” was illegal. But international law is only used to enforce regulations on the weak while the strong are allowed to violate it regularly and without any accountability.

We both want the other side to go away, to evaporate. And we are ready to delegitimize each other to achieve that.

Shai,

Again, please speak for yourself. Your continued use of the word “we” is clearly patronizing.

Clarifying MY position, I have always accepted Palestinian statehood and their right to self-determination, and I have no desire to see anyone “go away”, including the State of Israel.

Nour, AP,

It’s funny how both of you reacted to my “assumptions”, and yet, how perhaps many out there (myself included) could easily be fooled by both of you, into making the exact same assumptions.

Nour, as much as you may be right (and you know my views on Israel and Palestine by now), there is no “precedence” to set. Israel is already a fact. I also don’t like the fact that the “Jewish State” requirement makes us a Racist state (and, therefore, a Racist people). But to change that, I have to do so with a real Israel, not with the unrecognized “Israel”. By not recognizing Israel you are, in an unintended way I’m sure, also not recognizing those of us who do want to change. And it is crucial, I believe, that your side recognize us, so that we CAN change.

AP,

What good is it to have “always recognized” Palestinian rights, when you’re perfectly accepting of the Occupation?

From everything you write here on SC, one can easily be fooled into thinking that you certainly DO believe Arabs are backwards and uncivilized.

What good is it to have “always recognized” Palestinian rights, when you’re perfectly accepting of the Occupation?

Shai,

I recognize that Palestinian, Israeli and everyone’s rights fall under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html#a1

So, more specifically, I recognize the Palestinian’s right to self-determination and statehood. I recognize the Palestinian Authority as the Palestinian government.

The Occupation is something I accept under the circumstances of the current State of War that exists between the two peoples/governments. I would prefer that there was no Occupation, however, as yet, no settlement of this issue has come to fruition.

From everything you write here on SC, one can easily be fooled into thinking that you certainly DO believe Arabs are backwards and uncivilized.

I believe there are MANY reasonable Arabs who accept the State of Israel. Those arabs who cannot come to terms with the State of Israel, I believe, are backward and uncivilized. I hope that clarifies things for you. I do not know what percetages of the Arab people this “divider” represents, nor do I care. Moreover, and if it matters, any ISRAELI or JEW who cannot come to terms with the State of Israel (like Norman Finklestein, Neturei Karta, etc) is also “backward and uncivilized”.

AP,

Let’s take your exact words, and replace “Israel” with “Palestine”, and “Occupation” with “Resistance”. Let’s see what we get:

“So, more specifically, I recognize the (Israelis’) right to self-determination and statehood… The (Resistance) is something I accept under the circumstances of the current State of War that exists between the two peoples/governments. I would prefer that there was no (Resistance), however, as yet, no settlement of this issue has come to fruition.”

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Yet the consequences of the Occupation is something you’re willing to accept, but those of the Resistance (Terrorism) you’re not.

Tell me, what do you think Bibi should do now, with regards to Syria? Should he give back the Golan, in return for peace? Can we have peace with Syria, without her “flipping”? What “settlement of this issue” do you think should come to fruition, without making Syria seem like she is capitulating? Now that Likud and the Right has come to power, I’m interested to know what your advice to them would be.

Let’s take your exact words, and replace “Israel” with “Palestine”, and “Occupation” with “Resistance”.

Shai,

Let’s take apple and replace it with orange.

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

No, because Israel isn’t occupying Gaza any longer. Didn’t we discuss this before?

For example, there are no missiles flying into Israel from the West Bank, and that’s where Israel remains an occupying power.

Conclusions:

1.) Occupation, resistance, and voltage are not related.
2.) Ending an occupation does not necessarily translate to “good will” as the liberals and “yafeh nefesh” were promising
3.) It will take a negotiated settlement to achieve peace.
4.) Only Abbas and the PA are ready to negotiate with Israel
5.) The status quo remains if no agreement arises, which, BTW, hurts both peoples.

AP concludes: “Occupation, resistance, and voltage are not related.”

I think you’re right, Palestinian Resistance rose out of Anti-Inflation sentiments, not out of a 40-year long Occupation.

That your skewed-mind think the Qassams after our withdrawal from Gaza have nothing to do with the Occupation of the rest of Palestine, or the subjugation and suffocation of millions of Palestinians in Gaza and the W. Bank is one thing, but then how do you explain the years of ongoing Qassams before we withdrew from Gaza? Was that also not-resistance?

AP says: “Let’s take apple and replace it with orange.”

Was that the kind of response you’d give a Prof in college, when you didn’t understand or agree with what he/she said? Is that why you’re so “sensitive” when it comes to Academia?

Shai,

What is a fact is that our land is occupied. What is a fact is that there is a racist, unnatural, illegitimate entity on part of our land that is a state exclusively for Jews. These are the facts and I never pretended they don’t exist. However, I will not recognize the right of a group of people to take part of our land and make it exclusively theirs. This is a matter of principle. So if you’re looking for me to recognize “Israel” then you’re wasting your time. And if you want to do something to help the Palestinians retrieve their land and restore their rights, I don’t believe my refusing to recognize a racist, exclusive entity on our land would stop you from doing so. I am not refusing to recognize you as a human being, but I am refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the creation of such a cancerous entity on our land.

What is a fact is that there is a racist, unnatural, illegitimate entity on part of our land that is a state exclusively for Jews.

Nour,

Please prove the “fact” that Israel is “unnatural” and “illegitimate”.

“Israel” was built by, and is based on, transplanting a group of people from all over the world to a land that is inhabited by others in order to create a state exclusively for that group. This is unnatural, as the “Israeli” society is not based on a natural historical presence on a piece of land with which they have been interacting for any period of time. It is also illegitimate because there is no authority, whether international law or other, that sanctions, condones, or permits the inception of such an unnatural entity on someone else’s land.

Arabs who appreicate Israel:

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2008/01/bibliography-my-writings-on-arabs.html

From SANA News Agency…

http://www.investors.com/editorial/cartoons/IMAGES/CARTOONS/toon011209.gif

(just kidding)

Observer

Excellent observation. These two, now complemented by other less prolific come equiped with only few statements that are repeated constantly. It is amazing that no matter what the discussion is they never fail to try and squeez in the same tired cracked record. It is not polite, not neighbourly, or civil.

However, for this website, as long as they are not violating the rules, I guess we have to contend with that. But I will always remember Zenobia’s comment, just ignore their posts. They have said all what they have probably in their first couple of posts and from then on, it is a game of trying to be creative in repeating the same argument, while trying to sound smart and responsive to discussions. The norm has become very predictable, and they have been successful only because we allowed them to do so. I understand that we do not want lies and snide remarks to go unchallanged, but constantly forcing a change of topic speeks of lack of politness, it reeks of arrogance, but also of insecurity.

Many of us have varying reasons for maintaining anonymity. We, however, can propose more focused issues oriented discussions, and stricter rules, such as removing or re-directing any post that veers from the topic at hand (example, my post about syrian musicians three weeks a go). And even banning those who constantly do so. As user of many public domain softwares I constantly rely on online help and discussin boards, and i constantly see the moderator telling someon, ” i removed your post to such and such forum because it does not belong on this discussion thread”. Such would require more time and efforts than available to volunteer moderators. One way we can do that by assigning topic moderators. If AP and AIG or anyone else want to have a topic in which they post the same comment, said differently every day or every hour, so be it, they can moderate that thread. And we can focus on real productive discussion elsewhere.

General Topical areas that serve as parking spaces can also be created, where an off topic post, could simply be re-posted on these areas. As long as we do not exclude anyone from saying what’s on their mind, even if it is rubbish. Every house has a trash can, don’t they?.

Observer
As long we we tolerate the double standards, the world will.
I invite you to recall the way Arab travelers are treated in US and European airports and the way American/European travelers are treated in arab airports.

Think of Brazil. On the day finger printing test program took effect on US borders few years back and Brazilian travelers had to submit to it, Brazil enacted identical measures against, and guess what, only American travelers. The answer from Brazilian diplomats was, friendship is reciprocal.

Nour,

>>> I am opposed, on principle, to the idea of an exclusive state for a particular group of people, especially when that state is created on land inhabited by others.

Me too. This is why I was very pleased to see Arab and Jewish students attending the Oholo college in the Golan together, when Shai and I visited there a few days ago, and this is why I was pleased to have an Arab family next to mine at the pool-side today in Eilat and this is also why I was pleased when my toddler played with an Palestinian one in the Eilat underwater sea park today. Israeli Arabs are more mixed and integrated into all walks of life than ever before. If the Palestinians stopped this silly “resistance” mentality and moved to a civil-right movement we’ll be living in one democratic state soon, and this is something that AP acknowledged after his last visit to Israel, so he’s not as rigid as I thought before. “Resistance” (i.e., violence) radicalizes both the Jews and the Arabs and fractures our societies.

Also regarding “artificiality”—fine. How many generations before it wears off?

Yossi
Glad to read your comment. It is precisely why I have been advocating a one state solution, which in my oppinion is the only fair solution to all parties involved.

NOUR
You said “in comparison to Churchill, when in fact Nasrallah is a much more able and effective speaker, and a more brilliant strategist, given his conditions, than Churchill was.

may add “and by all means, much more sober, than Churchil was” 🙂

As long as Khaled Mashaal is around there won’t be peace. He and his ilk want victory. Not peace. He and his cohort in Damascus have the ability to torpedo any peace process. I can only hope that, insha’allah, the voices of reason will reign supreme and convince the Assad family regime that supporting Hamas and other terror groups will not be in their interest, but rather peace and reconciliation will produce a peace dividend that will serve everyone in the region well.

This is an off topic, but I didn’t know where to post it:

Did anybody watch the movie ‘I love you man’? if not, go, it’s a funny movie.

I didn’t hear the egyptian defending their ‘Hero’ Anwar Alsadat the way they ware screeming at Iran when the iranins dare to talk about him.
Anyway, in the movie the guy names his dog ‘Anwar Alsadat’ and he explain about the subject saying that his dog looks like Anwar and he show his friend the picture to compare.
Are we going to see Egyptians in the streets defensing their hero soon or is Iran was the reason not the movie.

Yossi,

Glad to hear you’re “suffering” in Eilat… 🙂

One of the major obstacles to getting a chance at any transformation of the “resistance” is the deep rift between Hamas and Fatah. I agree with you that this latest operation may have sealed the fate of Gaza, at least for a while. This is not good news for the Palestinians, because no Fatah leader can deliver while Hamas keeps lobbing rockets. They must mend their differences, and unite.

Otherwise the whole world will, for purposes of practicality, give up on a Palestinian state that includes Gaza, and instead push Israel to close a deal with Fatah. There will de facto be two Palestines, but one will remain under Israeli rule.

In this current state of limbo, the only winners are Netanyahu, Lieberman, and the Settlers. A major change in paradigm is required.

If the Palestinians stopped this silly “resistance” mentality and moved to a civil-right movement we’ll be living in one democratic state soon, and this is something that AP acknowledged after his last visit to Israel, so he’s not as rigid as I thought before.

Yossi,

Thanks for saying I’m “not as rigid as [you] thought before”. I tend to believe that. There are Israelis much more to the RIGHT of my political leanings, and there are Israelis much more to the LEFT. I tend to believe my POV is about “in the middle”.

Also, I agree with your statement about the “resistance mentality”, and frankly, I think your buddy Shai just as “rigid” in his anti-Israel views as the “resistance mentality”.

Well, I did not have the courage to read all the comments, but it was striking that a honest resistance fighter for justice and peace has been compared to Churchill, a cynic western and colonial man in power, who never had risked his life for anybody. he was for anglo-american supremacy and did not hesitate to kill millions of people just to win the horrible game “Worldwar II” As the late Soviet Union ask to stop the war in 1943 he said that it would be good that the Communists and the Germans kill each other and was against the end of war in 1943 (have a look to the released documents of the Kremlin) There would have been millions of people saved! He has to be compared with the cynic israeli players. The real terrorists sit in comfortable fauteuils drink champaign and smoke cigars on the expenses of the people and hide themselves behind the master devil Hitler. Did you realise that each person in power, which does not join the gang of the superconspirators is immediately stigmatized as Hitler? Those children of Hitler need the father to hide succesful behind him. The real war on terror should be made by the civil society to end the reign of the unscrupulous western leaders who kill millions of innocent people just to remain in power and to steal land and property to the rest of the world. Why should we accept such a barbarity, such inhuman power? The civilised world is not the Occident but the rest of the world. As a western human being I am ashamed of the neverending crimes of our civilsation. We are the most morally corrupt people in the world with the biggest power of strike ! It seems that the only field in which we excel is aggression against weaker adversaries. At first we weaken the adversaries with harsh sanctions and then we strike. A very noble game! And Israel is seeing itself as a western civilisation. especially the leaders. our leaders are not only brutal but also coward!
Since centuries we destroy other civilisations in order to dominate and exploit them. we have never stopped killing and stealing. This must come to an end!