Arab Spring

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

Ila, please continue the discussion, it is very interesting and it is related to the Arab Spring.

I completely agree. The uprising of the Arab masses against their oppressive governments is intimately linked to the presence of the Zionist state in their midst. Israel has played as much of a role in keeping the Arab masses quiet for decades as have the Arab governments themselves ... a point I think I infer.

So, ila, while I agree that a bottle of Jameson would be an excellent accompaniment, there's no reason we can't discuss here as well.

Originally Posted by ila

smc, there are too many posts to reply properly to everything you written so I am only quoting one part of one post, but will reply in general to what you have written.

One can support the presence of Israel and Judaism without supporting Zionism. ...

I am addressing only one of your points. I completely disagree with what you write above about "support ... without supporting Zionism."

The state of Israel has existed for a long time, now. The repressive apparatus is firmly entrenched. The settlements exist. This is not an abstract question of Moabites and Canaanites. It is a concrete political question of the 21st century.

The first steps have to be a) dismantling all of the settlements on post-1967 lands, b) tearing down the barrier wall between Israel and the West Bank, c) guaranteeing the free movement of anyone throughout the territory (which means opening the "circular roads" to Palestinians; I can explain what these are if anyone asks) and d) establishing the right of return for all Palestinians. The latter means acknowledging the Palestinian claim on every home, factory, orchard, grove, and plot of land. It is true that given the Palestinian diaspora, many if not most will not choose to return, but they have a legal claim that should be settled with compensation. Let the U.S. aid go to that instead of Israeli nuclear weapons!

A democratic, secular Palestine is a prerequisite to peace. Not a two-state solution. The thing about legitimate nationalist claims to usurped land is that while they may ebb and flow with respect to their intensity, even from generation to generation, but human history shows that they seem to live on in national groups almost like a gene. Even with a two-state solution, that key around the neck of my friend Lana will live on, and some day one of her children or children's children will want to know why the house was stolen, and the next thing you know the struggle will be renewed. That's why a democratic, secular Palestine -- absent Zionism -- with Arabs and Jews living together is the only answer.

I believe Palestine goes from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, not some carved up faux country that is non-contiguous, jerry-rigged by a colonizer and designed to maintain oppression long after the question of statehood has been "settled."

[randolph]

SMC

The state of Israel has existed for a long time, now. The repressive apparatus is firmly entrenched. The settlements exist. This is not an abstract question of Moabites and Canaanites. It is a concrete political question of the 21st century.

How the state of Israel became a reality is a very interesting story. It goes back to the establishment of a British mandate over Palestine after WWI. The British were pro Arab for economic reasons involving their interests in the Near East (Suez Canal, etc). Arab unrest was a serious concern of the British. Immigration of thousands of Jewish refugees from Europe presented Britain with a real dilemma. Britain attempted to restrict movement to Palestine for fear of causing more problems with the Arabs. At the same time they did not want more Jewish refugees coming into England.
They even forbid Palestinians from offering ransom to the Nazis to allow immigration of German Jews.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

SMC

How the state of Israel became a reality is a very interesting story. It goes back to the establishment of a British mandate over Palestine after WWI. The British were pro Arab for economic reasons involving their interests in the Near East (Suez Canal, etc). Arab unrest was a serious concern of the British. Immigration of thousands of Jewish refugees from Europe presented Britain with a real dilemma. Britain attempted to restrict movement to Palestine for fear of causing more problems with the Arabs. At the same time they did not want more Jewish refugees coming into England.
They even forbid Palestinians from offering ransom to the Nazis to allow immigration of German Jews.

But then the Brits figured out that establishing a "beachhead" in the region served their economic interests in the ways I explained above, which is why they supported the partition and ultimately the establishment of the Zionist state.

[ila]

Originally Posted by smc

[FONT="Times New Roman"] I completely agree. The uprising of the Arab masses against their oppressive governments is intimately linked to the presence of the Zionist state in their midst. Israel has played as much of a role in keeping the Arab masses quiet for decades as have the Arab governments themselves ... a point I think I infer.

Are you serious that Israel caused the Arab Spring in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt?

Originally Posted by smc

So, ila, while I agree that a bottle of Jameson would be an excellent accompaniment, there's no reason we can't discuss here as well.

You know that I don?t live around the corner from so I couldn't seriously be trying to move the discussion away from this site.

Originally Posted by smc

I am addressing only one of your points. I completely disagree with what you write above about "support ... without supporting Zionism."

The state of Israel has existed for a long time, now. The repressive apparatus is firmly entrenched. The settlements exist. This is not an abstract question of Moabites and Canaanites. It is a concrete political question of the 21st century.

To dismiss the Moabites, the Canaanites, the Edomites, etc. as abstract is to ignore the history of the whole region. One cannot properly put everything into the context of today?s problems without first understanding the past.

Palestinians and Jews have lived in the area of Israel/Palestine for millennia. This article gives insight to their lineage. Given that they both have a record of continuously living there for so long why should Jews not be allowed to live there?

Originally Posted by smc

The first steps have to be a) dismantling all of the settlements on post-1967 lands, b) tearing down the barrier wall between Israel and the West Bank, c) guaranteeing the free movement of anyone throughout the territory (which means opening the "circular roads" to Palestinians; I can explain what these are if anyone asks) and d) establishing the right of return for all Palestinians. The latter means acknowledging the Palestinian claim on every home, factory, orchard, grove, and plot of land. It is true that given the Palestinian diaspora, many if not most will not choose to return, but they have a legal claim that should be settled with compensation. Let the U.S. aid go to that instead of Israeli nuclear weapons!

A democratic, secular Palestine is a prerequisite to peace. Not a two-state solution. The thing about legitimate nationalist claims to usurped land is that while they may ebb and flow with respect to their intensity, even from generation to generation, but human history shows that they seem to live on in national groups almost like a gene. Even with a two-state solution, that key around the neck of my friend Lana will live on, and some day one of her children or children's children will want to know why the house was stolen, and the next thing you know the struggle will be renewed. That's why a democratic, secular Palestine -- absent Zionism -- with Arabs and Jews living together is the only answer.

I agree that two states is not the solution. It should be one secular country with Jews, Christians, and Muslims living together and without fear of one group dominating another.

[smc]

Originally Posted by ila

Are you serious that Israel caused the Arab Spring in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt?

My goodness, ila, calm down. That's not what I wrote at all. I never used the word "caused" nor would I have done so. I agreed with Randolph that the issues are linked, i.e., the Arab Spring and the history from which it springs, and the presence of the Zionists in the region.

Originally Posted by ila

You know that I don?t live around the corner from so I couldn't seriously be trying to move the discussion away from this site.

This is why I think perhaps calming down is called for. Did you really think I thought you were trying to move the discussion away? After all we've talked about here? I mean, jeez ...!

Originally Posted by ila

To dismiss the Moabites, the Canaanites, the Edomites, etc. as abstract is to ignore the history of the whole region. One cannot properly put everything into the context of today?s problems without first understanding the past.

Palestinians and Jews have lived in the area of Israel/Palestine for millennia. This article gives insight to their lineage. Given that they both have a record of continuously living there for so long why should Jews not be allowed to live there?

I agree with your statement about context, and I did not dismiss that context. But remember we are talking about Zionists beginning in the 19th century taking political action and ultimately colonizing a region in which they hadn't lived for centuries.

Originally Posted by ila

I agree that two states is not the solution. It should be one secular country with Jews, Christians, and Muslims living together and without fear of one group dominating another.

I'm glad you agree. The Zionists are vehemently opposed to anything that might allow Palestinian Arabs ever to constitute a majority.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by ila

I agree that two states is not the solution. It should be one secular country with Jews, Christians, and Muslims living together and without fear of one group dominating another.

If the mayhem of the past is any indication, these three religious groups would much rather kill each other off than live together. Ironically, they all derive from the Abrahamic source. They believe in the same God, just different names. Christian sects hate each other and Sunnis and Shia Muslims hate each other. The Abrahamic religions are deeply flawed, they are intolerant. Each one firmly believes that them and only them have the word of God. Centuries of conflict are the result. It is very unfortunate that the middle east has lots of oil. Otherwise it would have remained a land of sheep herders and camel jockeys.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

If the mayhem of the past is any indication, these three religious groups would much rather kill each other off than live together. Ironically, they all derive from the Abrahamic source. They believe in the same God, just different names. Christian sects hate each other and Sunnis and Shia Muslims hate each other. The Abrahamic religions are deeply flawed, they are intolerant. Each one firmly believes that them and only them have the word of God. Centuries of conflict are the result. It is very unfortunate that the middle east has lots of oil. Otherwise it would have remained a land of sheep herders and camel jockeys.

Randolph, are you aware that the term "camel jockey" is racist and derogatory, and has always been characterized as such. It is an affront to the seriousness of this discussion that you used the term here, and an insult to every Arab member of this site (and there are quite a few).

[randolph]

SMC

Randolph, are you aware that the term "camel jockey" is racist and derogatory, and has always been characterized as such. It is an affront to the seriousness of this discussion that you used the term here, and an insult to every Arab member of this site (and there are quite a few).

The term doesn't have to be derogatory (although it usually is), it can be a joke or humorous. My comment was of a vision of the Middle east without oil. After all the three wisemen came to Bethlehem on camels.

[randolph]

As I see it.
After WWII Great Briton was severely weakened by the war and was desperately seeking a loan from the US. The US under President Truman saw this as an opportunity to increase the US hegemony in the middle east. Ships loaded with Jewish refugees were being shuttled around and prevented from landing in Palestine. Truman proceeded to take over the situation and allowed the refugees to enter Palestine. Initially the UN attempted to establish a secular state but neither the Jews or the Arabs were in favor of that. The US recognized Israel and proceeded to strengthen its influence in the Middle East to counter increasing influence of Russia in the Middle East. The establishment of the Jewish state and its brutal expulsion of Arabs enraged The surrounding Arab states. Massive US military and financial aid to Egypt eventually weaned Egypt away from Russian influence. The US was then able to get Egypt to come to terms with Israel. This greatly strengthened US hegemony in the middle east and made Istarl a serious power in spite of its tiny size.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

SMC

The term doesn't have to be derogatory (although it usually is), it can be a joke or humorous. My comment was of a vision of the Middle east without oil. After all the three wisemen came to Bethlehem on camels.

This morning, I asked a student from Saudi Arabia students, an Arab professor colleague from Syria, and two Arab friends. They said the term is racist, period. They don't even use it in their own community (as some young blacks do with the "N" word).

Rather than claim that it "doesn't have to be derogatory" you should repudiate your use of the term.

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

If the mayhem of the past is any indication, these three religious groups would much rather kill each other off than live together. Ironically, they all derive from the Abrahamic source. They believe in the same God, just different names. Christian sects hate each other and Sunnis and Shia Muslims hate each other. The Abrahamic religions are deeply flawed, they are intolerant. Each one firmly believes that them and only them have the word of God...

You are only partly right. Muslims, Christians, and Jews all believe in the same deity, they just use different names.

Christian sects do not hate each other. They may disagree, but hate is too strong a word. The religious wars between Christians ended long ago.

The Sunnis, Shias, Alawites, etc. have been known to disagree with each other and in some cases it has led to violence.

The three Abrahamic religions are not intolerant. It is some of the people and some of the religious leaders that are intolerant. One should read the religious texts to properly understand this. The Koran even states that Christians and Jews are people of the book. Likewise it is only some people and some religious leaders that have decided that their, and only their, religion has the word of God.

The great enemy to religious understanding is illiteracy. If people were taught to read their own and other religious books they would see how much each religion has in common with the others.

Back in the middle ages the Catholic church kept most citizens illiterate as it is easier to control the masses if they are not able to read for themselves. It is the same thing now in some Muslim countries where the religious leaders let only a select few learn to read and those too are only taught the leaders' version and not the original full Koran.

[randolph]

I would like to comment on Ila's last comment but I need to think about it.
In the meantime, I would like to point out some interesting research on the Palestinians. First, DNA studies indicate that the Palestinians are essentially identical to the Jews. Second, the residents of Palestine prior to the Muslim invasion were of the Judaism faith. So the ancestors of the Palistinians were Jews! So perrhaps my earlier comment about the Palestinians converting to Judaism is not so far fetched.

[smc]

Randolph, you're going to let your earlier comment stand?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

Randolph, you're going to let your earlier comment stand?

In the context that I used the term, I don't think it was offensive. I am sorry if it did offend offend somebody.

[randolph]

Ila --

The three Abrahamic religions are not intolerant. It is some of the people and some of the religious leaders that are intolerant. One should read the religious texts to properly understand this. The Koran even states that Christians and Jews are people of the book. Likewise it is only some people and some religious leaders that have decided that their, and only their, religion has the word of God.

In the Islamic (Madrassas) schools in Pakistan and other middle eastern countries the students are taught to memorize the Koran and learn that the infidels (the west especially the US) are evil and a threat to Islam, therefor, they must be destroyed. This is sanctioned by the Koran. The people bombing and killing innocent people are not illiterate, they are well trained terrorists believing they are performing the will of God.

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

Ila --

In the Islamic (Madrassas) schools in Pakistan and other middle eastern countries the students are taught to memorize the Koran and learn that the infidels (the west especially the US) are evil and a threat to Islam, therefor, they must be destroyed. This is sanctioned by the Koran. The people bombing and killing innocent people are not illiterate, they are well trained terrorists believing they are performing the will of God.

The Madrassas are run by the clergy. Students are taught the version of Islam that the clergy permits.

The Koran does sanction killing Christians and Jews just because they are Christians and Jews.

If you, randolph, were to travel to Afghanistan and Pakistan to see the terrorists that fight for the Taliban and Al Qaeda then you would be surprised to find out what are their ethnic origins. You would also find that the majority cannot understand Arabic let alone read it. That makes them illiterate in the original language of the Koran. You are right though that they are trained terrorists. You might also note that I left out the adjective "well."