Israel, Politics

Poo pooing Palestinian state-building?

Palestinian PM Salam Fayyad yesterday presented a 38-page plan for a Palestinian state, laying an infrastructure within two years: ending economic dependence on Israel and foreign aid, curbing domestic spending, creating tax benefits for foreign investment and “not in lieu of the peace process, but to reinforce it.” Read the plan with your own eyes here (PDF).
And he no less begins the document with this inspiring vision of coexistance:

We look forward to continued regional and international support to establish Palestine as an independent, democratic, progressive, and modern Arab state, with full sovereignty over its territory in the West Bank and Gaza, on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital. Palestine will be a peace-loving state that rejects violence, commits to co-existence with its neighbors, and builds bridges of cooperation with the international community. It will be a symbol of peace, tolerance and prosperity in this troubled area of the world.

And it’s about freakin’ time. Long have the anti-peace voices pointed to a lack of “democratic tradition” or “capacity for self-rule” as reason against a Palestinian state or persuing negotiations. While much of that is bupkiss to begin with, it behooved the PA to produce a vision like this a long time ago. That left defenders of equal rights for both peoples and peace advocates without a meaningful reply. Until now.
On the upside, it could be fortuitous that this document wasn’t produced until the advent of Salam Fayyad. Fayyad is a University of Texas-trained PhD in economics who spent much of his career at the IMF before returning home to earn a sterling reputation as an independent voice. His bold moves include (gasp) cutting political hirees by some 31,000 from the public payroll, pulling Fatah militias off the streets in exchange for Israeli amnesty, and making PA finances transparent. Without someone like Fayyad, this move could indeed be seen as rhetorical.
But despite Fayyad’s trustworthiness and Israeli grumping about long-awaited self-governance, how did Israel’s far-right government react to this exciting news?
“Disappointing,” said Likud’s finance minister. “There is no place for unilateralism, no place for threats, and of course, there will be no Palestinian state at all, if any, without ensuring the state of Israel’s security.”
Oh ho! Now who cares about mutual agreements? No unilateralism? No threats? Doth my ears deceive me? Hasn’t this been a consistent demand by the Israelis and by peace naysayers for decades? This strikes me as the same as Fatah’s convention a couple weeks ago, in which the new body resolutely committed to two states and negotiations, an excellent message to send. But the Jewish papers mostly reported the line reaffirming that, failing negotiations, Palestinians have a right to fight for their freedom, followed by condemnations by major Israeli and Jewish American figures. Apparently, they don’t want negotiations until the participants rise to sing Hatikva. It sounds like the problem isn’t a lack of state-building but evasion over a Palestinian state at all.
Meanwhile Daniel Ayalon of race-baiting Yisrael Beiteinu objected, presumably to the two-year window for statehood, saying “artificial dates and arbitrary deadlines never worked in the past, but caused only damage and would not work now.” Arbitrary deadlines? That’s the same window of time set by the Obama Administration and the same set by the American military advisers to the newly constituted Palestinian army.
This was an important step for the Palestinian Authority, for peace, and for regional stability. It’s a shame that Likud, Yisrael Beiteinu and thus the Israeli government see this as a threat. They see all steps forward towards a two-state solution as a threat to their coalition’s stability, because a meaningful compromise is opposed by nearly all its partners.
Bibi Netanyahu’s Israel is avoiding peace as best as it can. Meanwhile, the Palestinians have made the strides towards security and transparency demanded by previous agreements. Now it’s time to test the mettle of the Israel defenders’ claim that Israel truly wants a compromise. The U.S. Administration is to release a timetable next week for negotiations. Then we’ll see whether both parties have matured in the past decade. Personally, I’m betting that the Palestinians have grown up, while Israel has regressed. I hope that I am wrong.

124 thoughts on “Poo pooing Palestinian state-building?

  1. Then we’ll see whether both parties have matured in the past decade,
    The Israeli government was pretty immature in accepting the Clinton Ideas as negotiating parameters, in December 2000, while the Americans had to spend a couple of days tracking down Arafat, who told them he needed more time to examine the keys issues . . . Those were the days.
    Nevertheless, if we can’t come to a deal with Fatah, we are doomed.

  2. The Clinton Parameters were a farce. Legitimate resolution to the conflict must be negotiated from the basis of international law.

  3. “democratic, progressive, and modern ” those are the words used to describe the suggested Arab state carved out of the democratic, progressive, and modern Israeli state. I was skeptical but after reading the document I was shocked about how progressive it actually was, this is what we have all been waiting for, finally! the science of the Holy Quran, shari’a courthouses throughout the countryside, Kung fu how do I sign up?
    From the document:
    • Developing and implementing programs of Shari’a education as derived from the science of the Holy Qur’an and Prophet’s heritage.
    • Empowering mosques as a center of guidance, through improving their infrastructure and services.
    • Building capacities and increasing the number of Shari’a court judges, as well as providing necessary equipment.
    • Constructing Shari’a courthouses, throughout the Palestinian countryside.
    Yes, implementing this will for sure lead to “a peace-loving state that rejects violence, commits to co-existence with its neighbors, and builds bridges of cooperation with the international community. It will be a symbol of peace, tolerance and prosperity in this troubled area of the world.” I mean, its never been done before, imagine! an arab state under Shari’a law and the science of the Holy Quran. This will change everything! a true symbol of peace to this troubled area of the world, troubled for some strange reason that I cannot put my finger on. well what could it be? hmmm… the middle east is probably troubled by the lack of Shari’a Law and the science of the Holy Quran, and also probably too many Jews.

  4. Saki, while I am not fan of mixing church and state, at least they aren’t talking about vesting religious leaders with authority over legal matters such as marriage and immigration like Israel does. Regardless, your insinuation that Islamic rule is inherently a problem stands in contradiction to historical record. While I agreed with your implied distaste for current iterations, there were peaceful tolerance, and prosperous eras of Islamic rule in the past, ones which Jews of the region flourished during. The Caliphate of Cordoba is one particularly notable example of this.

  5. The Clinton Parameters were a farce
    If those Parameters were a farce, then maybe there really isn’t anything to talk about.

  6. kyleb,
    If I was living in the Year One Thousand then I may have preferred to live under the Umayyad caliphate of cordoba rather than the Feudal Europe. But on the other hand maybe not, The Umayyad caliphate may have been the biggest islamic arab state, and it may be the last good example of the islamic arabs successful state building. But that means success for themselves – and that success came from raiding Christendom and taxing Dhimmis like us jews. When the Umayyad’s built their “Al-Aqsa Mosque” on top of some one else’s temple mount, they new just what they where doing. The inevitable pain and political strife which they have left us with, leaves me with very little admiration of those empire lusting war mongers.
    But all that is besides the point, I am of the opinion that while patriotism for your culture and tradition is commendable, nationalism of all stripes IS an inherent problem. We don’t need another state, and we definitely don’t need another arab state, and we most definitely don’t need another islamic arab state. We need to move away from nation-states entirely. The contemporary concept of a nation state is a very new and very bad idea. And the islamic arabs OF PRESENT have the distinction of operating some of the world’s worst ones, in all respects.
    I would recommend Israel move towards being part of an international state. From this post it seems the only thing needed to start a state would be to write up a 38 page bulleted list of dreams, so maybe I should start.

  7. Jonathan, if you share Clinton’s disregard for standards established though international law, you can’t rightly expect to have anything worth talking about.
    Saki, your comments on Islamic and Islamic history read like a parody of The Eternal Jew, and I have no interest in humoring anything of the sort. That said, I share your disdain for nationalism, and because of that I would prefer Israel simply offer Palestinians citizenship with equal rights in exchange for annexing their territory. However, I am rather certain most Israelis would not be willing to do that, and hence support a just two-state solution as the most pragmatic option.
    What solution to the conflict do you suggest? From your previous comments I get the disturbing impression it includes demolishing the structures on the Temple Mount.

  8. “your comments on Islamic and Islamic history read like a parody of The Eternal Jew,”
    That is an unqualified statement. how so? Only a Mohammedan would suggest to a Jew that he should look towards the Ummayyad Caliphate as “peaceful tolerance, and prosperous” and where” Jews of the region flourished.” From a Mohammedan perspective this is certainly so, but it’s hard for a Jew to pretend that the Ummayyad’s reign on earth was anything more than just another empire, we have seen them come and go, and that empire went. While it was in business it built a mosque on our temple mount and taxed us as a dhimmis. Thanks, but no thanks. As far as being a parody of The Eternal Jew, I would like to qualify that I said nothing anti-arab, but in fact anti-empire, anti-racist, and anti-nationalism. There is nothing worse or better about an arab than any one else, and there is nothing worse or better about Islam than anything else. Everybody, and everything has its time and place. We are all individuals, and should be judged as such. But suggesting a racist and nationalistic islamic arab empire as some shining a example of peace is a flaw of the Mohammedan. I am not judging the men of the past in their own context, it could be that in that age it was the best that they could offer. But by our standards they do not hold up at all, and neither do the current fractured islamic states. We can certainly do better in our age. We need an international state to safeguard this planet so we can all share and enjoy it, as I said, nation states have lost their usefulness and their contemporary application is a very very bad idea – that have played out in a very very bad way. As far as pragmatic solutions, I guess in the name of pragmatism you could do anything really, drive the Jews into the sea, or drive the Arabs into Jordan, or carve Israel into two ethnic states locked in a death struggle – I think both the Arabs and the Israelis are being pragmatic – let’s see where it get’s them.

  9. Your use of the term “Mohammedan” only further demonstrates your bigotry (branding Muslims as worshipers of a man which is contrary to their beliefs), as does your leaping to the mistaken assumption that I am Muslim, and also your suggestion that ethnic cleansing or prolonged conflict could be considered pragmatic solutions. If you want to know why took issue with your previous comments, check your claims against a decent library. Again, I have no interest in humoring any such nonsense.
    I am still curious though, am I correct in my impression that you are you interested in demolishing the structures on the Temple Mount?

  10. “Your use of the term “Mohammedan” only further demonstrates your bigotry”
    I used the term “Mohammedan” in this case to indicate a negative quality. I did this out of respect for the true muslim, for someone who has truly submitted to God would not have that negative quality.
    “as does your leaping to the mistaken assumption that I am Muslim,”
    I did not leap to any assumption, I was carefully testing the waters.
    I would rather you be a muslim, at least you would be supporting your brothers.
    “your suggestion that ethnic cleansing”
    what? I just listed the three horrible “solutions.” I did not and would not advocate any of them.
    “If you want to know why took issue with your previous comments, check your claims against a decent library. Again, I have no interest in humoring any such nonsense.”
    I did, my claims come from the library. You clearly enjoy humoring yourself – but won’t qualify your statements.
    “I am still curious though, am I correct in my impression that you are you interested in demolishing the structures on the Temple Mount?”
    Why are you so interested? Three times a day for two thousand years every Jew has prayed for the rebuilding of the temple. What kind of question is that? I already said I am Jewish. If I forget you, Jerusalem… I am not interested in demolishing anything, but I am not sure how all this will work out? again, Why did the Umayyad’s built their “Al-Aqsa Mosque” on top of some one else’s temple mount? I guess it must have been their “peaceful tolerance.” Im sorry Kyleb, but pussy footing around the Arab Islamic States’ ugly side is not honorable – its cowardly. And its doubly compounded by trying to pin me as a bigot, when there are many honorable Islamic Arabs who quite rightfully speak out against the hate, which obvious to everyone but you, is spewing out of their Mosques. i think its an insult to call that Islam, but it most definitely is Mohammedan.

  11. This is a fine document, but it’s not anything more than that yet. Fayyad will eventually need to reconcile with Hamas, and they have not bought into his vision.

  12. Kyleb writes:
    “while I am not fan of mixing church and state, at least they aren’t talking about vesting religious leaders with authority over legal matters such as marriage and immigration like Israel does.”
    well thats the point, you can forgive them their naughtiness, go ahead implement Shari’a education, empower mosques as a center of guidance, increase the number of Shari’a court judges, and construct Shari’a courthouses throughout the Palestinian countryside. But you cannot excuse the exception to the rule, in the very secular israel, of allowing rabbis authority over marriage. Firstly, am I mistaken but it seemed that is exactly what they are doing, its called the Family courts, I may be wrong but thats what it looked like to me in the 38 page document. I would be happy to be proven wrong. I am not upholding secularism as anything great, but I do wish israel wouldn’t have this strange theocracy – I want religion away from government – and by away I mean as far away as possible. But you seem to live in a world where Israelis are actually more in bed with religion than the palestinians, whatever world that is, let the hareidim know about it, and they will be happy to join you.

  13. if you share Clinton’s disregard for standards established though international law, you can’t rightly expect to have anything worth talking about.
    Kyleb,
    You consitently throw out the term “violation of international law” to suit what you perceive as just/correct.
    It’s true I think the concept of international law is a farce, but if you insist on making this the basis of your argument:
    U.N. 194–this seems a strong basis that the Palestinians should have a right of return. But, it can be argued that it’s not practical for Israel to accept millions of refugees, and UN 194 only calls to return refugees at the “earliest practicable date.” Hence, a strong compensation/rehabilitation plan could suffice to cure the refugees'(and their decendents’) plight. UN 194 doesn’t even call for Israel to acknowlege any responsibility in the refugee problem. But, you are correct that UN 194 does seem to support a right of return in practice.
    Under the Hague Conventions and Geneva Cenventions definitions, Gaza and the West Bank aren’t even occupied territories, because there was no prior sovereign in Gaza, and in Jerusalem and the West Bank, the prior sovereign (Jordan) renounced its claim to the territory–both in 1988 and the 1994 treaty.
    Under UN 242 and 338, Israel will not necessarily have to return to the June 4, 1967 borders, because it calls for Israel to withdrawal from “territories” and not “the territories.” In ’67, the Russian UN delegation wanted the term “the” inserted into UN 242, but that idea was rejected, which demonstrates the intent of UN 242.
    Under the Geneva Conventions, it can even be argued that Jewish Jewish communities in the West Bank (and certainly eastern Jerusalem) aren’t even illegal. The Jewish civilians in the West Bank obviously did not move there against their will. And it can be argued that the settlers’ presence there has not displaced the local Palestinian population, considering the population growth in the West Bank, and the fact that–in non-military areas–settlers only live in like 7% of the West Bank (I forget the exact number.) Of course, it’s not hard to argue that the Jewish communities in the territories do have a horrific effect on the local population.
    Point is, for everything I just wrote, kyleb, you can surely write a counter-argument. But, for some reason, you consitently write that your version of justice has the complete, irrefutable weight of international law on its side.
    (And btw, does international law say that it’s ok for a Nobel Peace Prize winner to try to refuse to go to a conference designed to grant his people independence for the first time, not even offer his own plan at that conference, afterward make hundreds of speeches exorting martrydom–ie, suicide bombings, hide from the US President who presented his own plan for a Palestinian state in the midst of that martydom, then a year later, after the international community gave up on him as a “peace partner” suddenly start talking about what a good idea the Clinton Parameters are? Is that international law too?)
    Learn from KFJ, kyleb, who is trying to find practical ways to solve this conflict.

  14. Saki’s nonsense about “Sharia courts throughout the countryside” should be called out once again: replace “Sharia courts” in the document with “rabbinical courts”, and you have a perfect picture of Israel. Which also has a great many sharia courts, by the way.

  15. The policy that Amit speaks of, by the by, was the norm in the Ottoman Empire. Each religious group was fully autonomous in regards to internal affairs.

  16. >>“While much of that is bupkiss to begin with, it behooved the PA to produce a vision like this a long time ago. That left defenders of equal rights for both peoples and peace advocates without a meaningful reply. Until now.”
    Nonsense. Until now you said it simply didn’t matter.
    In any event the PLO has been talking about “secular democratic Palestine” since the 1970s and ’80s. This type of English language verbiage is old hat by now.

  17. >>“Saki’s nonsense about “Sharia courts throughout the countryside” should be called out once again: replace “Sharia courts” in the document with “rabbinical courts”, and you have a perfect picture of Israel. Which also has a great many sharia courts, by the way.”
    Yeah man! ’cause we all now that Jewish courts and Muslims courts are, like, exactly the same, right? Right!
    Of course I haven’t heard of any Jewish courts recently ordering the amputation of limbs, stoning, beating, or the death penalty for selling land to members of another religion. But maybe I’m just out of the loop?…
    Keep thinkin’ positive folks!

  18. I would rather you be a muslim, at least you would be supporting your brothers.

    Saki, I maintain that we are all, as humans, brothers. Of course I also understand that bigots see things differently, ardently so in cases such as yourself, so I can’t rightly expect further coversation with you here to be productive.

    You consitently throw out the term “violation of international law” to suit what you perceive as just/correct.
    It’s true I think the concept of international law is a farce…

    Jonathan, I don’t refer to international law simply in regard to my own perception of what is just/correct here, but rather that which continues to be reaffirmed yearly by the vast majority of nations of the world in the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine resolution at the UN General Assembly. Granted, there is a small faction of people which has no respect for international law, and since you since you have declared yourself as one, I won’t bother addressing your flagrant misrepresentations of it.
    Also, despite your insinuation to the contrary, I doubt KFJ would take issue with anything I’ve said here.

  19. Of course I haven’t heard of any Jewish courts recently ordering the amputation of limbs, stoning, beating, or the death penalty for selling land to members of another religion. But maybe I’m just out of the loop?…

    Jewish courts don’t have any authority to inflict such punishment anywhere, and nether would the Islamic courts as proposed for Palestine. Also, the “the death penalty for selling land to members of another religion” is not an accurate summery of the case your are alluding to.

  20. You won’t answer because you can’t. KFJ wants to see an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not to wallow in righteous indignation.

  21. Jonathan, I can’t expect to convince someone who considers international law a farce to stop twisting it around to suit his contradictory agenda. That is not a matter righteous indignation by any means either, but rather a respect for the limits of my abilities as a human. Besides, you could easily find the flaws in the old and tired arguments you presented for yourself though Google, if you had any interest in anything of the sort.
    Furthermore, my interest in this conflict is specifically in regard seeing it brought to a peaceful conclusion. That is why I back the vast majority of the nations of the world’s support for Peaceful the Settlement of the Question of Palestine resolution I mentioned previously. From what I’ve seen of KFJ, I am fairly sure he respects the principles expressed in that resolution as well. On the other hand, I get the impression you aren’t rightly interested in ending this conflict, are you?

  22. KFJ, I thought you were more plugged in than this. Fayaad has no respect among Palestinians, none. No one on the ground can understand why the West loves him, except that he is the perfect Western puppet.
    And I should mention, since you’re taking pot shots at Bibi…
    Fayaad’s plan – already denounced by Hamas and Islamic Jihad – sounds VERY similar to Bibi’s “economic peace”. In fact, since the corruption of Fatah is growing, backed up by the use of the newly minted “Palestinian army”, it can be said that Fayaad understand quite well the role that he is playing in this effort.
    You are confusing technocracy with freedom. In microcosm, try organizing something on a West Bank campus without involvement of Fatah student activists and you’ll understand exactly where Palestinian “national liberation” is going.
    “Palestine” is to be a fascist dictatorship, modeled on the Baath party in Syria and Iraq.
    But then, better that than Hamastan. Speaking of which, there will be no reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah. The political and geographic division is too neat to be undone, each has too much to lose by inviting the other into its territory, and every year that goes by will only further the division.
    We’ll see what happens to Fayaad when Israel keeps Jerusalem off the table.

  23. I don’t refer to international law simply in regard to my own perception of what is just/correct here
    I think you do, and you prove it with your next sentence:
    that which continues to be reaffirmed yearly by the vast majority of nations of the world
    Consensus does not make law.
    UN General Assembly
    … has no power to enact or enforce international law, and merely (impotently) represents the interests of its member states.
    Granted, there is a small faction of people which has no respect for international law
    Yes, that same “UN General Assembly” and “the vast majority of nations of the world”, and you.
    I don’t think you understand what “international law” means, which makes me question your commitment to it.
    Finally, I’m glad Saki called you out for the extremist Muslim Caliphate-lover that you seem to be. How many Jews were converted to Islam by the sword?

  24. I really can’t speak for KFJ.
    I most certainly am interested in seeing the conflict ended, ASAP, based on the concept of two-states.
    Besides, you could easily find the flaws in the old and tired arguments you presented for yourself though Google, if you had any interest in anything of the sort
    That’s why I wrote: Point is, for everything I just wrote, kyleb, you can surely write a counter-argument
    You’re proving that international law is a farce because you’re ignoring things like the Hague Conventions and Geneva Conventions, under which the West Bank and Gaza are not occupied territories.
    Personally, I think what exists in Gaza and the West Bank is an Israeli military occupation, but I don’t live and die by international law the way you do.
    You’ve picked and chosen a particular UN resolution, which fulfills your argument that Israel is grossly violating international law. Kol hakavod.

  25. I am not ignoring the Hague Conventions or the Geneva Conventions, just your misrepresentations of them. Also, I didn’t pick the resolution, the vast majority of the nations of the world did that, I simply pointed it out to you.

  26. old and tired arguments you presented for yourself though Google
    And Kyleb, you don’t need to tell me that I learned about the events of July 2000-April 2004 through Google because, like many people here, I lived through those terrible times.

  27. I am not ignoring the Hague Conventions or the Geneva Conventions, just your misrepresentations of them.
    Ok. Again, any of these resolutions/treaties can be interpreted in various ways. You’re simply interpreting things how you see fit, and then saying that other interpretations are misrepresenations of the truth, flawed, old and tired, etc.
    I hope you are not a judge.

  28. And Kyleb, you don’t need to tell me…

    Jonathan, if you check the rest of that sentence you quoted from, you will find I was telling you that debunkings of the ridiculous distortions of international law you presented are widely available online.

    Ok. Again, any of these resolutions/treaties can be interpreted in various ways. You’re simply interpreting things how you see fit, and then saying that other interpretations are misrepresenations of the truth, flawed, old and tired, etc.

    You could interpret up as down if it suited your needs to do so. I, on the other hand, like the vast majority of the world, have no compulsion to engage in any such distortions.

    I hope you are not a judge.

    Sure, you’d obviously prefer judges who consider international law a farce which is only good for twisting to serve the same whims you do.

  29. Kyleb writes:
    “Saki, I maintain that we are all, as humans, brothers. Of course I also understand that bigots see things differently, ardently so in cases such as yourself, so I can’t rightly expect further coversation with you here to be productive.”
    Untrue. You want to carve out two twin militant and aggressive states, divided dangerously along ethnic and religious lines, locked in an eternal death struggle. That is not brotherly love, please step down off your high horse. Although I have a natural love for my people, the Jewish people, I feel nation states are a dangerous and ugly relic and should be slowly and nonviolently transferred to an international state. This is needed for the whole planet, but Israel should step forward to make this step because it is in a desperate stalemate, that will only leave more blood on it’s hands.

  30. “The policy that Amit speaks of, by the by, was the norm in the Ottoman Empire. Each religious group was fully autonomous in regards to internal affairs.”
    True. But I don’t understand what that means?

  31. Jonathan, I hope you might someday, and I wish you the best regardless.
    Saki I am aware of the fact that “two twin militant and aggressive states, divided dangerously along ethnic and religious lines” is basically what we have now, with the addendum that the stronger state is denying the sovereignty of the weaker while holding it under military occupation and colonizing their homeland out from under them. As I explained previously, I’d prefer one state with equal rights for all, but knowing I have no high horse to implement such from, I’m left to back the international concerns for two states side by side in peace. Granted, that will require both sides reigning in their frothing bigots, which you remind me is no easy task.

  32. Fayaad’s plan – already denounced by Hamas and Islamic Jihad – sounds VERY similar to Bibi’s “economic peace”.
    With one overall and crucial difference: Bibi didn’t want negotations at all, just the economic development. Fayyad proposes this alongside negotations. And that makes Bibi’s government’s dismissal of the plan all the more backpeddaling.
    In fact, since the corruption of Fatah is growing,
    Citation please.
    You’re proving that international law is a farce because you’re ignoring things like the Hague Conventions and Geneva Conventions, under which the West Bank and Gaza are not occupied territories.
    The Israeli Supreme Court HAS ruled that the territories are under occupation and that the laws of responsibility for occupied civilians is in full effect upon Israel.
    It’s just Gaza and only recently that the Israeli Supreme Court believes is not subject to occupation law, but that ruling is self-serving and no other nation (so far as I’m aware) has relieved Israel of expectations to safekeep the population there.

  33. kyleb is there any reason why you have to refer to me as a bigot in every comment you place? do you feel your ideas are that weak?

  34. The Israeli Supreme Court HAS ruled that the territories are under occupation and that the laws of responsibility for occupied civilians is in full effect upon Israel.
    Let’s put things in this context, KFJ and kyleb:
    (1) Personally, I think that what has occurred in Gaza and the West Bank, since ’67, is an Israeli military occupation over millions of people, which has been awful for everybody (I presume you two would agree.)
    (2) Apparantely you don’t realize this, but there is a body of legal scholarship which argues that international law is not a valid concept. Personally, that makes sence to me. You two disagree. Fine.
    (3) Some of the arguments you two are making illustrate the problems with relying on “international law.”
    (a) For instance, under the Hague and Geneva Conventions, Gaza
    and the West Bank are not occupied territories.
    1. In response, you’re either ignoring that, or saying
    such arguments are “old and tired.”
    (b) UN 242 makes clear that Israel need not return to the
    lines of June 4, 1967.
    1. You’re ignoring that too, and relying on UN Resolution
    on UN Peaceful Settlment for Palestine is the only valid UN Resolution on the matter.
    Do you see the problem in this approach, KFJ? Everybody just picks and chooses a certain treaty or resolution that fits their political view, and then says that that treaty or resolution embodies “international law.” This is an impotent approach.
    View it this way:
    It’s just Gaza and only recently that the Israeli Supreme Court believes is not subject to occupation law, but that ruling is self-serving and no other nation (so far as I’m aware) has relieved Israel of expectations to safekeep the population there
    Personally, I accept the Israeli High Court’s rulings as law in Israel–and the territories by extension of the reality. But, many times I disagree with those rulings even if I accept them as law, and I don’t think those rulings represent moral absolutes. KFJ, you’re writing that the Israeli High Court does lend credence to moral absolutes, as long as they rule in the way you want. If not, they rule in a “self-serving” manner.

  35. Jonathan, if you insist on arguing international law, you could at least attempt to substantiate your claims by quoting the laws in question. Of course that would make it harder for you to misrepresent the laws, so I don’t expect you to bother.

  36. Ok.
    (1) Article 43 of the Hague Conventions:
    “The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.”
    The “legitimate power” in Gaza was Egypt before 1967. Egypt and Israel signed a treaty in 1979, which left Gaza under Israeli control. The “legitimate power” in the West Bank was Jordan in 1967. Jordan renounced all claims to the West Bank in 1988, and under the 1994 treaty with Israel, the West Bank remained under Israeli control [the Oslo Accords had been signed in 1993, but they left Israel in ultimate security control of the area.]
    (2) The Fourth Geneva Convention:
    ” In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
    The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.”
    The “High Contracting Parties” refers to sovereign powers. So, again (maybe kyleb doesn’t realize this)–the sovereign power in Gaza was Egypt before 1967; in the West Bank it was Jordan.
    How can Israel be occupying Egyptian and Jordanian territory, when both parties have renounced claims to those territories (in 1979, 1988, and 1994)?
    (3) UN Security Council Resolution 242:
    “The establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
    (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
    (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force”
    Again, the Soviet delegation to the U.N. wanted the term “the territories” to replace “territories” in (i). That idea was rejected. This demonstrates that Israel need not necessarily withdrawal from all “the territories” captured in 1967, under UNSC 242 . . .
    This shows how all of us pick and choose from “international law,” to validate are arguemtns. None of this deals with all of the other problems with international law: There is no enforcement mechanism; there is no standard body of international law, or arbitor of it; as opposed t judges in, say, the U.S.–who are appointed by the president and approved by the senate, and subject to impeachment, there is no democratic process in selecting judges, even for courts such as the ICC . .. . the list can go on and on . . .
    but it won’t matter to kyleb. The person who writes consensus equals law probably doesn’t understand the law so well to begin with; instead he’ll continue simply to write that I’m misrepresenting the law.
    Btw, kyleb keeps forgetting to explain to us why Mr. Arafat starting violating international law in December 2001, when he spoke glowingly of the Clinton Ideas. Better yet, explain to us how Mr. Clinton was in such disregard for international law in presenting those ideas.

  37. Kyleb writes:
    “I am aware of the fact that “two twin militant and aggressive states, divided dangerously along ethnic and religious lines” is basically what we have now, with the addendum that the stronger state is denying the sovereignty of the weaker while holding it under military occupation and colonizing their homeland out from under them.”
    The operative word in your statement is “basically,” meaning NOT. It is not two states, its one, or else none of this would be necessary. I would suggest an international state with equal rights for all, if a real international state proves impossible than I would suggest Israel become a U.S. territory with equal rights for all, but I would never resort to carving one state into two, split along ethnic lines, which is not a solution at all but in fact simply slightly prolonging while at the same time escalating inevitable war.
    I would also like you to answer an honest question, I get the idea from your language that you consider the land to be the palestinian homeland and Israelis are colonizing what is not their homeland. Am I correct in your understanding of history?

  38. The “legitimate power” in Gaza was Egypt before 1967. Egypt and Israel signed a treaty in 1979, which left Gaza under Israeli control. The “legitimate power” in the West Bank was Jordan in 1967.

    Jonathan, to keep this organised, I’ll address your arguments one at a time. It seems you are suggesting any nation can occupy any land legitimately simply by doing so, apparently reading the law backwards to invert the intended meaning. In fact, both Egypt and Jordan were occupying powers between 1948 and 1967, just as Israel has been since then. The legitimate power in those occupied territories is that of Palestinians, as reaffirmed by the UN partition plan.

    …I would never resort to carving one state into two, split along ethnic lines…

    Saki, you don’t get any choice in the matter, and neither do any of us. Splitting the region along ethnic lines started back in 1947 when Zionist militias an terrorists groups set out to ethnically cleansing what became the state of Israel. Again, there is two states here, one of Israeli citizens and one Palestinian, with Israel holding Palestinians under overwhelming military superiority while colonizing what little of their homeland is left out from under them. And since I’m guessing you don’t realise this, the current legal borders are defined by the Oslo Agreement.
    As for history, the Levant is a spiritual homeland for all Jews, and an ancestral homeland for some. On the other hand, it an ancestral homeland for all Palestinians, many being the descendants of Jews and other Semitic people who inhabited the region since the beginnings of recorded history. I’m guessing your education didn’t cover these facts, but I assure you the are not hard to come by if you care to look. Since you were so ardent on discussing the temple mount earlier, I’ll get you started with the history by mentioning one of engineers who helped build Al-Aqsa Mosque, a rabbi who converted to Islam, Ka’ab al-Ahbar.

  39. Oh, and as for Israel and Palestine becoming the 51st state of the US; I’d go for that, and I bet Palestinians would too, but I doubt most Israelis would. I saw Tony Judt interviewed a while back joking about the idea, saying Israel would never settle for having only two senators. :p

  40. seems you are suggesting any nation can occupy any land legitimately simply by doing so, apparently reading the law backwards to invert the intended meaning.
    For the 3,000th (and final)time, kyleb. I’m saying that international law is a farce because everybody just picks and chooses what they want, and then says they have the weight of international law behind them.
    You keep proving my point, again and again.

  41. >>“On the other hand, it an ancestral homeland for all Palestinians, many being the descendants of Jews and other Semitic people who inhabited the region since the beginnings of recorded history.”
    Considering that the very notion of a Palestinian (Arab) identity is about 30 years old you’re argument is entirely circular.

  42. Jonathan, your attempt to claim international law allows nation can legitimately take any land they want for themselves simply by invading and occupying it is the only farce here. Again, you could interpret up as down if it suited your needs to do so, but that would do nothing to change which was is up. And again; I, like the vast majority of the world, have no compulsion to engage in any such distortions. So the implication of equivalency implied by your “everybody just picks and chooses” argument is absurd. It is only you, along with some portion of Zionists, together making up a small fraction of the world’s population, who are refusing to accept international law for what it says here.
    Eric, the notion of Palestinian identity dates back prior to the Syrian-Palestinian Congress of 1921, which is why the League of Nations carved it out as such when dividing up the Ottoman empire during the same time period. Even the PLO is more than 30 years old, which prompts me to ask; would you please start making a reasonable attempt to insure your argument is true before you decide to present it?

  43. your attempt to claim international law allows nation can legitimately take any land they want for themselves simply by invading and occupying it is the only farce here
    That’s not what I wrote, you moron. I wrote that Israel has been occupying millions of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank since 1967 but, also, the entire notion of international law is a farce.

  44. Jonathan, you had claimed:

    The “legitimate power” in Gaza was Egypt before 1967. …The “legitimate power” in the West Bank was Jordan in 1967.

    What law are you distorting to make such false claims, if not the one you quoted above?
    Also, being dyslexic I often mess up my spelling and grammar, but I am no moron.

  45. Kyleb writes:
    “Splitting the region along ethnic lines started back in 1947 when Zionist militias an terrorists groups set out to ethnically cleansing what became the state of Israel.”
    I’m glad we are starting to put on the table some of the assumptions we have came to it with. Again, I cannot help but hope that you are Muslim, or at least Arab, or married to one, so that your inability to see anything from a jewish perspective, or at least find something remotely excusable about the Jewish experience, is simply that your blinded by love for your people – instead of the other option – that its blinded by Jew hatred. You refer to the Zionist Jews as terrorists and blame them for splitting the region along ethnic lines, the claim itself shows an unchecked bias. Are you aware of Husayni’s Al-Fida’iyya (The Self-Sacrificers) in the 1920’s or the al-Ikha’ wal-‘Afaf (Brotherhood and Purity); of the numerous successive and deliberate Pogroms of unarmed orthodox jews in almost every town they lived, under the battle cry “”Muhammad’s religion was born with the sword” (as witnessed by Khalil al-Sakakini) and or the chant of “Palestine is our land, the Jews are our dogs!” which the Arabs in the Old city pogroms chanted while Aref al-Aref the editor of “Southern Syrian” delivered his hate speech sparking the old city riots. This wasn’t a call to equal rights, this wasn’t a call to palestinian national pride, although there where separatists, these people did not consider themselves simply Palestinians, but in fact syrians, and to them Palestine was to be a vassal of the syrian kingdom, palestine was to them always the country from which the jews had lived and been expelled, and they wanted to keep it that way. Paramilitary organizations like The Hizb al-Istiqlal , al-Futuwwah (independence party) , and the al-jihad al-muqaddas (Holy Struggle) are all overlooked by you, and what is clearly mutually violent ethnic struggles for dominance and survival, becomes in your eyes Israeli terrorism and ethnic cleansing.
    Had and if the “Palestinian” struggle was merely about equal rights, they could have easily shamed Israel into giving them equal rights by non-violent protests and international pressure. But this was never and is still not the Palestinians’ leaders’ agenda, their agenda is clear, they appeal to a violent Arab and Islamic nationalism which seeks to gain Islamic Arab control of Palestine. It is this control which is at stake, for self determination was never Palestine’s. From the moment Rome crushed the Jewish revolt and named it “palestine” it has been the ruled by a succession of empires, Byzantine, Arab, Crusader, Mamluk, Ottoman and finally british. Fittingly it was the Jews who returned and reestablished the only self determination the region has ever had. But the Palestinians, the losers of the conflict, have been made to suffer defeat and discrimination, reeling from the shock and pain of losing everything, they have held on to the same Islamic Arab nationalism, and the same dream of Islamic Arab control of Palestine, and the same violent ethnic struggle. It is impossible to expect them to except the ridiculous division of palestine suggested in the current two state solution. Those two borders are just as impossible for them to except and defend and flourish as it is for Israel, sandwiched between those two little buns like a cooked hot dog, to except. You cannot delude yourself that they will lay down their dreams for such a pathetic situation, they may except it provisionally but will soon return to accomplish their stated goals. This is not peace. It is not even a step toward peace – simply a step towards fulfilling the Arab Islamic dream of control of Palestine.

  46. This article is the most racist, paternalist piece of Western self-congratulation that I have ever read. The author has no respect whatsoever for the fact that no self-respecting Muslim could ever sign on to it. He has no knowledge of the power and appeal of the Quran and its attendant literature. He refuses to acknowledge that anyone could differ with his worn out Post-modern liberal dogmas. Fayyad was immediately denounced by Palestinians ACROSS THE BOARD, and rightly so.

  47. Well, the report was written by someone named Yuval … probably not a Palestinian 🙂
    (Read the metadata)

  48. kyleb,
    I’m not just going to keep writing the same thing over and over.
    I believe that at least somebody out there (if they’re unfortunate enough to be reading this) hears what I’m saying–but obviously you don’t.
    I’d be happy to read anything else you have to write about this, and if not that’s fine too.

  49. Thanks for posting this KFJ.
    I just finished going through the document.
    A few questions, maybe you know the answer to.
    – I know the Israeli government response from within Likud & Israel Beitenu has been to reject this idea (comments made so far Ayalon, Lieberman, Steinetz, and Sa’ar.). Have the other political parties to the left of center (perhaps including Labor – though they likely won’t comment being part of the coalition) made an official response? Has Meretz said anything? Also, what has been the reaction of NGO leftist groups like Peace Now?
    – The section about Jerusalem is confusing because while earlier in the report referring to “East Jerusalem” and recovering lands occupied since 1967, the larger section on Jerusalem talks nothing about an eastern part of the city, but simply Jerusalem. It mentions nothing of Jerusalem remaining as the capital of Israel. It also does not mention any Jewish presence in the city, other than under the context of settlements and occupation. I would like to assume that what the Palestinians see as “Jerusalem” is simply the portion of the city occupied by Jordan before the Six-Day War, because otherwise, a statement like the one of page 9 that says, “It cannot be anything but the eternal capital of the future Palestinian state” is deeply troubling.
    – Not that it’s any of my business, but do pages 21-23 suggest that Sharia judicial law and Muslim education dominate the education and justice system? Or is that talking about something similar to having mamlachti-dati and haredi school, and batae din in Israel?

  50. Saki- can i just say i really do find it offensive that you keep asking Kyleb is in some way not jewish just because he doesn’t agree with you. regarldless of whether or not his argument makes sense, i see no reason for you to keep asking him if he’s muslim. it is possible to be jewish and feel that palestinians are being wronged or that their is some validity to their position. and it’s faulty logic to say that the two reasons he must feel this way is either because he’s muslim or a jew hater. there are a multiple reasons he may feel the way he does.
    Kyleb – calling someone a bigot over and over again does not endear them to you or your position. i’ve found that over the years, even if a do actually find a person racist, bigoted, or prejudice in some way, letting them know doesn’t really help a situation and usually just brings about quite a bit of negativity.
    i’m just saying because i’m a bit sick of the venom
    jonathan – I see where you are coming from with international law. but i feel this way with most law. almost like it’s construed in such a way that if you use the right precedent and a smooth argument you might be able to get just about anything to violate law or apply to law. it was something i really struggled with when studying poli sci. but then again, i struggle with the concept of time travel too so it might just be me.

  51. It is indeed a problem with all Law, Trista. But, the purpose of, say, U.S. domestic law is to maintain some type of order (justice?) in the U.S. There is an enforcement mechanism, a democratic method in selecting judges, one Constitution and one body of case law, etc.
    “International law” has none of that. It’s simply used for advisory purposes, to somehow prove that something is “good” or “bad”–which isn’t really the purpose of Law to begin with.
    Still, all Law by nature is flawed, as you write. Most judges just decide what they want to happen, and then mold their rulings around those desires (See: Bush v. Gore or Roe v. Wade–two cases that have nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution.)

  52. >>“Eric, the notion of Palestinian identity dates back prior to the Syrian-Palestinian Congress of 1921, which is why the League of Nations carved it out as such when dividing up the Ottoman empire during the same time period. Even the PLO is more than 30 years old, which prompts me to ask; would you please start making a reasonable attempt to insure your argument is true before you decide to present it?
    —kyleb

    Kyleb, what are you talkin’ about? Let’s say that your claim was correct — that a specifically “Palestinian” Arab national identity dated back to the ripe old year of 1921…. you’re actually claiming that would therefore make the land of Israel double as “an ancestral homeland for all Palestinians”?! It’s just ludicrous on its face. By that standard you may as well classify Hong Kong as “an ancestral homeland” for Britons, and Macau as “an ancestral homeland” for the Portuguese.
    But the reality is that nobody was talking about “Palestinian” as a new Arab national identity until the 1970s. Until then the Arabs who lived in pre-state Israel were simply known as “Arabs” from any number of subgroups, subtribes or subclans of the surrounding Arab populations.
    Apparently you’ve never done what I’ve done and gone to the library to read through the old microfiches of contemporaneous newspapers and magazines from the 1940s. Go and look at how the term “Palestinian” was used — half the time it referred to the Jews of Palestine, and the other half it was used in the terms “Jewish Palestinians” and “Arab Palestinians”.
    The PLO was founded in the early 1960s by the Egyptian and other Arab intelligence services as a semi-deniable terrorist group with which to attack Israelis. After the Arab governments lost the Six-Day War they decided to switch from the unsuccessful Pan-Arabist propaganda strategy to a “national liberation” one.
    The strategy rode the coattails of Soviet geopolitics which encouraged violence against established governments all over the world by giving weapons to novel new “national groups” which began “fighting for liberation”. And so the “Palestinian nation” was born and began “fighting for liberation” by murdering Jews.
    This is easy to look up, kyleb. Your ahistorical arguments aren’t going to work here.

  53. I’m not just going to keep writing the same thing over and over.

    Jonathan, I would be grateful if you could come to terms with the fact that neither Jordan, Egypt, or Israel ever had any legal claim to the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. I assure you I get no pleasure in watching you dance in circles around such facts.

    i see no reason for you to keep asking him if he’s muslim.
    …it’s faulty logic to say that the two reasons he must feel this way is either because he’s muslim or a jew hater. there are a multiple reasons he may feel the way he does.

    Trista, i have explained the reason Saki engages in such faulty logic for those who might be confused, and while I understand your aversion to hearing it said, I hope you can respect my reason for doing so. Also, I have found it impossible to endear anyone to a position they are bigoted against, so my replies to to Saki simply for the sake of addressing misrepresentations of fact when I feel it is important to do so.

  54. Rather, my replies to Saki are simply for the sake of addressing misrepresentations of fact when I feel it is important to do so.

  55. How smug, kyleb, how smug.
    If only you qualified your conceit by actually adressing the points you are dismissing.

  56. Trista,
    I’m sorry you took offensive to me. For me there is nothing offensive about not being Jewish. There is nothing offensive about being an Arab, or Muslim, or Palestinian. Infact I understand that being Arab or Muslim, can be source of pride, that is why I cannot expect them to empathize and agree with the Zionists’ when they have lost so much at their hands. It’s insulting. I’m Jewish and I feel that the Palestinians are being wronged and their is some validity to their position. What I have identified in keyleb is an unmittigated bias against Jews and pro Arab. This is not a reasonable individual, I choose to hope it is his valid national identity towards his ethnic group rather than some form of Jew hatred. This was not about him disagreeing with me. Again, I would like to put forth my call for an international state with rights for all. But if we are going to play this racist nationalistic game then I stand by my family, for now and forever.

  57. kyleb writes:
    “As for history, the Levant is a spiritual homeland for all Jews, and an ancestral homeland for some. On the other hand, it an ancestral homeland for all Palestinians, many being the descendants of Jews and other Semitic people who inhabited the region since the beginnings of recorded history. I’m guessing your education didn’t cover these facts,”
    The Jewish part of the Levant is the Jewish spiritual homeland, if thats what you meant than you are correct, you are also correct in not including the Islamic Arabs as claiming the levant as a spiritual homeland. But I have to take issue with your racist, and often Arab politicians’, assertion that it is only the ancestral homeland for some of the jews, and the ancestral homeland for all palestinians. I assume you are excluding ashkenazic jews from their ancestral homeland. From the first moment of Jewish exile until the foretold return in the modern era, there has always been a Jewish presence in palestine. They where not terrorists, invaders, or imperialists – they where the remnant of our people suffering every humiliation and degradation and defeat in order to hold on to our land. For those of us who went into exile – NOT A SINGLE DAY PASSED – where we did not cry out in pain for all to hear that we would return. Again and again and again, countless times a day, where ever we where expelled to, we continued to announce that this was not our land and we prayed to return to our homes. So powerful was our attachment to our land, that we where never truly considered full citizens of the countries in which we lived and helped found. The citizens of the lands in which we where exiled, despised our refusal to assimilate. While we did except converts into our families, we did not intermarry and remained a distinct genetic, cultural and spiritual entity wherever we went. The church hated our religion, the Nazi hated our genes, and our country men distrusted our aliegence. We sent money to those of us who remained in palestine, we supported them, and when we could – we moved back. In fact it is more sensible to imagine the jews forced outside of Israel to be colonists than the ones that remained. When our exiles began to return enmass, we had outlasted each successive wave of conquerers and the deprivation, humiliation, fear, and discrimination which followed – withstanding the desire to assimilate into the oppressors culture. But not everyone remained standing, and in the case of the some percentage of the palestinians who identify as Arabs today, some of us gave in. This is our experience, it is the truth that our grandparents told us, epistemologically it is stronger than wherever you are getting your unfounded skin-deep racist claims from – and so far research into Jewish genetics has borne this out. (hammer, oppenheim, nebel etc…)
    1) Palestinians of Arab (bedouin) ancestry are the most foreign element to the land of Israel. They are truly Arab, from the Arabian peninsula and share genetic closeness with Yemenis and Saudis of that region.
    2) Palestinians of Samaritan ancestry (nabulus) are a mix of Israelite men and Assyrian women.
    3) Palestinians of mixed ancestry are the neolithic inhabitants of the area with a substantial portion (29%) of their total y chromosone pool being Arab specific haplotypes from the arabian peninsula.
    4) Ashkenazic, Sephardic, Mizrakhic, and most other modern Jewish populations of the world have more in common with themselves than any of their host groups. They remained genetically isolated, and retained remarkable genetic uniformity despite two thousand years for genetic drift. They all descend from ancient Israelites and their Y chromosome pool is an integral part of the genetic landscape of the region.
    5) Jews and Palestinians share the common genetic Middle Eastern background that predates the ethnogenesis in the region. Jews exhibit a high degree of genetic affinity to middle eastern populations in north of the levant, while Palestinians share their affinity with middle eastern populations south of the levant.
    6) Ashkenazic jews, over an estimated span of 80 generations, had only 0.5% per generation, of genetic admixture from their european hosts. With a total as low as 8% and only as high as 12.5%. And shockingly, when placed on a unrooted NJ tree, Ashkenazim, of all the Jewish groups, remained genetically closest to the palestinians.

  58. The Jewish part of the Levant is the Jewish spiritual homeland, if thats what you meant than you are correct…

    One can’t correctly claim some exclusively “Jewish part” of the Levant, as much of it was under Jewish rule at various times while others parts never were, so I simply referred to the region in general with a neutral term.

    …you are also correct in not including the Islamic Arabs as claiming the levant as a spiritual homeland.

    Rather, I just didn’t have reason to mention it here previously as I doubt you’d care, but the Levant is a spiritual homeland to all Muslims.

    I assume you are excluding ashkenazic jews from their ancestral homeland.

    Well I would appreciate it if could refrain from assuming such bigotry onto me, as I make a conscious effort to avoid lumping people together to brand them one way or another. Judaism most obviously didn’t come to Europe on its own, so of course some Ashkenazi Jews have ancestral ties to the Levant. However, Judaism also enjoyed influxes of converts outside the Levant throughout various points in history, both prior and after spreading throughout Europe. And again, note that many Jews converted to Christianity and Islam over the millenniums too, including some of the ancestors of people who call themselves Palestinian now.

    …the Nazi hated our genes..

    Little was known about genetics in the time of the Nazis, and rather they were engaging in craniometry and such to define “Aryans” on whoever they deemed worthy, much as some Zionists have been doing with genetics to define “Jews” more recently. Regardless, if you care to cite the studies you are making your genetic claims from, I will provide critical analysis of them.

  59. Kyleb – I agree on calling a spade a spade. and when i’m brazen and angry i know i’ve been the one to just tell it like it is to a person regardless if it’s the best approach. i’m just suggesting that it doesn’t always help. I really have no aversion to people putting others on the spot, i just don’t see how it’s helpful. as one of my favorite professors said to our nerdy soc club “the goal is to educate, not agitate.” though we all know the latter can be a side effect.
    Saki – I don’t take offense to being called muslim, indeed i feel great affinity towards muslims. it just seemed like you were using muslim identity in a negative way and also refusing to legitimize any possibility that he does have a jewish identity. if you didn’t that’s fine. however, i still don’t see how it’s relevant to his position. Just because he supports, well at this point i’m not quite sure…but i think he supports a two-state agreement, doesn’t have to mean he hates jews or is muslim. in fact, he could be a radical christian that loves jews but still supports a two-state agreement. or he could be a jew, that doesn’t support the current israeli government and wishes there to be another option. or he could be an misanthropic atheist that believes that there is no possible way for the two groups to ever reconcile with the current arrangement. or any other combination of multiple identities with different baggage that leads to the same position for different reasons. AND i’m NOT saying your a racist, at least not anymore than the rest of us, but i am saying that your conclusion about his religious or ethnic identity is based on weak logic.
    Jonathan – Oh i totally agree!!! I understand the reason we have domestic law, i mean i should since i’m supposed to be able to teach 6-12th graders the meaning of citizenship and government and the like. but i always feel like “what if i get that one kid in my class that actually listens to what i say and then asks something like ‘is the basis of law control or justice?’ and then i’m forced to answer back ‘what do we define as justice'” and the POOF my gov’t class is suddenly philosophy of ethics and i’m fired for violating No Child Left Behind. silly really…

  60. Trista, I haven’t been pointing out Saki’s out of anger or to be brazen, but rather to identify the reason for the differences in our positions here so that we can have an honest discussion on those grounds.
    I’m curious to know what you would do if you came across someone recounting Jewish history along the lines of what one can find in The Eteneral Jew? Surely you wouldn’t tell him “i’m NOT saying your a racist” and go though pointing out the flaws in his argument?
    Also, I am disturbed by your “at least not anymore than the rest of us” comment, as it suggest you consider everyone racist to some extent or another. In fact, some of us understand that dividing humanity into separate “races” has no scientific basis, and hence don’t embrace any such nonsense.
    Anyway, I’ve yet to have a reasonable discussion with bigots without first getting them to acknowledge their bigotry. I have to do this with my father sometimes when discussing matters which involve Arabs, as he is bigoted against them, but he at least has the intellectual honesty to acknowledge as much so we can at least have a rational conversation from that ground. If you can exemplify a better method of getting though to a bigot, I’d be happy to learn from it.

  61. Trista,
    why can’t you hear me?
    I keep saying it’s his pro Arab anti Jewish bias, it’s the way he reads history, current geo-politics, genetics, life the universe and everything- not wether he agrees with me on the two state solution or not. Unlike him I have qualified my statements, which he has dismissed unadressed by calling me a bigot without qualifying his accusation with statements that can be refuted or discussed. If he is an Arab, it would be understandable, but if he nothing to lose or gain in the situation and still consitantly manages to see everything in such an unreasonable light. It should make him wonder.

  62. Kyleb – I am well aware of the social construction of race, as it is my forte is academic study. however, and many social scientists agree with me, just because we acknowledge this ridiculousness of a catorgization system and work towards freeing ourselves from it does not mean that we are not products of a society that still places unequal values on human life based on arbitrary characteristics.
    i may be an active anti-racist but i’m also acutely aware of the socialization i’ve undergone. so yes i do believe everyone is racist to varying degrees. i think it’s dishonest and utterly counter-productive to label people racist or not racist. If we are wish to move society past our racist roots and break the legacy of racism we need to start being a little more honest about the effects of a racist system that saturates every part of social life. I am not so arrogant to assume that just because i know how systemic racism and personal racism are at work that i am free of from their influences. i work everyday to be less racist, to recognize my preconceived notions of the human condition and eradicate assumptions that are harmful and outrageous.
    now, i understand the desire to yell racist when you clearly see someone is being racist on a more than mundane level. But tell me how constructing a dichotomous label system of Racist/Not Racist is going to allow those you throw under the racist category to feel that they are respected and valued human beings that you actually want to have a discussion with(there’s that northern in me, ending with prepositions)? it the few years i’ve been alive, i’ve spent a good deal of them trying to go about convincing people that their ideas about humanity are outdated and ridiculous. and my most successfully attempts have always been when i come to the discussions willing to actually discuss and not label. especially in America were most people see red when called a racist and the word seems to be on par with a number of other more horrible things, i don’t see how it helps educate someone at all. all it has done is made people more adverse to recognizing what racism is and how they are involved in it.
    sigh. i have more to say but this is ridiculously long and i fear you’ll stop reading half way through.

  63. Trista writes:
    ” i understand the desire to yell racist when you clearly see someone is being racist”
    You always strike me as a nice person. Please explain to me, with qualified explanations, how I am being racist, and I’ll stop. If not please stop accepting that I am a racist as a given.

  64. I don’t have to wonder why we disagree here, you wear your bigotry on your sleeve. Again, you first showed it with with your flagrantly biased account of Islamic history, which you could easily moderate simply by reading an encyclopedia entry if you ever cared to do so, and done little but spill out more bile from there. The only thing I’m left to wonder is why no one else is willing to call you out on your bigotry here.
    Anyway, this most certainly is about the fact that you don’t agree with the two-state solution, and hence are turning towards misrepresentations of history, geopolitics, genetics, and whatever else you can dredge up to argue against it. I did address some of your misrepresentations above, but I’m guessing you realise you can’t refute my statements, leaving you no choice but to ignore them. So, all you are left with is to fall back to claiming I am the biased one here, when you are the one opposing the international consensus on the two-state solution. Granted, I’d wager you have long ago wondered together all sorts of delusions to convince yourself the vast majority of the nations of the world hold the “pro Arab anti Jewish bias” you absurdly accuse me of.

  65. again, you simply called me names,
    and gave no reasons which could be verified or denied.
    what am I supposed to do with you?

  66. I am well aware of the social construction of race, as it is my forte is academic study. however, and many social scientists agree with me, just because we acknowledge this ridiculousness of a catorgization system and work towards freeing ourselves from it does not mean that we are not products of a society that still places unequal values on human life based on arbitrary characteristics.

    Bigots are products of our society which does still place unequal values on human life, while those of us who are products of knowledge recognize the nature of such social constructs and dismiss them for the arbitrary nonsense which they are. This is why I general avoid the term “race” in regard to humans, as employing only feeds in to the delusions of bigots.

    i think it’s dishonest and utterly counter-productive to label people racist or not racist.

    Again, I am curious to know what you would do if instead of Saki we had someone here recounting Jewish history along the lines of The Eternal Jew? I would have refused to humor his bigotry just the same, and surely you wouldn’t be branding me as dishonest in that case, or see anything productive about humoring such a bigot yourself?
    Regardless, I have yet to find a way to have a rational discussion with someone who doesn’t even posses the intellectual honestly to own up to his own bigotry. As I said before, if you can exemplify a better course of action here I’d be happy to learn from it. However, as it stands you have only criticised my way without showing me a better one.

  67. again, you simply called me names,
    and gave no reasons which could be verified or denied.
    what am I supposed to do with you?

    Again, you could read an encyclopedia entry to confirm how flagrantly bigoted your reduction of Islamic history to “empire lusting war mongers” is, but I’m sure you have no interest in anything of the sort. So, at least until you can bring yourself to admit as much, there really isn’t anything we can do to have a reasonable discussion here.

  68. “your reduction of Islamic history to “empire lusting war mongers”
    tisk. tisk. poor form kyleb.
    I said the Umayyad caliphate were, not islamic history.
    And if you actually read history, instead of telling other people they don’t, you would know just how much empire they lusted, and how much war they mongered.

  69. saki – I’m not saying you are being racist. really. i mean, in the way that kyleb is talking about racism at least. i was just saying that i understand how it feels to want to say that to people you do feel are being racist. ugh i have class to teach i’ll continue afterwards

  70. I said the Umayyad caliphate were, not islamic history.

    You said it in the context of disputing the fact that there were there were peaceful, tolerant, and prosperous eras of Islamic rule, after I had mentioned the Umayyad’s Caliphate of Cordoba as a notable example of such.

    And if you actually read history, instead of telling other people they don’t, you would know just how much empire they lusted, and how much war they mongered.

    I know enough of the history to not stereotype the whole of it into just lusting for empire and mongering war. Again, anyone could gain that knowledge simply referencing an encyclopedia, but I understand why you have no interest in doing anything of the sort.

  71. kyleb i can in fact show you a better way. I was a founder of an organization in college that used the theater of the oppressed and pedagogy of the oppressed models to educate the grand rapids community about racism and ways to work toward an anti-racist society. basically what we did was take people’s (with their permission) stories about racist incidents and turned them into skits. we then would go into college classrooms, schools, businesses, and organizations and present a collection of these skits. Afterward we would hold a discussion about what the audience saw, how they felt about the topics, and really anything else they felt they wanted to talk about. the idea was to offer safe dialogue to people that usually would be terrified to talk about racism. we found that presenting people with reflections of real life without accusing them and wanting them to contribute to thinking critically about the issues proved to be more successful that calling them racists. Since i lived in michigan, where people are much more covert about their attitudes on race ( “i’m not racist, i just don’t think its safe to live in grand rapids with all those gang bangers and thugs” “yeah i live in Lansing but you know…in a nice neighborhood.”) being able to take away the sting of the label helped a lot of people come out of their shell and talk candidly about their experiences and feelings. and we weren’t the only group doing this. this model is used at many colleges, like U of M, at high schools across the nation and even businesses looking to do diversity training. the act of empowering people to think critically about their lives without berating them or trying to make them feel guilty is so much more satisfying.
    and no, this isn’t gonna work with white nationalists or muslim brotherhood or hate groups in general. i know that. but most people are good hearted and just really have a hard time recognizing what a racist statement is today let alone what a racist policy is or how their choices and actions are race related and they are really just scared and they don’t know why. so i see no reason why i need to get all angry-anti-racist-soap-boxy on them.

  72. Trista, while I respect your efforts to overcome bigotry though theater, I can’t rightly apply such methods in the situation at hand. Again, while you have been take issue with how I have learned to address people who espouse flagrantly bigoted arguments, you have yet to demonstrate any better means to reason with such a person. It seems you agree with me that people who unapologetically distort history to disparage Jews cannot be reasoned with, so I’m at a loss; why your are branding me as angry and preachy for taking issue with Saki doing as much to disparage Muslims here?
    Also, I have to take issue with your comment here:

    Since i lived in michigan, where people are much more covert about their attitudes on race ( “i’m not racist, i just don’t think its safe to live in grand rapids with all those gang bangers and thugs” “yeah i live in Lansing but you know…in a nice neighborhood.”)…

    Some cities and neighborhoods are rougher than others, that is just an acknowledgment of fact. It is only bigotry to base such assessments on the average skin color of the populations or other such nonsense rather than the crime rates.

  73. let’s start at the top:
    The document claims to be creating a “democratic, progressive, and modern” “peace-loving state that rejects violence, commits to co-existence with its neighbors, and builds bridges of cooperation with the international community.” And then asserts that “it will be a symbol of peace, tolerance and prosperity in this troubled area of the world.”
    I mocked this claim as being disingenuous, and actually camouflaging the true state which would result. I offered as proof to the nature of the actual state, the following objectives of this new state, as outlined in the document; this new state will empower mosques as a center of guidance, develop and implement programs of Shari’a education, and construct Shari’a courthouses throughout the Palestinian countryside. My insinuation was that this is a nationalist Islamic state promoting Sharia’ law, and because of that, it inherently does not reject violence and commit to co-existance, and will not be “democratic, progressive or modern.”
    Excusing the “distasteful” lack of separation of Church and State, you took issue with my insinuation that Islamic rule was inherently a problem. You stated that my insinuation “stands in contradiction to historical record.” As proof to your insistence that islamic rule is not inherently a problem you offered the Ummayad Caliphate of Cordoba, as a particularly notable historical example of Islamic rule as “peaceful, tolerance, and prosperous” where “Jews of the region flourished.”
    I countered your claim that the Ummayad Caliphate was a particularly notable example of how Islamic rule is not inherently a problem, with numerous reasons which I will review and add to:
    1) All nationalism has had its day – and has proved to be very very bad idea. As proof I not only offer the most heinous of these nationalisms, the Nazi, but every single nationalism on the face of the earth, they are very dangerous. Islamic Arab Nationalism is one of them. It is particular in the fact that while some nationalism have softened, this particular nationalism is still wide spread and very active. This state is an Islamic national state and is inherently a problem.
    2) The holy Qu’uran worships the God of Moses, looks with devotional respect toward the Prophet Moses as its foremost model of leadership, is emphatic on the land of Israel being eternally written by God for the Jews, exhorts its Arabic readers to follow truth and justice, and rarely goes beyond strongly criticizing Jewish failings. The Hadaith is full of very hateful anti-jewish propaganda. I have read both the Holy Qu’uran and enough of the hadaith to know what it is about. Islamic friends have confided that this anti-jewish hate is taught as crede. So while the Qu’uranic Islam could reject violence towards Israel, commit to coexistance, and build bridges – the Islamic nationalism being promoted by this state stands in opposition to that, and is inherently a problem.
    3) The Ummayad Caliphate is a terrible example of Islamic rule being peaceful and tolorent. The Ummayads are highly criticized by islamic historians. According to Islamic scholarship, the Ummayad caliphate where tyrannical, imperialist, elitist, racist towards non arab muslims, and saw themselves as wielders of God’s will instead of followers of it. You cannot create an empire with out committing the crimes it takes to build one, and in that respect they where criminals. they where not democratic, they were not progressive, , they were not modern, they were not peace-loving, they did not reject violence, they were not a symbol of peace or tolerance. They where however prosperous but this was because of there pirate raids on Christendom and taxing the dhimmis trapped in their world empire. But their crimes where not the fault of the Qu’uranic faith, but simply the faults of all imperialist. In fact their ultimate crime towards Jews, which makes them an inexcusable example for “peace” and “tolorance” and Jews “flourishing”, that being the erecting the Al-Aqsa Mosque on top of our temple mount – was a very unqu’uranic act. For they once they had freed the holy land they should have called for the Jews within their empire to return to the Land which God had written for them. In that way we could have flourished and they could have been a good example of Islamic rule for jews. But infact, the sad truth is that they did the opposite and acted with the same imperialist domination as any war monger and criminal. But although Muslim scholarship and students of history will not use the Ummayad as a shining example of peace, their is one group of muslims who do look towards them as a golden age, and that is Arab Nationalist, for they looking towards their imperialist and criminal faults as a model for their nationalism. And that is inherently a problem.
    And so in conlusion, while I support an international state with equal rights for all. I do not support this state which is inherently a problem.
    and so I ask you, am I a racist?

  74. Sigh… you really didn’t get what i was saying did you? You asked for a different approach, i gave you one – Talking to people nicely even when you disagree with them and not labeling them and making them further unable to even want to see your side. You CAN use this approach. the point of AOR wasn’t the theater it was the DISCUSSION!! the theater just helped people see examples and feel at ease.
    and you shouldn’t take issue with that comment. it is well known in the north that people use code to talk about race saying things like the neighborhood is nice when they mean white for instance. grand rapids and lansing are both cities that are relatively safe for being metropolitan areas. it isn’t uncommon for real estate agents to say things like “you don’t want to look at this house, it’s in a bad neighborhood” to white people when what they mean is “there are a lot of blacks that live here.” they are talking about race but they are talking about in a way that makes it harder to catch. segregation in michigan has been proven to be a product of white choices to move away from blacks and Hispanics.
    i should know, i lived through the transformation as my hometown was a large majority of Jewish people in the 1970’s and 1980’s and is now mostly African Americans. As blacks moved in, Jews moved out and aren’t afraid to saying why they moved to other Jews and white people.

  75. the point of AOR wasn’t the theater it was the DISCUSSION!! the theater just helped people see examples and feel at ease.

    Trista, the theater helped people feel at ease because it puts them into the position of spectators to the bigotry rather than that of the bigot being rebuked. Your screaming for me to create such conditions here is like arguing about how to build a nest after the egg has hatched. If your theater had any skits of how best to respond when confronted with someone who persists in incessantly bigoted arguments, those could be applicable here.
    In my experience, I have found it best to start out with the equivalent of “you quacked like a duck”. From there you can get a range of responses; one might openly admit he is a “duck”, one might explain how he is not “duck” but happened to quack like one, or one might insist he is not a “duck” yet incessantly quack and strut like one regardless. In this case of the third response, I have found no means to reasonable conversation without first convincing the “duck” to admit his nature, as anything else I’ve seen tried just results in dancing in circles around it.
    Again, if you insist on telling me I am going about this wrong, then please exemplify a better way. I’ll leave Saki’s arguments above for you to demonstrate with.

    and you shouldn’t’t take issue with that comment. it is well known in the north that people use code to talk about race saying things like the neighborhood is nice when they mean white for instance.

    I know this, but I also know that “A does C” and “B does C” does not prove “A equals B”, and hence have to take issue with your comment suggesting otherwise.

  76. Saki, I fear we’re losing the forest for the trees:
    1) All nationalism has had its day – and has proved to be a very bad idea.
    Boy, I couldn’t agree more. Let’s roll out that one-state solution! I’m sure that will solve the problem.
    2)…the Islamic nationalism being promoted by this state stands in opposition to that, and is inherently a problem.
    Inherantly? There are 72 (I beleive) members of the Organization of Islamic States and while they’re not all the most sterling examples of liberal democracies, you’d be off the derech to say that it’s because of the Islamic nature of these states. Or that those 72 are collectively worse than non-Islamic dictatorships, theocracies, and developing nations.
    3) …But their crimes where not the fault of the Qu’uranic faith, but simply the faults of all imperialist. In fact their ultimate crime towards Jews, which makes them an inexcusable example for “peace” and “tolorance” and Jews “flourishing”, that being the erecting the Al-Aqsa Mosque on top of our temple mount – was a very unqu’uranic act.
    Let’s ignore your attempt to use “unqu’uranic” credibly. You’re beating a dead horse. The point is that Jews have faired well at different points under Islam. Shouldn’t we be highlighting those examples instead of claiming that all of Islam and Muslims are permanent haters of Jews. That’s the argument you’re towing here, which doesn’t fly with most of us.
    I also have devout Muslim friends, specifically Muslim friends who live in Palestine, who get really frustrated with these tired tropes about ingrained Islamic intolerance.
    and so I ask you, am I a racist?
    Yup. By singling out Palestine, Islam and Arab nationalism as “inherantly” unable to maintain democracy — over, say, Israel, Judaism and Zionsim or Italy, Catholicism and Italian nationalism — then, yes, Islamophobic and racist is a word we’re going to apply to you with accuracy.
    To wit:
    Israel has given religious authorities (Jewish, Muslim and Christian) orthodox monolopy over social matters in Israel, and the result is a dearth of normal democratic rights for women, gays, minorities, non-orthodox believers of all faiths, and people who fall outside a narrow definition of “Jewish.” It leads to societal-wide discrepancies in the delivery of services and an embarassment for Israel’s founders. Yet Israel is not worse for wear in your evaluation, it seems.
    The double standard is called prejudice and it stands out in your writing like a hareidi on a nude beach.
    Let’s then discuss how Fayyad, Abbas and the majority of Palestinians (60% in the 2006) elections, didn’t vote for Hamas or another religious party. The bulk of Palestinian nationalism is secular, Hamas is still the minority and an extreme. The chances of Sharia law being imposed on Ramallah or Bethlehem are not impossible, but significantly distant. Chances are that a Hamas-Fatah government would look a lot like Israel’s Likud-Shas government. Which is sad. But hardly something to invalidate the creation of the Palestinian state.
    The alternative to not creating a Palestinian state is well-discussed on Jewschool. It means more conflict. Which I’m quite dedicated to not allowing to continue. Enough people have died and even though I don’t like nationalisms of any stripe, I have to recognize that the Palestinians are dying (pun intended) to have a state and that Israel shouldn’t be in the territories in the first place.
    End the occupation, let the Palestinians build their state alongside a secure Israel, so we can grow up and move on.

  77. And forgive me if I missed a point, I didn’t wade through the tangled web of the past 47 commments. I just took serious issue with the innocence Saki was trying to affect.

  78. Or that those 72 are collectively worse than non-Islamic dictatorships, theocracies, and developing nations.
    Many of the states in fact are non-Islamic dictatorships, KFJ.
    [See Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, for example.]

  79. The proposal for the Palestinian state is in fact a non-Islamic democracy, Jonathan.
    And I thank you KFJ, I was beginning to worry that no one here was willing to confront Saki’s bias but me.

  80. The two of you won’t identify as nationalists. but you support nationalism, and at least in Kung fu’s case you work towards nationalism. Thanks Kung Fu for taking the time to actualy address some of the issues your Arab nationalist posts call attention to, I will do my best to respond to them.

  81. kyleb-
    o.m.g. if you’ve ever actually done any research on theater of the oppressed you would know that isn’t about being a spectator. in fact that entire point it to transform audiences into participants. but i wont’ argue with you anymore because you clearly would rather continue alienating people instead of taking contrustuctive criticism. that’s fine.
    and forgive me for suggesting anything. i’ll outright spell it out next time. I figured since you are so interested in calling people racist you would know exactly what i was talking about. My bad. but if you are so hellbent on proving when people are being racist you would think that the evidence of hyper-segregation in all the major cities in michigan, plus some, (Detroit, Flint, Lansing, Grand Rapids and Benton Harbor/St. Joseph) would be a good place to start. however, i bet you aren’t from michigan so i wouldn’t expect you to know all the wonderful things my home state offers.

  82. if you’ve ever actually done any research on theater of the oppressed you would know that isn’t about being a spectator.

    I know what you told me; participants are spectators to t bigoted incidents portrayed in the skits, and then the discussions start from there. Any chance you would reconsider my previous response to you with that in mind?
    Also, I am aware of the situation in Michigan, and I agree that bigotry is a major factor in that situation. That doesn’t change the fact that there is no inherent bigotry in acknowledging that some cities/neighborhoods are rougher than others.

  83. no. “the idea was to offer safe dialogue to people that usually would be terrified to talk about racism.”
    If you were my student i would tell you to go back and underline main topics.
    again, it’s the discussion that’s important. discussion, where you come with respect for each other, can happen anywhere. theater of the oppressed was about getting people to talk and see how they are more than just spectators. it’s true that it’s their lives that we act out but in the end it’s their lives that they live. However, that doesn’t mean it only has to happen in that context. i use this approach in classrooms when i teach history and civics and government(remember..the whole talking thing…not the acting thing), i use this approach when dealing with family and friends, i use this approach when talking with strangers.
    who knew the Socratic Method could be so versatile!
    and if you are so well versed in racial politics in michigan then why were you so perturbed with my comment? i wasn’t talking about rough neighborhoods. i was talking about how white people use fictional roughness for the excuse to live far away from black people. they aren’t making an unbiased observation, they are rationalizing their choice to live with white people and away from people of color without talking about what really drives their choice: fear.

  84. “the idea was to offer safe dialogue to people that usually would be terrified to talk about racism.”

    Exactly, and that is achieved by creating a situation where “participants are spectators to bigoted incidents portrayed in the skits, and then the discussions start from there”, which is not a situation which can be recreated here.

    If you were my student i would tell you to go back and underline main topics.

    To which I would respond by pointing out that this is not comprehension issue on my part. Then I would ask you politely to not condescend me again.

    again, it’s the discussion that’s important. discussion, where you come with respect for each other, can happen anywhere.

    I did come here with respect, and Saki’s attempts to deny his bigotry the only thing I have disrespected here. Apparently, you prefer I disrespect reality to excuse his bigotry, but I doubt you can demonstrate any good coming from doing that.

    i wasn’t talking about rough neighborhoods…

    You are talking about a relative concept here, but misconceptualizing it as an absolute. Some parts of Lancing have lower crime rates than others, and some places have lower crime rates than Grand Rapids. What constitutes “rough” depends on what specifically is being compared, which your examples do not establish, and hence there is no inherent bigotry in either of them.

  85. yes it is true that parts of each city have lower crimes rates than other parts of the city. but that doesn’t mean that whites refuse to live there because of the crime rate. if that were the case they wouldn’t have moved from places like southfield and lathrup village in the 1990’s. these places remain relatively safe but happen to be predominately black. as one woman said to my best friend “oh southfield. i used to live there, but i left when it started to change. all those black people.” the assumption is that because non-whites live there it is unsafe.
    and i gave you multiple situations where i recreate the same safe space WITHOUT theater but you seem to ignore them. You act like we aren’t working toward the same goal. I was merely trying to give you an alternate way to get there. why are you so resistant to advice?
    i don’t really care that you are gonna go about calling people racists if that’s what you really want but i still have yet to see how this is so productive. you’ve yet to get saki to agree with you, and in fact had even more people disagree with you. even though KFJ agrees what your assesment his approach seems less venomous and more reasoned. so i ask you, what is your goal?
    But wow I’ve never had someone disagree so whole heartedly toward trying to make people feel less on edge. Maybe i’ll try your approach again and see if people still want to talk to me.
    and i’m the one that’s condescending? sorry, i meant, you missed the point. or you were refusing to acknowledge it by quoting me on parts that were meant to supplement the main idea. wanna be friends now?

  86. Now kyleb,
    I would like you to be honest and admit something. What I want you to admit, is that you don’t know what the word “bigot” means, you think it means racism, and it follows that you therefore have only a vague understanding of what the word racism means as well.
    To clarify:
    A) A bigot is someone who is intolerant towards those who hold different opinions from his own.
    B) A racist is someone who is prejudiced towards a member of a different race based on the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics specific to their race, which distinguish them as either inferior (or superior) to other races.
    The case in point:
    Trista was talking about racism in Michigan, and you are using the word bigotry interchangeably with racism.
    1) You write: “It is only bigotry to base such assessments on the average skin color of the populations”
    Here you are clearly defining bigotry as negatively assessing someone by the color of their skin, proving that you don’t know the difference between racism and bigotry.
    2) You write: “I respect your efforts to overcome bigotry though theater”
    you did it again.
    3) You write: “the theater helped people feel at ease because it puts them into the position of spectators to the bigotry rather than that of the bigot being rebuked.”
    and again…
    4) You write: “participants are spectators to bigoted incidents portrayed in the skits”
    and again…
    5) You write: “I am aware of the situation in Michigan, and I agree that bigotry is a major factor in that situation.”
    You claim to be aware of the situation in Michigan, but clearly are not. Bigotry is not a major factor in that situation, like you claim. They don’t avoid black neighborhoods because black people have different opinions from theirs, they avoid black neighborhoods because they think black people have characteristics based on their race, that distinguishes them as inferior neighbors.
    6) And when Trista said “the idea was to offer safe dialogue to people that usually would be terrified to talk about racism.” And you write in response: “Exactly, and that is achieved by creating a situation where “participants are spectators to bigoted incidents”
    Well no. not “exactly.”
    7) and finally You write: “I did come here with respect, and Saki’s attempts to deny his bigotry the only thing I have disrespected here.”
    But isn’t your “disrespecting” my attempts to defend my opinions the characteristic definition of bigotry.
    Therefore:
    You are having a conversation in which you are calling someone a bigot and a racist and you don’t know the difference between the two. During this conversation you dismissed me repeatedly by saying I should go to a decent library, and I should look it up in the encyclopedia. I’m not going to call you names – I will let the facts stand for itself. But I humbly ask for your admission and apology.

  87. kyleb has the right to write whatever he wants, and his comments add to Jewschool, IMHO.
    the question is why do Firouz, Purple Man, Victor (maybe they’re all the same person?) get censored/banned?
    Is it that a belligerent style from the Right is deplorable but a belligerent style from the Left is the defense of Progressive causes?

  88. oh wow you’re right that i haven’t seen those dudes around in a while…i didn’t know they were banned though, i thought that maybe they were just taking a break from the interwebz. good point jonathan, even though i usually think i am pretty leftist and belligerent…at least i’ll admit it right : )

  89. yes it is true that parts of each city have lower crimes rates than other parts of the city. but that doesn’t mean that whites refuse to live there because of the crime rate.

    Individuals, “whites” or otherwise, refuse to live in various places for various reasons; some out of bigotry, some because of crime rates, and some for an assortment of other reasons. Stereotyping individuals together in groups to assume their motives will often lead to misconceptions such as assuming bigotry in your previous example comments. Of course bigots will make such comments too, and your more recent example demonstrates flagrant bigotry, but takes a leap from logic to suggest all “whites” who refuse to live in Grand Rapids or say they live in one of the nicer neighborhoods in Lansing are bigots.

    and i gave you multiple situations where i recreate the same safe space WITHOUT theater but you seem to ignore them. You act like we aren’t working toward the same goal. I was merely trying to give you an alternate way to get there. why are you so resistant to advice?

    I have been courting advice on how to better handle this situation since you criticised my way, and I have considered what you have presented, regardless of if I have quoted it or not. Most recently, I requested “…please exemplify a better way. I’ll leave Saki’s arguments above for you to demonstrate with.”
    You are resistant to my request though, and have yet to give any advice relevant to the situation at hand, since refuse to acknowledge Saki’s bigotry. That is the point of contention between us, so surely that is what we should be discussing here. I’ll start by asking, do you not notice any bias Saki’s recount of Islamic history?
    Saki,
    Please refer to the second entry here.
    Jonathan,
    I saw Victor post a while back complaining his posts were being deleted, with that post being deleted shortly after, so it seems the powers that be here have run him off. That said, I am hopping the they respect the difference between being belligerent and not being submissive.
    Jason,
    In regard to your first question; not that I have seen. In regard to the second; the plan calls for “full sovereignty over its territory in the West Bank and Gaza, on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital”, making no claims to West Jerusalem. In regard to the third; the plan suggests promoting religious institutions much like Israel does, as a few of us have pointed out before you ask. As for actual authority over things like law and education, those are intended to be secular in nature, as described in other parts of the document.

  90. Amit is hyper-honest. Remember when he said that the Jews are not a people, in the context of an IP debate? Then he clarified that he merely thinks they should not be a people, which sort of negates the first statement, unless he’s pre-empting some future self-formation of a Jewish people.
    That’s really the kind of honesty we could use more of, and I’m not being sarcastic or facetious. It would be refreshing if 3/4ths of the anti-Israel crowd would simply admit they’re anti-semites instead of putting on this big charade.
    After all, what’s so fundamentally wrong with anti-semitism, anyway? Why shouldn’t the Jews be extinguished as a people? Amit would agree with this sentiment, and others will too.
    Look at KFJ, for instance. He just wrote a brilliant post about being an internationalist, ethical, moral Jew. Is he saying that no one can be internationalist or ethical unless they’re a Jew? That’s the implication. Certainly he’s not asking every other people (sorry Amit!) to be internationalist and ethical, or at least there is no evidence of that on this blog.
    KFJ holds Jews to a higher standard than other human beings. In fact, he rightly criticizes Jews for comparing their actions to others – like the Arabs, Chinese, Russians, etc. Why is that? Are only Jews mentally capable of this high standard? Certainly one would think so based on reading KFJ’s compounded writings.
    Amit, on the other hand, is honest. The Jews exist as a people, he admits, but they shouldn’t. Why? Because to be a Jew is to be apart, to be different, to be special. And that’s just wrong. It’s anti-humanistic. It’s anti-internationalist. It’s the most vile form of racism – the belief in a self-superiority that can’t be purged through reasoned debate.
    G-d bless you, Amit, for being honest.

  91. I meant he’s honest about where he’s coming from Mika. Of course I disagree with his views about Jews and nationality/ethnicity–but he’s entitled to voice his views.

  92. Of course I disagree with his views
    I know you do. I’m sorry, Jonathan, I wasn’t directing my comment to you, just taking your statement one step further.

  93. kyleb
    I know it must seem like i’m jumping to conclusions like that, but i’m not. first off i never said all whites, i said whites. i realize i do talk in generalities when it comes to social phenomenon but i know i didn’t and don’t mean “omg, every single white person that doesn’t live near black people does it because they hate black people!” now, let’s go back to some basic assumptions on my part, that i thought you were referring to as well.
    1) white people (in general, as a social group) are privileged in multiple ways.
    2) one of the ways they are privileged is economically. overall whites earn more than people of color and collect more wealth generationally and otherwise.
    3) because we live in a society that allows people to have more choice if they have more money, whites (as a social group) have the ability to choose where to live with great variety.
    4) the reverse can be said for non-whites.
    5) whites (as a social group) choose not to live in places (in michigan and other places like st. louis and other hyper segregated areas) away from blacks.
    6) when interviewed whites use a variety of reasons to explain why they choose to live away from blacks. “Good schools”, “Safe neigborhoods”, and “Nice neighbors” are a few of the reasons.
    7) when blacks and other non-white groups try to make the same choices, because whites aren’t the only ones that are effected by these ideas of who has good schools, safe neighborhooods, and nice neighbors, and move into neighborhoods that are predominately white, they are perceived negatively has “taking over the place” and whites then choose to move farther away.
    8) whites perceive crime, danger and aggression in black neighborhoods even when they are no different than white neighborhoods. Thus, creating the situation we are in today.
    The thing is you are individualizing a social phenomenon. I’m a sociologist at heart and i really don’t do a lot of individualizing. the way i see it nothing in society is without connection to those that live in it, including each other. I understand that people may make choices that are personal to them but we are all influenced by society. the individual argument comes up a lot with me i know, but i see the world in interconnected groups. perhaps that is where our differences lie.
    for more information you can read a variety of books. but i believe White Out has an article that specifically talks about this phenomenon in relation to parenting by johnson and shapiro.
    and i do not deny that saki has prejudices, like we all do, but i wouldn’t go so far as to say she (i always thought saki was a lady but i mean it’s the internet so it could be my imagination, forgive me) is a bigot. saki clearly prefers jews over other ethnic groups and displays opinons about sticking with one’s ethinic group that disturbs me (anyone that talks about genetics will usually make my skin crawl a little, sorry) but she was pretty clear that she doesn’t find arabs or other groups intolerable and doesn’t seem to hate them in some sort of way. she does seem a bit lacking in empathy and sensitivity at times, bias, yes i do see that, but a bigot i really didn’t see.
    however, KFJ made a good argument for her racism and i can see where he is coming from, but since he already made that argument i see no reason for me to reiterate it.

  94. Saki is not a racist or an ethnocentrist exclusivist. For G-d sake, Saki has been arguing for a one state this whole time. He or she was merely relating the genetic data to demonstrate how close the Jews and Palestinians are – they are closer to each other than either group is to any other people in the world – which was a rebuttal to someone’s silly remarks that today’s Jews aren’t the “real” Jews or some nonsense like that.
    As for sticking with one’s own ethnic group, Trista, we need to talk. Are you saying there is no value in national, ethnic, tribal and familial identity or peoplehood?

  95. yes i know why she was using the genetics, i was just saying gentics has the kneejerk effect of making me nervous.
    no i’m not saying that. there is value to the feeling of belonging someplace with someone. but as everything, it can be taken a bit far. i just personally don’t side with people solely because we share ethnicity or nationality.
    and for goodness sakes i did not say saki was a racist like kyleb is. i did say she exhibits racism and bias. and like i said before, we all do. I mean, sure we should probably feel bad about that, but to me that’s part of life and something i just work with every day.

  96. there is value to the feeling of belonging someplace with someone
    To me it seems very simple. When someone in my family is in the hospital, G-d forbid, I don’t stop and visit every patient in that hospital. It’s obvious that family comes first. Does that mean that I am insensitive to other people? Am I negating their pain and suffering? Of course not. Why must an affirmation of belonging to the Jewish people, and embracing the narrative and purpose of our people, be a rejection of the rest of humanity? That seems like a rigid ideological construct that does not reflect basic realities.
    Trista, as a sociologist (by trade?), what is the value of “belonging”?

  97. Trista,
    The smiley is the result of you “8” next to a “)”, It’s just the way the comment software handles the combination.

    I know it must seem like i’m jumping to conclusions like that, but i’m not. first off i never said all whites, i said whites.

    That is just it though, had you said “that doesn’t mean that all whites refuse to live there because of the crime rate”, I would agreed with your statement wholeheartedly. It was the overgeneralization that I took issue with; some “whites” do, some “whites” don’t. I don’t mean to suggest you are intending to stereotype people either, but simply that is how phrasing comes out at points, and that your attempts to exemplify coded racism did require a bit of jumping to conclusions.
    That said, aside from some overgeneralizations, I understand and respect the issues you’ve addressed in your list in your list of points. I am aware of these problems, and did not intend to suggest otherwise, my only contention with you comments is only in reguard to the overgeneralizations.

    and i do not deny that saki has prejudices, like we all do…

    Again I have to contend this is an overgeneralization, akin to “everyone likes ice cream”. I, for one, have lived around the world enough to spend plenty of time on both sides of prejudice, and had I embraced the prejudices of all the various societies I’ve been a part of throughout my years, I’d have to hate everybody. I am sure I am not the only one whose experience has exposed bigotry as the farce it is. Also, there is a difference in those who hold prejudices out of ignorance they are open to being reasoned out of it, and then there are those who cling to their bigotry as if their existence depends on it.

    i wouldn’t go so far as to say she … is a bigot.

    Do you disagree with my statement that her comments on Islamic history read like a parody of The Eternal Jew? Do not see the idolatrous implications of the term “Mohammedan” as disparaging towards Muslims? Do you have any other reasonable explanation of why she would mistakenly assume I am Muslim? Chalking that up as a simple matter of preference seems like a rather far reaching argument to me, and please note that all came out prior to me mentioning bigotry here.
    Mika,

    …Saki has been arguing for a one state this whole time.

    She made the suggestion a few times, but never with any notable seriousness.

    He or she was merely relating the genetic data to demonstrate how close the Jews and Palestinians are – they are closer to each other than either group is to any other people in the world…

    I am aware of studies which suggest as much, but also aware that one should be particularly sceptical of scientific claims which touch on highly politicized issues. For instance, I’ve seen many references to this study which was since found to lack merit. I had asked Saki to present her sources the other day, but that went without response.

    – which was a rebuttal to someone’s silly remarks that today’s Jews aren’t the “real” Jews or some nonsense like that.

    No one made any such argument here, I am guessing you simply misconstrued previous comments of mine. If you care to quote them, I’d be happy to clarify. Regardless, I disagree with the idea of genetics being any determining factor on who is “really” Jewish or who isn’t.

  98. On Racism,
    Growing up Jewish in a black neighborhood, I may be able to shed some light on this from personal experience. We were poor, and we lived on the “wrong” side of the town, by wrong I mean black. While the rest of my jewish friends lived in the Jewish neighborhood, we lived just a couple blocks into the black neighborhood where the housing was cheaper. I was never jumped, raped, mugged, or beaten but I was called names every once in a while by african americans. I never called them names. My friends, mostly jewish and white, (I went to a Jewish day school) where mostly ashamed of where I lived and some of them where actually afraid of coming over. For the most part, the african americans calling me names, nor my shamed and fearful friends were not racists. They may have noticed that within the spectrum of human diversity there are groups and shades of people who share characteristics and abilities, but I don’t think they felt those groups to be inferior or superior to other groups. Although there where a few individuals who did go around saying other groups where inferior, they where few and far between. What I do think, is that they where xenophobic, there identity was sunk into one or more groups, and had an irrational fear of the others. They didn’t really know why they where afraid or hated the other, sure if you asked them they would start coming up with whatever was banging around in their heads, like “blacks are dangerous” and “Jews are sneaky.” We all share a fear of the unknown, and the greater the unknown the more that fear grows. Thats one of the reasons its so important to love learning, and experience the world.
    Then, when I was 18, I moved to the upper west side and started as an art education major in Pratt. I had to support myself, so I got an internship teaching art on saturdays to inner city kids. I had to wake up very early in the morning to go to work. Before dawn, I would leave this jewish enclave sleeping in their beds and descend into the black neighborhood of the subway. Early in the morning, it was me and the black folks going to work. If I saw a white face on that subway, it was an exception, or some hung over group of kids in leather jackets and hot pink feather scarves. In those years I felt a closer affinity and respect for the black folks on the subway than anyone else. But although I have had truly wonderful non jews friends, who have enriched my life more than any jew could, my jewish friends are not just friends, they are family, we are closer, deeper and more committed. Well what should I do about that? nothing! I love my people, i love them more than anyone else in the world – and that means something. Love isn’t something to combat like fear, i don’t have to equalize it, love is something to grow. The more I love my family, the more I will love my friends.
    My judaism is not about fighting for Arab Nationalism.

  99. and kyleb,
    You have every right to use Bigotry to mean Racism. As you pointed out, The American Heritage dictionary gives that as a second entry. To explain myself, my Oxford does not have that entry and limits it to opinions and not race. I checked a couple more dictionaries online and didn’t find the inclusion of race either, but wikipedia did. Its actually fascinating to me, it may be that the word has been used to include racism long enough that it is now becoming official for some dictionaries, thats english for you! or it could be that different dictionaries have always had that clash. Either way I am not a bigot or a racist, by any definition.

  100. My judaism is not about fighting for Arab Nationalism.

    That is perfectly reasonable, but what is your fighting against Palestinians rights about?

    Either way I am not a bigot or a racist, by any definition.

    If someone were recounting Jewish history with nothing but negativity, degenerating Jews as idolaters with a label like “Mosesians”. and suggesting that to take issue with such arguments one must be Jewish; would you not see any bigotry in that?

  101. kyleb writes:
    “That is perfectly reasonable, but what is your fighting against Palestinians rights about?”
    I have said over and over again that I support an international state with equal rights for all.
    “If someone were recounting Jewish history with nothing but negativity,”
    I was never recounting Islamic or Arab history, I am arguing against Arab and Islamic nationalism and bringing proof to why Arab and Islamic nationalism is a very bad Idea, those proofs include negative descriptions of nationalism in general and this current form of arab and Islamic nationalism in particular. The proof I am going to bring to convince you that Arab Nationalism is a very bad Idea and should not be encouraged and certainly should not be fought for, will naturally be negative. It would not help us for me to describe how I much I like their pottery or poetry, how I loved visiting the Mohammad Ali mosque in egypt or how wonderful it is to chill with bedouin – those things have nothing to do with the negativity that I am trying to point out.
    “degenerating Jews as idolaters with a label like “Mosesians”.”
    Infact, I first heard that term Mohamadean from a Muslim friend who used it to describe muslim’s who hated everyone else, and could only hear about God from Mohammad. He callled them that as a way to describe what’s wrong what with Islamic Nationalism which he felt destroyed Islam. He very well may have been a self hating muslim, but he didn’t seem like that kind of person. But I stopped using that term quite early on in the conversation.
    “suggesting that to take issue with such arguments one must be Jewish”
    I find you to be extremely biased against jews and belligerent. Specifically, during this conversation you have often quoted stereotypical Arab Nationalistic propaganda, for instance propping ummayyads up a golden age, saying that the levant is the ancestral homeland for all palestinians and only some jews, calling Israelis terrorists and refraining from using that word for any palestinian. These statements are very typical of Arab Nationalistic literature. They are so transparent its laughable. I have already explained to you how the Ummayyads are not a golden age for the Jews, how the levant is the ancestral homeland for all jews and the original non arab palestinians ( Arabs are from Arabia, duh…), and how the most measured way to look at those years of displacement is, what it was, a violent ethnic struggle for dominance, and I will add now, in the jews case survival as well. My reason for saying I hoped you where a muslim, is because I understand how much pain they feel from losing everything at the hands of the jews and I understand how they couldn’t help but be bias and I am not going to have a conversation with a palestinian trying to convince him to like Zionists. Therefore when I saw you where using all these canned Arab Nationalist propaganda and anti Jewish bias, I wanted to test the water, to see if you were muslim. But you proved to be what? I am not sure, I know you support Arab Nationalism, I know you despise Jewish Nationalism -what are you? I am a very pro-jewish very anti-nationalist, I support an international state with equal rights for all, if not, the next best thing is becoming a US territory (territory not a state, no historical precedence for a state there are a lot of territories,) last on the list is Arabs simply giving up the disgusting Nationalism that has ruined their lives, and nonviolently protesting for equal rights under the state of Israel. What is not on my list is your unfeasible dream of Israel carving itself into two very nationalistic states with limited rights for all, locked in a death struggle.

  102. I have said over and over again that I support an international state with equal rights for all.

    Sure, in disregard of Palestinians right to choose otherwise, and in disregard to Israel’s lack of interest in anything of the sort.

    …for instance propping ummayyads up a golden age…

    Rather, I referred specifically to the Caliphate of Cordoba as one of the more notably peaceful, tolerant, and prosperous eras of Islamic rule. However, what would you call the golden age of Islam, or do you insist Muslims have never had a period deserving of the of such a title?

    …saying that the levant is the ancestral homeland for all palestinians and only some jews…

    An (not the) ancestral homeland for Palestinians. Though I should have said most, as there is likely a few first generation Palestinians left, but the majority of Palestinians presence in the region dates back many generations. On the other hand, some Jews are converts or are descended from converts, with no ancestral connection to the region. These are well documented facts, and I’d be happy to provide sources to address whatever specific issues you have with them. However, you only retorted by making genetic claims which you ignored my request for you to cite your sources, and we can’t rightly have a reasonable conversation about this like that.

    …calling Israelis terrorists and refraining from using that word for any palestinian.

    I mentioned Zionist militias (meaning Haganah) terrorists groups (notably Irgun and Lehi) involved in the ethnic cleansing which started in 1947. Note how I separate the groups that employed terrorism from those who didn’t? I did not, and would not, brand Israelis in general as terrorists. Furthermore, I have no problem calling the many Palestinian terrorists groups what they are, and have not refrained from doing so here, but rather they simply never came up in the discussion.

    Arabs are from Arabia

    The name “Arab” came from Arabia, but the people are identified as Arabs today are descended from a mix of people throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa, various Semitic tribes including Jews, Berbers, and others.

    I know you support Arab Nationalism, I know you despise Jewish Nationalism -what are you?

    Rather, as I said above “I share your disdain for nationalism, and because of that I would prefer Israel simply offer Palestinians citizenship with equal rights in exchange for annexing their territory. However, I am rather certain most Israelis would not be willing to do that, and hence support a just two-state solution as the most pragmatic option.” Put simply, I support Arab and Jewish nationalism to the same extent, grudgingly. Our contention here is because I do not favor one side over the other, while you do, flagrantly.
    As for what I am; I am an individual. I don’t mean that to be evasive by saying that, but I don’t hold allegiance to any particular ideology or group, so I can’t rightly categorize myself as many others choose to. If you care to be more specific questions in your questions about me though, I’d be happy to answer them.

  103. “As for what I am; I am an individual. I don’t mean that to be evasive by saying that, but I don’t hold allegiance to any particular ideology or group, ”
    I guess that means your a teenager.

  104. “disregard of Palestinians right to choose otherwise, and in disregard to Israel’s lack of interest in anything of the sort.”
    Israelis and Palestinians have no God given right nationalism. They simply use force to set up a state which rules over land and people by having a monopoly on violence.
    “what would you call the golden age of Islam?”
    I don’t want to compare which empire was best. Categorically they are all criminal. But if I where to pick which criminal the jews flourished under, I would say the early ottoman empire, we actually had a real cultural and spiritual revival and returned to our land. The way judaism looks today, is a result of that period. The shulkhan arukh was codified, Smikhah was revived in some way, the friday night service of Lekhah Dodi was to the siddur, and Kabbalah as we know it, was revealed by the Arizal. After that Judaism was never the same.
    …saying that the levant is the ancestral homeland for all palestinians and only some jews…
    “you only retorted by making genetic claims which you ignored my request for you to cite your sources, and we can’t rightly have a reasonable conversation about this like that.”
    I cited sources, go check it out. You made a distinction between spiritual and ancestral homelands, so I brought in current genetics. But there is no use discussing genetics because it is such a new science things change all the time.
    …calling Israelis terrorists and refraining from using that word for any palestinian.
    “I have no problem calling the many Palestinian terrorists groups what they are, and have not refrained from doing so here, but rather they simply never came up in the discussion.”
    we where discussing “poo pooing palestinian state building” and you think Israeli terrorism is relevant and not palestinian.

  105. I guess that means your a teenager.

    Another demonstration of your deficiencies in deductive reasoning, and a childish quip at that.

    Israelis and Palestinians have no God given right nationalism. They simply use force to set up a state which rules over land and people by having a monopoly on violence.

    I made no claims of God here, but rather have been referring to rights affirmed by international law, notably the right of self-determination. Surely you are not suggesting that ignoring international law to conquer and rule others is a God given right? But if not, what exactly is your position here?

    I cited sources…

    You cited figures, and you continue to ignore my request for your sources. Granted, there is no need now that you have backpedaled on your genetics argument.

    we where discussing “poo pooing palestinian state building” and you think Israeli terrorism is relevant and not palestinian.

    When you accused me of wanting to divide the region in two, the facts of when and who hard already accomplished that became relevant here. While you are apparently compelled to ignore such historical facts, I have no reason to do anything of the sort.

  106. KFJ!
    …”I fear we’re losing the forest for the trees”
    I couldn’t agree more.
    …”There are 72 (I beleive) members of the Organization of Islamic States and while they’re not all the most sterling examples of liberal democracies, you’d be off the derech to say that it’s because of the Islamic nature of these states”
    This just in from one of your lovely mixes of Islam and nationalism – Iran. Mesbah-Yazdi and Ahmadinejad answered questions about the rape and torture charges in their nation state:
    Q) Is “applying psychological, emotional and physical pressure… valid and considered credible according to Islam,”
    A) “Getting a confession from any person who is against the Velayat-e Faqih (“Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists”, or the regime of Iran’s mullahs) is permissible under any condition.”
    Q) “Can an interrogator rape the prisoner in order to obtain a confession?”
    A) “The necessary precaution is for the interrogator to perform a ritual washing first and say prayers while raping the prisoner. If the prisoner is female, it is permissible to rape through the vagina or anus. It is better not to have a witness present. If it is a male prisoner, then it’s acceptable for someone else to watch while the rape is committed.”
    Q) “Is the rape of men and young boys considered sodomy?”
    A) “No, because it is not consensual. Of course, if the prisoner is aroused and enjoys the rape, then caution must be taken not to repeat the rape.”
    Q) “the rape of virgin female prisoners.?”
    A) “If the judgment for the [female] prisoner is execution, then rape before execution brings the interrogator a spiritual reward equivalent to making the mandated Haj pilgrimage [to Mecca]”
    …”Let’s ignore your attempt to use “unqu’uranic” credibly.”
    Why you prefer Arab nationalism over liberal Islamic scholarship? shame on you for dismissing their valiant attempt to bring peace to their religion, and side with Arab Nationalism.
    …”The point is that Jews have faired well at different points under Islam.”
    If you think we faired well under Islam why can’t they simply fair well under the us? Israel certainly treat its Dihmmis better than they treat theirs. I don’t support dhmmis of any kind but that seems to be YOUR point.
    …”I also have devout Muslim friends, specifically Muslim friends who live in Palestine, who get really frustrated with these tired tropes about ingrained Islamic intolerance.”
    I am really impressed that you have devout muslim friends. Why don’t they drop their violent nationalism and see if people are still so intolerant towards their Islam.
    …”By singling out Palestine, Islam and Arab nationalism as “inherantly” unable to maintain democracy — over, say, Israel, Judaism and Zionsim or Italy, Catholicism and Italian nationalism — then, yes, Islamophobic and racist is a word we’re going to apply to you with accuracy.”
    As I have said over and over again, while Qu’uranic Islam could reject violence towards Israel, commit to coexistance, and build bridges – the Islamic Arab Nationalism being promoted by this state stands in opposition to that, and is inherently a problem.
    …”Israel has given religious authorities (Jewish, Muslim and Christian) orthodox monolopy over social matters in Israel, and the result is a dearth of normal democratic rights for women, gays, minorities, non-orthodox believers of all faiths, and people who fall outside a narrow definition of “Jewish.”
    Ok, fix it. don’t join the PLO.
    ….”It leads to societal-wide discrepancies in the delivery of services and an embarassment for Israel’s founders. Yet Israel is not worse for wear in your evaluation, it seems.”
    Again, Arab Nationalism is not the answer to Israelis social problems.
    …”I have to recognize that the Palestinians are dying (pun intended) to have a state”
    You mean killing to have a state.

  107. Iran. Mesbah-Yazdi and Ahmadinejad answered questions about the rape and torture charges in their nation state:
    ….

    I see that came from here, which gives the source as:

    The following text is from a transcript alleged by Iranian dissidents to be a series of questions and answers exchanged between the ayatollah and some of his supporters.

    Which puts the credibility of that “transcript” at close to zero.
    Also, I had responded to your previous post the other day, but it was and still is flagged for moderation for some reason or another.

  108. Kyleb,
    No it didn’t come from arutz sheva. It came from Jahanshah Rashidian, an Iranian living in Germany who is not politically engaged, but writes about democracy, secularism, and human rights in the middle east. It is possible that he is the “Iranian DIssident” referred to as the source in your article. His article appeared in MideastYouth.com, a student-owned independent network that promotes constructive dialogue and understanding within the Middle East and North Africa. Their mission is to “inspire and provide young people with the freedom and opportunity of expression, and promote a fierce but respectful dialogue among the highly diverse youth of all sects, socio-economic backgrounds, and political and religious beliefs in the Middle East.”
    why are you trying to dismiss them, in favor of nationalism? Why do you feel the need to defend the horrible regimes of the world? If this conversation was about North Korea would you rise to their defense off handedly dismissing dissidents? What’s up with that?

  109. …”Also, I had responded to your previous post the other day, but it was and still is flagged for moderation for some reason or another.”
    sorry to hear that. I don’t think you should be flagged, no matter what you wrote.

  110. Well, checking the comments in the Mideast Youth entry, it seems the “transcript” was originally written as satire. I dismissed it simply because it lacked any semblance of credibility. That same reason I dismiss similar anti-Jewish propaganda like the Protocols, which I wouldn’t be surprised to learn was originally written as satire too.
    Anyway, I have no interest in defending the many indisputable crimes of the Iranian regime. As I explained previously, I don’t hold allegiance to any particular ideology or group. However, I am opposed to bearing false witness, regardless of who it is against.
    As for my comment which was flagged for moderation, I doubt I was being singled out as all my other posts have gone though fine. I am guessing it was a word or combination of words which triggered the hold on the post, but at a loss as to what word or words that would be. Hopefully an admin will come around at some point to approve it.

  111. What first tipped me off was the absurd attempt to blend religious doctrine into crimes. Again, it is reminiscent of stacks of anti-Jewish propaganda which I’m sure you’d have no trouble acknowledging the flagrant bigotry of. Why are you so quick to fall for such nonsense against Muslims?
    By the way, the post on hold was finally approved.

  112. I did cite sources hammer, oppenheim, and nebel (two by nebel.)
    I sent you an article which is probably where the whole thing is centered around. As the news of this story develops I am sure it will start to sound less and less like satire.

  113. You mentioned Hammer, Oppenheimer, and Nobel, you did not provide references to whatever specific studies you were drawing your claims from.
    Also, the article you linked was one I was already familiar with. On the other hand, nonsense blending religious doctrine into crimes you posted before that was written as satire from the start, attempting to endorse it as anything other than that sounds like nothing less than bigotry.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.