Single State Solution?

[mulp]

The common views, criticisms, stereotypes, opinions, facts are
- the territory between the sea and the river have a long history of evolving religions, occupations by invading armies, and intermixing of religious and ethic groups
- the people called Palestinians do not represent a single ethnic group, but are given the name to identify them as people with roots in the region between the sea and the river who have no state.
- the people called Jews are people who may or may not have demonstrable roots in this territory but who are identified as religious or ethnic Jews
- the people called Israelis are those who have Israeli citizenship and may or may not live in Israel, but a significant minority are not Jews
- the Palestinians have no "true" democracy and their leadership is partially or entirely corrupt
- Palestinians do not have a true legal system
- the majority of the people with an opinion do not believe that Arafat or any Palestinian can make peace with Israel
- Israel takes police action against non-Jewish terrorists by execution using helicopter gunships, tanks, hidden bombs, poison
- Palestinians have been critical to the Israel economy for most of Israel's existance
- the vast majority (99%+) of Palestinians are not willing to give their lives in a conflict with Israel
- Israeli factions wishing to annex all the territory between the sea and the river have ensured that settlements have been built continously in occupied territory since 1967 and no Israeli leader will ever likely have the support to not eventually incorporate them into Israel
- the economy of the entire area controlled by Israel is devastated by the conflict and the lack of rule of law

- the majority of Israelis want peace and justice
- the majority of Palestinians want peace and justice
- Israel believes that they offer justice to its citizens

So, why hasn't Israel taken unilateral action and annexed the occupied territories, granting every occupant Israeli citizenship, and then implement rule of law?

I'm sure that this action would gain quick support of the UN, and most likely Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Israel would be able to arrest, convict, and imprison anyone who engages is violence or treason.

The economy of Israel would improve dramatically as millions of people would be able to return to work and to rebuild.

Israel would be able to implement public schools that teach all citizens the values of democracy, peace, equal rights.

Israel would be wise to adopt a constitution that provides the usual ensurances of equal rights on the basis of race and ethnic identity, the freedom of religion and separation of religion and state, equal rights for men and women, the rule of law, etc.

[alexbmn]

because in the next couple of years it will be cease to be a Jewish state.The Palestininans will be able to gain politically what they have failed to gain through military action.

[Vic]

There was a telling discussion on it about half a year ago in the "Boston Review": http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR26.6/contents.html . Basically such a state is perceived as benefitting the Palestinians only, I have yet to hear a sane Israeli argument for it.

[mulp]

"because in the next couple of years it will be cease to be a Jewish state.The Palestininans will be able to gain politically what they have failed to gain through military action."

Why will it cease to be a Jewish state?

Not that I know what a "Jewish state" is, anyway.....

Either "Jewish state" has the same meaning as "one nation under God" which in the strictest sense means Christian (its not "one nation under god") as merely a historical artifact or embellished speak.

Or "Jewish state" means that some citizens of the state of Israel are either superior or inferior to others. The US is still struggling with the tacit acceptance of some human being as having inferior rights threw much of its history: slaves, women, nearly all non-anglos,...

I expect that in the US, all direct and indirect references to God will be removed from formal government speech within the next 50 years. This will not mean that everyone will no longer be unbiased, either willfully or not, nor will many people understand why this has to be the case. But I hope that the US will be more tolerant than it is today.

It is important to understand that the US was formed from the heat of religious intolerance: intolerance in England, intolerance in Germany, intolerance in France, etc. The colonial history of the US includes many people being tortured and executed for their religious beliefs.

The US is still struggling with the issue of racial/ethnic intolerance, but the racial/ethnic bias in US law is generally decreasing.

Of course, I suppose I don't just get it. I find it odd that science has demonstrated common parentage between Jews and the other semitic peoples of the area, yet for a group that emphasizes its ethnic purity, there is a line drawn between the descendents of Abraham.

On the other hand, when a group (the Lemba) has a Jewish tradition, and genetics support the strong patriachal and matriachial tradition, their "right" to be Jews is open to question?

If there is disagreement among Jews as to who is a Jew, how can "Israel as a Jewish state" hold any meaning.

Can Israel stand the examination of its history, tradition, faith through science?

Or will there be an ongoing conflict like that between those who argue creationism vs evolution? Will one Jew be intolerant of another Jew's views, or worse, of the Jew himself?

[alexbmn]

WTF did all this BS mean anyway? A Jewish state means a state where Jews are the overwhelming majority.And there's a solid definition of who is a Jew in the Torah and the question was settled in Israel itself a long time ago.And yes Israel has to maintain a Jewish majority simply because of all the times in human history that Jews were persecuted when they were the minority.OKAY.

[alexbmn]

oh I'm sorry but the decision to remove the reference to God from the pledege of allegiane will be overturned.The whole country was in an uproar over this idiotic decision.The United States was created on the Judeo Christian ethic.Or maybe you want to change the Declaration of Independence as well?

[elke]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mulp
[BWhy will it cease to be a Jewish state?

Not that I know what a "Jewish state" is, anyway.....

Either "Jewish state" has the same meaning as "one nation under God" which in the strictest sense means Christian (its not "one nation under god") as merely a historical artifact or embellished speak.

??? Why does "one nation under God" mean Christian? That may be true in the US, but certainly not in Israel, or Saudi Arabia, or China.

Or "Jewish state" means that some citizens of the state of Israel are either superior or inferior to others. The US is still struggling with the tacit acceptance of some human being as having inferior rights threw much of its history: slaves, women, nearly all non-anglos,...

Israel is not a miniature US. It's more similar to the European nations, who are held together by common culture. Do you find anything wrong with Holland? Or France? Or England? Just because it's a "Dutch State", doesn't mean that some of its citizens are inferior or superior. "Different" does not automatically imply a value judgment.

Of course, I suppose I don't just get it. I find it odd that science has demonstrated common parentage between Jews and the other semitic peoples of the area, yet for a group that emphasizes its ethnic purity, there is a line drawn between the descendents of Abraham.

The Germans and the Dutch share common ancestry as well. It doesn't mean that they are not separate nations, with distinctive cultures. Same thing with the Jews and Arabs.

On the other hand, when a group (the Lemba) has a Jewish tradition, and genetics support the strong patriachal and matriachial tradition, their "right" to be Jews is open to question?

IMO, when it's proven - it's proven. As far as I am concerned, it's wonderful to have them in the family. In fact, thank you for mentioning the Lemba - I have to admit, I have never heard of this particular group before.

If there is disagreement among Jews as to who is a Jew, how can "Israel as a Jewish state" hold any meaning.

Yes, it can. There is some disagreement among Jews as to who is one, mostly as far as the converts are concerned, or small and isolated groups such as the Ethiopians. However, for the most part if your mother is Jewish, so are you.

Can Israel stand the examination of its history, tradition, faith through science?

History and tradition - certainly. Faith -well - Why would Judaism have less chance at withstanding scientific scrutiny than any other faith?

Or will there be an ongoing conflict like that between those who argue creationism vs evolution? Will one Jew be intolerant of another Jew's views, or worse, of the Jew himself?

Possible, - after all, most other nations have conflicts like that. We simply have to wait and see.

[alexbmn]

a line drawn between descendants of Abraham? Well to be more specific Jews are the children of Israel (or Jacob). Arabs are considered to be the descendants of Ishmael who was a son of Abraham's maid.

[mulp]

"There was a telling discussion on it about half a year ago in the "Boston Review" Basically such a state is perceived as benefitting the Palestinians only, I have yet to hear a sane Israeli argument for it."

Thanks for the pointer; I was unaware of that series of articles.

However, I am making a significantly different proposal, although the outcome might appear to be the same.

From my perspective, it is in Israel's interest to implement at one state solution.

It is certainly not in the interest of the radical Palestinian and Arab factions, and my guess is that it will take a decade to gain the trust of the new Israeli Palestinians.

I haven't had time to read all the articles (I have two left), but the nature of the objections are that this benefits only the Palestinians, moving to this disadvantages the Jews.

Ok, so the alternative is what? The status quo?

Everyday we hear "the destruction of Israel is at hand". Ok, so Israel has been on the verge of distruction for 35 years.

Is there an Israeli equivalent to the Dooms Day Clock?

If there was, I'd guess that the clock was at 5 to midnight until 1994 where it moved to 7 minutes to midnight, but in the past 2 years the clock has moved steadily toward midnight and it is now sitting at 1 minute to midnight.

I have a limited capacity to engage emotionally into the many world conflicts; the situation in the Middle East is one that I would ignore to instead focus on the issues at home.

However, Israeli conflict seems ready to pull the US into a quagmire much like Vietnam.

Vietnam was 50-80-100+ years in the making and then the US got involved and it took two decades to disengage. Not only did it add another dimension to the civil conflict within the US, it exacerbated and expanded the internal conflict.

Vietnam, with the US involvement spread beyond Vietnam. The conflict in Palestine with US involvement would almost certainly spread to much of the Middle East. Would civil strife in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, and Syria move the dooms day clock further from midnight?

If I feel that it is in the US interest to resolve the problem, isn't it even more important to Israel?

Does Israel wish to reach some state of peace other than that of a rock?

What steps is Israel going to take to reach peace in its neighborhood?

[elke]

Look, I understand the Americans' concerns, and I understand that for many Israel does not mean much, and they don't want to be pulled into this quagmire. However, what you have to understand is that for the Israelis, - and many Jews outside Israel as well - Israel is IT. It's the hope, the strength, the ability to stand up tall and be secure in yourself.

What would you say if Saudi Arabia was sitting on the Canadian border, threatening you? Would you say, "OK, let's merge and have a bi-national state?" Would you be willing to give up your sovereignty in order to buy a few years of, hopefully, less violence? Because make no mistake, the so-called "militants" would not be satisfied with this either. The violence would continue, and likely increase - albeit, only toward the Jews, admittedly.

Aren't we entitled to self-defence, like everyone else apparently is? Philip here, for example, advocates killing of mothers and children as legitimate means to "put fear into Israelis for stealing the Palestinians' land". HE believes that THAT is self-defence, and that Palestinians are entitled to use such means. How is Israel expected to react to this? Can they really expect this so-called "bi-national" state to be a safe heaven? Please! Let's not kid ourselves!

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by mulp

- the vast majority (99%+) of Palestinians are not willing to give their lives in a conflict with Israel


Polls indicate that they sure as hell are willing to let others give up their lives. Up to 80% of the Arab/Muslims living in the WB and GS support terrorism against Israel. There?s slight evidence that they are willing to let others die for their so called conflict with Israel.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by mulp


I have a limited capacity to engage emotionally into the many world conflicts; the situation in the Middle East is one that I would ignore to instead focus on the issues at home.

However, Israeli conflict seems ready to pull the US into a quagmire much like Vietnam.

Vietnam was 50-80-100+ years in the making and then the US got involved and it took two decades to disengage. Not only did it add another dimension to the civil conflict within the US, it exacerbated and expanded the internal conflict.

Vietnam, with the US involvement spread beyond Vietnam. The conflict in Palestine with US involvement would almost certainly spread to much of the Middle East. Would civil strife in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, and Syria move the dooms day clock further from midnight?

If I feel that it is in the US interest to resolve the problem, isn't it even more important to Israel?

Does Israel wish to reach some state of peace other than that of a rock?

What steps is Israel going to take to reach peace in its neighborhood?

Here we go again: another sanctimonious post about not wanting to take sides, but forced to because Israel is sucking the US into a quagmire.

Actually, Israel has the right to defend itself whether the US gets involved or not.

To answer your question, Israel does have a solution. It is called military victory. No decent person, no legitimate state, should have to tolerate mass murder terror attacks against its civilians.

As President Bush outlined in his speech on Monday, there is only one road to ME peace. First, the terrorist attacks must stop. This means that whatever semblance of authority there is in Palestinian society must a) stop encouraging terrorism, b) stop rewarding terrorism, and c) start taking real action to stop terrorism. In the meantime, Israel has the right to defend herself.

The proof that the PA supports terrorism is so obvious that no reasonable person can deny it. Several days ago, the PA announced that Hamas' "spiritual leader" was placed under "house arrest." Yesterday, he appeared at a rally. The PA claims it can't take action against terrorists because Israel's military incursion in the West Bank prevents it. Yet they have had no trouble apprehending and executing alleged "collaborators" throughout this period. And there has been no such incursion in Gaza, where Hamas members can be seen out on the streets daily. Arafat's call for more "martyrs" are well understood by his people. There is documented proof that Arafat is paying terrorists -- proof contested only by those who believe that a sinister Israel government forged the documents to soil Arafat's spotless humanitarian record.

Along with stopping the terrorism, the Palestinians must create democratic institutions and choose leaders who are seriously interested in peace. I know many of my friends and family are extremely skeptical about whether this will ever happen, and I completely understand, but it is still the right thing to demand.

There is an alternative solution should the mass murder attacks continue. That would be to start expelling large numbers of Arabs from the territories -- or at least the West Bank. One idea that appears to be gaining support is to expel Arabs on the West Bank to Gaza. It is easier to prevent terrorists in Gaza from entering Israel.

[Erich]

Let's move on.

Personally, I would like to see a single state solution. Why? Because Israel is tiny enough as it is and will be near impossible to defend in the future from outside invaders, using methods to infiltrate those borders. It makes less sense to wall in a different people within your borders, giving their brethren outside the borders all the more reason to identify against you.

The Palestinians and the Israelis together could offer the world so much more than either side alone. Between them, they have a tremendous set of language skills that could be used to run a regional trade center for the entire Midle East, Africa...and who knows what else? A successful attempt at melding the best of both worlds, including joint stewardship of the Holy Lands, would be an example for the rest of the world to emulate, instead of the wanton hatred, death and destruction of this conflict.

My friends in Israel say this was the dream of Peres at one time, but that the hatred has gone too far, a single state cannot be, at least for now. Like the sides in a domestic dispute, both sides must be seperated, and something along the lines of a restraining order used to keep them apart.

This new Wall, to seperate the two sides, is one "solution", a solution I think is horrendous. Such a wall to me would be a prison wall and turn the IDF into prison guards, another task below an elite military force like the IDF.

Some not so commonly known facts about this wall.

It is believed that this wall would run around the Occupied Territories and run up gainst the border with Jordan, allowing the palestinians a back door they could conveniently opt to use to leave Israel. If you dig deep enough behind the scenes with the true supporters of this wall, you will see that this is not the case. The wall is/was to be built all the way around the Occupied Territories with no back door to Jordan. The IDF is to be further tasked to patrol both sides of the wall, putting them at that much more additional risk, a risk that the family members of the IDF soldiers dread. The wall is not to be built on any perceived borders between Israel and the Palestinians, but is to cut deeply into Palestinian lands to accomplish effectively "new borders", a further attempt at land grab.

Since labor departed the government, work on the wall has ceased, so it is apparent that the wall was never supported by the right...who feels that all of Israel should belong to Israel, along the stated goal of the Likud that there never will be a Palestinian state.

The costs of this wall and maintaining it are staggering, especially to an Israeli economy that is still reeling and seeking further debt guarnatees from the US.

Eventual plans are to also cut up the West Bank into three "bantustans" for easier control, ease of secuirty, to impose additional isolation on the Palestinians, hoping they will finally give up and leave...and to ease Israeli travel past the West bank.

Is this really a better alternative than a single state solution?

[NewsGuy]

Erich's previous post was split from another thread and merged here, to pick up on this interesting concept of a single state comprised of Israelis and Palestinians.

In simple terms, it would mean the end of Israel's Jewish identity, add a large part of the population which has far fewer job skills, inferior education, and a cultural tendency to glorify violence, suicide bombings and Jihad against non-Muslims.

For these reasons and others, a separation between Israelis and Palestinians is necessary.

The Palestinians deserve their own independent state to live in freedom and dignity in their historic homelands of Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Perhaps the best single state solution would be the Palestinians taking over Jordan and making it into a single Palestinian state.

As for the fence constructed to prevent the entry of Palestinian suicide bombers into Israel, it is a good first step towards final separation and it has been proven from the case of Gaza that a protective fence works well to block Palestinian terrorist infiltration.

[Erich]

NewsGuy,

very valid points, all of them.

The statement of Jewish identity within a state is something the battered Jewish people deserve, if that is what they want.

The question of how this state is to be maintained, at what cost to Israelis..and at what costs to the Palestinians.

The Palestinian homelands also include properties where Israel now stands. To conveniently wish them off on Israel's neighbors is to treat them the same way the Jews have been treated in the past. Not that it couldn't be accomplished fairly. If Israel were to acknowledge existing property rights and compensate the Palestians fairly, some might consider moving...if anyone would take them. That is a huge part of the problem. Just as states have refused entry to Jews in the past, the Palestinians are now sharing this same fate.

Fences have proven effective to keep out terrorists in the past. Don't confuse fences with walls, especially prison walls that can be used to isolate, punish, starve and eradicate a people.

[Communication]

Many good points were mentioned here but I'll add to it the fact that some 40% of Jews living in Israel are refugees from the Arab world. These Jews were never compensated for their losses after they were expelled and they are not about to run the risk of returning to a state of dhimminitude again. Many ARabs like to claim that Jews had it very good in the Arab world until the birth of Israel but that's just not true. There were periods of tolerance followed by periods of intollerance, not unlike in Europe. It was never as bad as in Europe, this is true, but what a comparrison. Jews were still forced to pay special Jew taxes that Muslims didn't have to pay, in addition to extra payments made for Jews in Palestine to pray at the Western Wall. They were subject to daily humiliation, second class citizenship and sometimes forced conversion.

Right now, with the way the ME is, we have no way of knowing if the future of the ME is to look like Iran or like Turkey. Without knowing these things, you can't force Israel into a situation where within a few generations, they could once again be in a minority position, subject to the political will of a majority Muslim population. To suggest that you could institute a secular democracy that will protect a Jewish minority in the land that will endure flys in the face of what has happened everywhere else in the ME. and you run the risk of turning such a future state into another Lebanon.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by Erich
[B]

The Palestinian homelands also include properties where Israel now stands. To conveniently wish them off on Israel's neighbors is to treat them the same way the Jews have been treated in the past. Not that it couldn't be accomplished fairly. If Israel were to acknowledge existing property rights and compensate the Palestians fairly, some might consider moving...if anyone would take them. That is a huge part of the problem. Just as states have refused entry to Jews in the past, the Palestinians are now sharing this same fate.]

A few more valid points:

* There are one million Arabs living in Israel today. While some Arabs fled and lost property, a roughly equal number of Jews were driven out of Arab countries and stripped of their property.

* Note that the number of Jews remaining in Arab countries ranges from 10 to perhaps as many as 1,000. So notice that while about half of the Arabs in Israel left, 99% of Jews left countries like Egypt. When 50% leave it suggests it was by choice; when 99% leave it suggests they had no choice.

* Why don't you demand that Arab countries compensate Jews who were driven out? Or do you not recognize Jewish refugees?

Fences have proven effective to keep out terrorists in the past. Don't confuse fences with walls, especially prison walls that can be used to isolate, punish, starve and eradicate a people.

Don't confuse the fact that those who want to conquer and destroy Israel don't like fences with the suggestion they only want to be good neighbors.

Don't confuse the fact that Arab terrorists target Israeli women, children, and elderly -- a clear attempt to eradicate the Jewish people -- with the fact that Israel shoots at combatants and known terrorists.

The Palestinian terrorists have killed few Israelis only because Israel defends herself -- not because the terrorists wouldn't like to kill them all.

Israel has only killed 2,000 Palestinians because she is using restraint. If Israel wanted to "eradicate" the Palestinians, she could easily kill >>2,000 in one day.

[Erich]

Couple of counter arguments here.

In reference to the Jewish demography of Israel. In the rush to populate Israel with Jews, many compromises have been made and a true Jewish demography is in danger from within Israel, just as much as from externally.

Almost no one these days is going to allow a government to dictate to them that they must only marry within their kind. Some will voluntarily do so, many are choosing to marry whom they wish. As stretched Jewish ancestry has already been accepted, even to incorporate converted Peruvians...and as other immigrants to Israel have brought sizeable "non Jewish" families with them, it is only a matter of time before before this Jewish demography becomes a historical concept...or before state defined "Jewishness" will have to be redefined to include your grandmother's grandmother being at least one eight Jewish.

Given the historical persecution of the Jews, I understand this goal to have created and to maintain a Jewish homeland, but can see where in the future it will be overcome by reality.

White Europeans once fled Europe because of government and religious persecution to the new land, America. White Americans are already a minority in the US, reality having reared its head in our country already. Small groups of "white supremacists" would like to turn the clock back, but we deal with them for what they are...racists, because we have learned the beauty and strength of diversity.

Can you imagine what it would be like to deal with our neighbors if we were not as diverse a land as we are, filled with citizens from every corner of the planet? Our diversity gives us some ability to comprehend and understand other peoples. Ambassadors to other countries often have ethnic names identical to the countries we associate with.

If we were to be obsessed with a narrow focus of racial identity, we would directly invite the obsession in other countries to fear and therefore hate that which is different. Even given the diversity we enjoy, international relations are anything but easy.

Having spent some years in Germany, I sometimes would become involved in conversations with Germans who were very proud of their "Germanness" and racial purity. First, I would ask them how that could be, since every invading horde to ever cross Europe stopped in Germany long enough to breed with the natives...and secondly I would tell them how I felt that this must be really boring, being "only German". With Russian, German, Austrian, Roman, French, Irish, English, Scottish and Anishinabe Indian ancestry, I had by far so much more richness to pull from.

[Mediocrates]

Sorry but this an absurd and idiotic approach. It doesn't matter what used to be. Israel is a real country, today. Right now. It is irrelevant how you or I feel about the 'legitimacy' of that. But if you want to redraw the maps of the world I suggest you go all the way back to Leaky's Zinjanthropus. Israel is a country, now and has every right to exist and thrive on that basis alone. All this endless stupid prattle about the number of people who may or may not have lived here or there a hundred years ago is not only pointless but adds an edge to the argument that Israel can be deconstructed by selected historical revisionism.

This is the life of a country, not archeology. And all the reivisionists can pick out a nice hard wall and bang their pointed little heads against it.

[dunky]

this book was written by a rabbi in israel (forgot his name)
he wrote about creating a federal system in all of israel. He wrote it before the intifida so it is a bit optimistic. He also downplayed the population growth of the palestinians

[dunky]

enrich its very nice that your a mut but some of us like the fact that we come from a people with a common history culture etc.
the americans forged a new identity, the american identity. That is why they can accept so many diffrent people and become a minority in there own land. Whites are not a minority though, i think you mean the anglos are a minority. The germans are the largest group, although most of them would just say that they are american.

In israel identity is due on a very large part to Jewish identity. That doesnt mean minorities shouldnt have full rights. It just means that jews need to be the majority.

[Erich]

Originally posted by dunky
enrich its very nice that your a mut but some of us like the fact that we come from a people with a common history culture etc.
the americans forged a new identity, the american identity. That is why they can accept so many diffrent people and become a minority in there own land. Whites are not a minority though, i think you mean the anglos are a minority. The germans are the largest group, although most of them would just say that they are american.

In israel identity is due on a very large part to Jewish identity. That doesnt mean minorities shouldnt have full rights. It just means that jews need to be the majority.

Dunky,

as a "purebred", you should probably know that "mutt" is spelled with two t's? :D

If someone, or a whole bunch of someones, wants to fucus on their common history, culture, etc, that's cool. If that same someone, or bunch of someones, assumes the attitude that they are somehow special because of this and can refer to other humans as mutts, that's pretty humorous.

In my own personal opinion, every single human on this planet is special...just because they are unique. There is only one Dunky that is uniquely you on this planet and that makes you pretty special. But only as special as every other unique individual you rub shoulders with.

Tribal mindsets carry all kinds of extra baggage with them...and the Middle East conflict is a prime example of exactly that.

Being a "mutt", if that is what you want to call it, has worked out pretty well for me. I have tested negative for any allergy in existence. No diseases or defects that are carried genetically, at least that were obvious for the last 47 years. Tall, good skeletal frame, never a back ailment, pretty good times in marathons...guess I've been pretty lucky in the draw. Mainly, I appreciate not being weighed down with all the excess baggage that goes with any specific ethnic group. I have the freedom to just be me!

:D

[Communication]

Originally posted by Erich
Dunky,

as a "purebred", you should probably know that "mutt" is spelled with two t's? :D

If someone, or a whole bunch of someones, wants to fucus on their common history, culture, etc, that's cool. If that same someone, or bunch of someones, assumes the attitude that they are somehow special because of this and can refer to other humans as mutts, that's pretty humorous.

In my own personal opinion, every single human on this planet is special...just because they are unique. There is only one Dunky that is uniquely you on this planet and that makes you pretty special. But only as special as every other unique individual you rub shoulders with.

Tribal mindsets carry all kinds of extra baggage with them...and the Middle East conflict is a prime example of exactly that.

Being a "mutt", if that is what you want to call it, has worked out pretty well for me. I have tested negative for any allergy in existence. No diseases or defects that are carried genetically, at least that were obvious for the last 47 years. Tall, good skeletal frame, never a back ailment, pretty good times in marathons...guess I've been pretty lucky in the draw. Mainly, I appreciate not being weighed down with all the excess baggage that goes with any specific ethnic group. I have the freedom to just be me!

:D

How nice for you, Erich. You seem to take pride in being a universalist. I'm glad that you consider yourself special because you don't have to be bogged down with so much memory and all those tribal and genetic defects. There are others who do appreciate their heritage, however, and you should respect that. Appreciating your heritage(s) doesn't make you a racist or mean that you think that your heritage is better than anyone elses- just differnet and special in its own unique way. There's no need to belittle people for that.

[Erich]

Originally posted by Communication
How nice for you, Erich. You seem to take pride in being a universalist. I'm glad that you consider yourself special because you don't have to be bogged down with so much memory and all those tribal and genetic defects. There are others who do appreciate their heritage, however, and you should respect that. Appreciating your heritage(s) doesn't make you a racist or mean that you think that your heritage is better than anyone elses- just differnet and special in its own unique way. There's no need to belittle people for that.

That is accurate. On the other hand, I believe you missed the main point of what I was saying, so I'll say it again:

If that same someone, or bunch of someones, assumes the attitude that they are somehow special because of this and can refer to other humans as mutts, that's pretty humorous.

Maybe I was too nice and that's why you missed the point?
:confused:

[Communication]

Originally posted by Erich
That is accurate. On the other hand, I believe you missed the main point of what I was saying, so I'll say it again:

If that same someone, or bunch of someones, assumes the attitude that they are somehow special because of this and can refer to other humans as mutts, that's pretty humorous.

Maybe I was too nice and that's why you missed the point?
:confused:

I don't think that is the case with the vast majority of Jews. Don't misunderstand the whole "chosen" thing for the same sort of racist superiority kick that groups like the KKK or the nazis were on.

"You alone have I signled out of all the families of the earth [to represent his laws to the people of the world]. That is why I will visit upon you all your sins." -Amos 3:2

Doesn't sound like much fun, eh?

[Communication]

and another thing, Erich. Stop being so damn condescending to me! :mad: When you think you need to be that way in order to feel good about yourself or because you can't make a point without resorting to it, find a nice puppy to kick instead. Otherwise I'm going to get you banned. ;)

[elke]

If all the birds were peacocks, we wouldn't hear any singing. If all the flowers were roses, the air wouldn't have the wonderful smell of all the other flowers that make it up. "Variety is the spice of life"! And it's the same for humans as well.

IMO, people who are genuinely proud of their heritage and are comfortable with who they are, appreciate all the more the heritage of others.

[Erich]

Originally posted by Communication
and another thing, Erich. Stop being so damn condescending to me! :mad: When you think you need to be that way in order to feel good about yourself or because you can't make a point without resorting to it, find a nice puppy to kick instead. Otherwise I'm going to get you banned. ;)

Communication,

first you call me a "mutt", then you threaten to have me banned.
Threats and ultimatums carry very little weight with me.

Now you want me to be nice to you...well, okay, if you can try to do the same? I will not, however, be the one sided target, if you know what I mean. Are we clear?
:D

[Erich]

Originally posted by elke
IMO, people who are genuinely proud of their heritage and are comfortable with who they are, appreciate all the more the heritage of others.

Elke,

that is a beautiful thought...I just wish I were as optimistic as you are in that being the case.
Too often, the more a tribal pride grows, the more the disdain for anyone different grows. It's not the way it has to be, just a feudal leftover from more primitive times.

Your appreciation for diversity, yet also the beauty of heritage, in balance, is a beautiful reflection on you.

[Mediocrates]

People equate diversity, sameness and everflowing peace with one another. That would be a mistake. Terrorists are more western than some westerners. The differences among people are already slight.

Francis Fukyama was wrong in that there is never stasis and conflict does not end. But so is Samuel Huntington - culture clashes are temporary. And in 30 years when the world is tired of killing one another over land or god they'll kill each other for medicine, food, debt, pollution and a host of other things we haven't begun to grasp yet. And diversity will be defined along different lines: health, nutrition, money, clean water and air and so on. And don't get me wrong, it won't a tired exhumation of Marx, no philosophers need apply. It will be brutal, tribal, cannibal.

[Erich]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
People equate diversity, sameness and everflowing peace with one another. That would be a mistake. Terrorists are more western than some westerners. The differences among people are already slight.

Francis Fukyama was wrong in that there is never stasis and conflict does not end. But so is Samuel Huntington - culture clashes are temporary. And in 30 years when the world is tired of killing one another over land or god they'll kill each other for medicine, food, debt, pollution and a host of other things we haven't begun to grasp yet. And diversity will be defined along different lines: health, nutrition, money, clean water and air and so on. And don't get me wrong, it won't a tired exhumation of Marx, no philosophers need apply. It will be brutal, tribal, cannibal.

Mediocrates,

interesting. How do you come to this conclusion? There are very strong forces at work to try to turn things the other way, so you are saying they will fail?

[Mediocrates]

They won't fail, they will succeed at the wrong thing too late. Look at the chronology. 30 years ago the same terrorists were killing the same kinds of innocent victims for political reasons. But politics failed as a continually bolstering force and those terrorists switched to 'race' 'religion' and other amorphous things. If you want to understand why Europe is terrified of not appeasing racial forces no matter how extreme you need only get in your car and take a long day's drive to Zagreb.


But you're right, eventually those forces will marginalize and ameliorate themselves. After all, all democracies are self correcting in the long run. So Western Europe and the merry pacifist west will get it's big melting pot. We see this already as national identities in Europe are more brand loyalties than they are identities. At any rate all of this ignores the people who want to kill you and now. And a failure to understand that your enemies think differently from you is catestrophic. While we try to gather in everyone to sing kumbaya forces are brewing for the next generation of terrorism and gruesome asymetrical warfare. Here are the high points:


AIDS/HIV penetration in Central Africa armies is approaching 70% in some places. We have the most heavily armed people who are also the most desperately ill. Competition for limited expensive medical care will be brutal.

Developing countries have stopped developing and population has skyrocketed. In 30 years we will live on a planet with 10 billion, at least 2/3rds of which will be hungry and pissed off. These will also be the countries that happen to sit atop most of the commodity raw materials the industrialized world needs. Nutrition and materiel requirements will clash. We're already seeing the start of this in Rwanda.

The failure of democratic growth will become obvious. Fewer and fewer people will be living in free systems as a result of the difference of raw population maintenance trends. Rich countries will become unsupportably aged which will tend to centralized systems and top down confederacies out of pure necessity. Imagine an EU run like Cromwell's Directorate. Nominally democratic states will be pressured to take decidedly undemocratic steps to manage this aging process.

Technology transfer into the wrong sectors creating an arms race among countries least able to afford or manage it. In the developing world increasingly scarce resource will be redirected to military budgets to purchase systems they can't afford. Moreover as systems become more sophisticated these countries are not able to effectively manage them. Does anyone imagine that Iraq or Iran or Pakistan has a credible fail-safe infrastructure to manage the deployment and use of atomic weapons, let alone a doctrine that outlines the escalation tree (sorry if this is to technical). This will result in wars and miniwars triggered by almost nothing.

One's of the west's largest exports to developing regions is waste and pollution. Medical waste, toxic chemicals, metals, byproducts, sludge, infectious waste and so on. Moreover as countries like the PRC industrialize they create their own vast seas of unmanaged toxic pollutants. Sooner rather than later those countries will revolt against this. The environmental effects will be unavoidable as will the the public health calamities. Developing countries will be faced with the prospect of throwing away whatever economic gains they've made or living in environmental wastelands with enormous public health and political policy implications.


That's the basic outline or history. And terrorists know this and will adjust their strategies and methods to take advantage of it. Each scenario is a potential for protracted terrorist wars. So instead of colonialism of the 40's & 50's or Communism of the 60's and 70's or ethnicity of the 80's and 90's or radical religion of the 00's and 10's we will see wars along the lines I described above.

[reason]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
A few more valid points:

* There are one million Arabs living in Israel today. While some Arabs fled and lost property, a roughly equal number of Jews were driven out of Arab countries and stripped of their property.

* Note that the number of Jews remaining in Arab countries ranges from 10 to perhaps as many as 1,000. So notice that while about half of the Arabs in Israel left, 99% of Jews left countries like Egypt. When 50% leave it suggests it was by choice; when 99% leave it suggests they had no choice.

* Why don't you demand that Arab countries compensate Jews who were driven out? Or do you not recognize Jewish refugees?



Don't confuse the fact that those who want to conquer and destroy Israel don't like fences with the suggestion they only want to be good neighbors.

Don't confuse the fact that Arab terrorists target Israeli women, children, and elderly -- a clear attempt to eradicate the Jewish people -- with the fact that Israel shoots at combatants and known terrorists.

The Palestinian terrorists have killed few Israelis only because Israel defends herself -- not because the terrorists wouldn't like to kill them all.

Israel has only killed 2,000 Palestinians because she is using restraint. If Israel wanted to "eradicate" the Palestinians, she could easily kill >>2,000 in one day.

Ibro you forgot to mention that the jews that left Egypt left because of jewish terrorism, and because of duel nationalities.Want me to post the story of the bombing of the Movie theatre?

[Mediocrates]

.Want me to post the story of the bombing of the Movie theatre?

The Forgotten Refugees
By David G. Littman
National Review | December 6, 2002

Last Thursday, a new terrorist group calling itself, "The Government of Universal Palestine, the Army of Palestine" claimed responsibility for a murderous jihadist terror attack against Kenyans and Israelis in Kilambala, Kenya. The attacks were timed to mark the eve of the anniversary of the November 29, 1947 decision by the United Nations to partition Palestine and allow the creation of the Jewish state.

The next day, in New York and Geneva, the United Nations hosted its annual "International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People" — without a hitch.

Amid this ongoing savagery and carnage worldwide, some basic truths need to be reaffirmed about the Middle East tragedy. Aside from the thorny Jerusalem issue, the major stumbling block has always been the question of the return of — or compensation for — Arab refugees from Palestine in 1948 and 1967. But Israel's steadfast refusal by the Arab Palestinian leadership and Arab countries since the 1920s also led to another great refugee tragedy.

In 1945 there were about 140,000 Jews in Iraq; 60,000 in Yemen and Aden; 35,000 in Syria; 5,000 in Lebanon; 90,000 in Egypt; 60,000 in Libya; 150,000 in Algeria; 120,000 in Tunisia; and 300,000 in Morocco, including Tangiers. That comes to a total of about 960,000 — and more than 200,000 in Iran and Turkey.

Jordan covered 78 percent of Palestine as designated by the League of Nations in 1922. Turning a blind eye to article 15 of the League of Nations Mandate, Great Britain decided in 1922 that no Jews would be authorized either to reside or buy land in what was now the Emirate of Transjordan. This decision was ratified by the kingdom of Jordan in its law No. 6, sect. 3, of April 3, 1954 (reactivated in law no. 7, sect. 2, of April 1, 1963), which states that any person may become a citizen of Jordan if he is not a Jew. Even when Jordan made peace with Israel in 1994, this Judenrein legislation remained.

In these ancient Jewish communities, which date from Biblical times, less than 40,000 Jews remain today — and in the Arab world there are fewer than 5,000, one-half of one percent of their number at the end of World War II.

During the 20th century, thousands of Jewish men, women, and children, young and old, were brutally massacred in the Maghreb, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, and Aden — even under French and British colonial rule — and also in Palestine after the British conquest and during the Mandate (1918-48).

As to why and how these countries became Judenrein ( "cleansed" of Jews), the heading of an article from the New York Times of May 16, 1948 — a day after Israel declared its independence — says it all: "Jews in Grave Danger in all Moslem Lands. Nine Hundred Thousand in Africa and Asia Face Wrath of Their Foes".

On January 18, 1948, the president of the World Jewish Congress, Dr. Stephen Wise, appealed to U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall: "Between 800'000 and a million Jews in the Middle East and North Africa, exclusive of Palestine, are in 'the greatest danger of destruction' at the hands of Moslems being incited to holy war over the Partition of Palestine ... Acts of violence already perpetrated, together with those contemplated, being clearly aimed at the total destruction of the Jews, constitute genocide, which under the resolutions of the General Assembly is a crime against humanity."

Already in Iraq (1936 and 1941), Syria (1944-45), Egypt and Libya (1945), and Aden (1947) — all before the state of Israel's founding — murderous attacks had killed and wounded thousands. Here is a description from the official report in 1945 by Tripoli's Jewish community president, Zachino Habib, describing what happened to Libyan Jews in Tripoli, Zanzur, Zawiya, Casabat, Zitlin, Nov. 4-7, 1945: "The Arabs attacked Jews in obedience to mysterious orders. Their outburst of bestial violence has no plausible motive. For fifty hours they hunted men down, attacked houses and shops, killed men, women, old and young, horribly tortured and dismembered Jews isolated in the interior... In order to carry out the slaughter, the attackers used various weapons: knives, daggers, sticks, clubs, iron bars, revolvers, and even hand grenades." (1)

A recent example of such murderous acts was seen on April 11, 2002 when the jihadist bombing of the ancient al-Ghariba synagogue of Djerba in Tunisia killed 17 and badly wounding many others, most of them elderly German tourists. A spokesman for al Qaeda claimed they had been behind the bombing. Now Tunisia's remaining Jewish community will seek security in Israel and elsewhere — like 99 percent of their coreligionists before them.

Pogroms and persecutions, and grave fears for their future, regularly preceded the mass expulsions and exoduses of the Jews, whose ancestors had inhabited these regions from time immemorial, a millennium and more before the successive waves of Arab conquest and occupation from the 7th century. Beginning in 1948, more than 650,000 of these Oriental Jewish refugees were integrated into Israel — even as the country was being threatened with annihilation by neighboring Arab League states, which, for over 40 years, refused the U.N.'s 1947 Palestine Partition Plan. Approximately 300,000 more Jews found refuge, and a new homeland, in Europe and the Americas.

Roughly half of Israel's 5 million Jews — from a population of 6.2 million, of whom roughly 20 percent are Arab, Druze, and Bedouin Israelis — is now composed of those refugees and their descendants, who received no humanitarian aid from the United Nations, and who indeed did not ask for it. It was Jews worldwide, just emerging from the Shoah, who worked together with Israel to achieve this integration.

Yet it was this defiance of international legality by the Arab League in 1947-1948 — maintained decade after decade in unsuccessful attempts at politicide — that led to the ongoing Arab-Palestinian catastrophe. A parallel commitment on behalf of the less numerous Arab refugees of Palestine (in 1948 they numbered about 550,000, although a figure of 750,000 is often claimed) for their integration into some of the 21 Arab states (covering 10 percent of the world's land surface) was considered too great a symbolic and monetary sacrifice, even despite their immense oil resources.

George Orwell's remark about everyone being equal — but some being more equal than others — could well be applied to refugees since the 1940s: Apparently some refugees are considered more equal than others. But the forgotten million — Jewish refugees from Arab lands — were not helped by the U.N. , nor were they kept for over half a century in refugee camps, breeding hopelessness, frustration, and — under U.N. auspices — a culture of hate and death, in which jihadist bombers thrive today.

The transfer of populations on a large scale, as a consequence of war or for political reasons, has always been a characteristic of human history, particularly in the Islamic Orient. Deportations, expropriations and expulsions of dhimmis — Jews, Christians, and other indigenous peoples — recurred throughout the long history of dhimmitude, including in Palestine. One should question today the real motivation of a selective, historically flawed memory which systematically spotlights the Arab-Palestinian refugees — suffering from the Arab League's own policy — but conveniently forgets the Jewish refugees from Arab lands.

U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 of November 22, 1967 — also adamantly refused then by the Khartoum Arab League Summit Conference with the formula: "No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiation with Israel, no concessions on the questions of Palestinian national rights" — refers to "a just solution to the refugee problem". This term applied implicitly also to Jewish refugees from Arab countries — who had been obliged to seek security outside their native lands — and not only to the Arab-Palestinian refugees who are not specifically referred to in the resolution.

The dire hardships endured by the great majority of the Jewish refugees from Arab countries have never been considered by the United Nations, nor has the loss of their inestimable properties and heritage dating back over 3, 000 years. The time has surely come for this great injustice to be addressed seriously, within the context of a just and equitable global solution to the ongoing Middle East tragedy, once the Palestinian leadership ends its jihad-war of attrition and takes the democratic path to peace.

On April 24, 2002, at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, we referred to this matter as a representative of the World Union for Progressive Judaism. Speaking in a "right of reply," the delegate of Iraq (Saad Hussain) stated, unashamedly, that he was "responding to the lies that we heard in the statement of the gentleman called David Littman, known for his animosity toward the Arabs, Muslims, and Islam. The Arab history, the Arab and Islamic history for fourteen centuries, has not witnessed any harm to the Jews — quite the contrary. The Jews have lived, and continue to live in peace, and their sacred places and their property have been protected until today (...) They live in Arab countries today in perfect safety, despite the events — the horrible events taking place in Palestine." (2)

[Mediocrates]

Not surprisingly, the truth is very different. Jews have always been forbidden to reside in Saudi Arabia and Jordan; there are now no Jews in Libya; under 100 in Egypt and Syria; and only 17 remain in Iraq! We shall again briefly raise the question of the forgotten million Jewish refugees from Arab countries at the next session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights — when the chairperson will be the lady ambassador from Libya! At the last six-week session (March-April 2002), more than 50 percent of the commission's time was taken up by Palestinian issues — to the dismay of very many observers.

(1) Renzo di Felici, Jews in an Arab Land: Libya, 1835-1970 (University of Texas, 1985, pp. 193-94., n. 19, p. 365)

(2) U.N. English interpretation, as recorded verbatim from the statement delivered in Arabic.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=4913

[Mediocrates]

See also

http://www.hsje.org/members_contribution.htm

http://www.hsje.org/cultural_heritage_of_the_jews_fr.htm

http://www.hsje.org/displacement_of_jews_from_arab_c.htm

http://www.hsje.org/forcedmigration.htm

http://www.zccf.org.ae/e_TitleDescription.asp?Tid=151

Please don't comment on this racist drivel:

http://www.zccf.org.ae/e_TitleDescription.asp?Tid=151

It has as much credibility as you talking about martians.

I'll include a list of references on Dhimmi if you wish.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by reason
Ibro you forgot to mention that the jews that left Egypt left because of jewish terrorism, and because of duel nationalities.Want me to post the story of the bombing of the Movie theatre?

reason, I know that there was some sort of terrorist attack on Jews in Iraq that the Iraqi government tried to pin on "Zionists." It's pretty clear that Iraqis attacked Jews and then blamed the Jews.

This provided a convenient "explanation"as to why Jews fled in droves.

I don't know about the incident you describe in Egypt, but I'll bet it was the same game: attack Jews, declare that Zionists did it, and then use that to "explain" why Jews fled to Israel.

The phoniness of this argument is exposed by what has gone on for the past 50+ years.

Jews in Israel are being attacked by terrorists, but they aren't fleeing in droves to other countries.

reason, at a minimum you should know that events in Egypt are susceptible to misreporting and that a fair and open inquiry is next to impossible.

Jews did not need one terrorist attack to flee Egypt. They were clearly in much greater danger of being killed by Islamic extremists.

[Communication]

Originally posted by Erich
Communication,

first you call me a "mutt", then you threaten to have me banned.
Threats and ultimatums carry very little weight with me.

Now you want me to be nice to you...well, okay, if you can try to do the same? I will not, however, be the one sided target, if you know what I mean. Are we clear?
:D

I never called you a mutt.

[Erich]

Originally posted by Communication
I never called you a mutt.

Communication,

you're right. My apologies for confusing you with Dunky.

[dunky]

enrich i didnt mean to call you a mutt as an insult. It was a lack of a better world for referring to someone from mixed marriages.

i also dont mean to imply that "pure breads" are superior. Jews from europe for example have blood from the variouse countries they lived in for hundreds of years. It is the uniform culture i was refering to.