Galway, Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign : "Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East"

by Dave Sun Jun 17, 2007 19:43

Myth: Palestinians seek to form a state encorporating the West Bank and Gaza only.

Reality: Palestinians seek to form a state encorporating the West Bank, Gaza and the entire Zionist entity (they refuse to call it Israel) which they believe is stolen Arab land.

Myth: Palestinians want an Arab Palestinian State which can live peacefully side by side with a Jewish Israeli State.

Reality: Palestinians want a single Arab Palestinian State can only be established when Israel is defeated and conquered and the entire Jewish population is wiped out - every Jewish man woman and child must be killed or expelled.

Myth:The Israeli/Arab conflict is entirely separate from the struggle between the US and Al-Qaeda.

Reality: Palestinian terrorists shared the same ideology as Al-Qaeda - the destruction of Israel, the destruction of Western democracy and the establishment of a global Islamic Caliphate under sharia law throughout the entire world.

by davekey Sun Jun 17, 2007 20:50

“ which they believe is stolen Arab land.”

It is stolen Arab land.

“Palestinian terrorists shared the same ideology as Al-Qaeda”

Don’t you mean Al CIAda?

by normal Sun Jun 17, 2007 20:51

spot on dave , after reading all the drivel on this site about the "poor oppressed palastinians " its nice to see someone with a bit of cop commenting

by avi15 Sun Jun 17, 2007 23:27

Where do you get that idea from ?

by Babs Mon Jun 18, 2007 00:42

Hamas won the elections last year because Fatah was discredited and corrupt.

True, its refusal to accept Israel and its call for violence also attracted
supporters. and has now brought upon its own people death and destruction

Fatah had shown itself incapable of either healing itself or ruling.

Around the world the supporters of the Palestinian cause continued to pour
money into Fatah in the hope it would win. and reform .

But, in fact, it has lost and now it is clear that Hamas is the dominant
power in Gaza and probably will be in the West Bank too.

With power it might actually succeed in controlling the rival Mafiosi gangs
of smugglers and arms dealers.

The old Arafat legacy of deception and corruption needs to be swept away.
It was just possible that a cleaner more honest Palestine might then emerge
but the past week has shown the ugly side of Hamas again .
The hatred of
Judaism and Israel is now so irrational.
Anti-Israelism has absorbed into
its blood all the prejudices that previously found other outlets.

Thats why they burnt down the Israeli buildings ,houses and beautiful synagogues and the glasshouses the Jew s left them when 7000 Jews were forced out of their own homes in the Gaza area by their own Government in the cause of peace .

How they could have developed that area into the Hong Kong or Singapore of the Middle East [two much more congested areas than the Gaza Strip ] which many of us hoped for in the post Oslo Era .

Instead they engaged in a Civil War much more vicious than anything we saw here in the 1920 s .
The future is bleak -they dont want to co exist with anyone -meanwhile while pleading poverty none of th gunmen look starved , the cars and buses run in Gaza and Rammallah until the oil runs out --and hwo ahs all the Oil the Arab States !

The UN has paid for all this for 60 years - never once getting them out of their self inflicted misery

by Feyadeen Mon Jun 18, 2007 09:29

Myth - Dave is capable of thinking for himself and formulating his own arguments

Reality - Dave zooms in on any thread discussing Israel and the Palestinians, then cuts and pastes from pro-Israeli websites in the hope of bludgeoning critics of Israel into submission.

Come up with your own points and we might listen

by Dave Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:08

I read the Hamas Charter.
It is quite clear.
Hamas openly advocate the destruction of the State of Israel, killing the entire Jewish Israeli population and conquering all Israeli territory.

by davekey Mon Jun 18, 2007 15:45

'It is stolen Arab land'

"Where do you get that idea from ?"

It's very simple logic:

1. It was Palestinian land
2. It was brutally taken over by the Zionists
3. It's now brutally occupied by the Zionists

Conclusion - It is stolen Arab land

But Dave wants to keep perpetuating the myth "a land without a people for a people without a land", a nice PR exercise that the media, and particularly in the EU/US, keeps maintaining. Israelis of course are masters at PR, they now have it down to a fine art. They are part of the modern myth that if you wear a uniform, are part of the west and have a state then you couldn't possibly be terrorists.

by Dave Mon Jun 18, 2007 17:54

Therefore do you or do you not believe that the Arab Muslim Palestinians would be justified in conquering Israel and killing and expelling the entire Jewish population as the Hamas Charter encourages?

by really Mon Jun 18, 2007 18:14

Dave,

two wrongs do not make a right, a starting point must be that Israel and its supporters recognise that land was stolen.

Hamas' charter regarding Israel will never and can never be allowed to be fulfilled but one cannot hide from the fact that Israel has and continues to perpetrate human rights abuses and steal land

by Davekey Mon Jun 18, 2007 18:49

"killing and expelling the entire Jewish population as the Hamas Charter encourages?"

Of course not, but we can look at charters or we can look at actions.

Israel is brutally occupying land it doesn't own, has ignored more UN resolutions than any other country in history, has illegally stockpiled thousands of nuclear weapons and may now be firing some of them at Iran (with U.S. backing of course).

So talking about aspirations while ignoring the reality is just a diversionary tactic. Much like Ahmedinejads "wipe Israel off the map" fabrication which again ignores the reality that Iran would be wiped out in minutes.

by Dave Mon Jun 18, 2007 19:37

Hamas is not a political movement - it is a religious movement dedicated to jihad against Jews and infidels.

It shares the same Wahhabist ideology as Al-Qaeda.

Sunni and Wahhabist Islamic suicide jihadists - whether they crash airliners into skyscrapers or blow up London or Madrid commuters or blow up Iraqis or Afghans or Israelis - are all motivated by the goal of conquering the world in the name of Islam.

Meanwhile the Shia President of Shia Iran who called for Israel to be wiped off the map or for Zionism to be made history or whatever bent you want to put on his words is motivated by the ideology of the 1979 Iranian Revolution - the triumph of Shia Islam over the entire world.

He believes that the 12th imam - the Hidden Imam or Mahdi is to return and to lead the Muslims into an apochalyptic war against the infidels - even if it means nuclear annihilation.

Pakistani Muslim extremists wish to seize power and launch nuclear war against the infidel Hindus in India for the same reason.

This sounds fantastical?

It is if you are presumeably a Westerner like myself, a child of the enlightenment who is an atheist and sees all religions as mumbo jumbo and childish nonsense.

No such concept exists in the mind of the extremist Muslims who rule Saudi Arabia and Iran and payroll Sunni and Shia terrorists and believe global domination is in their grasp.

by Feyadeen Mon Jun 18, 2007 20:23

"It shares the same Wahhabist ideology as Al-Qaeda."

God help us all. Hamas has next to nothing in common with Al-Qaeda, as all serious observers of the two movements have concluded. Wahabist? I doubt you even know what that means. You obviously know sweet FA about the Middle East and the different political currents in the Muslim world. You've just patched together a bigoted caricature image from blogs and pro-Israeli websites - it's about as accurate as saying that every single person in the USA is a Christian fanatic who goes around killing abortion doctors and wants a nuclear war to bring Armageddon.

http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article957

A useful link for anyone who wants to know a little more about Hamas

by rn Mon Jun 18, 2007 22:50

It was democratically elected in January 2006 as the government of the Palestinian people.

After coming to power, Hamas announced it was giving up suicide attacks and "offered a 10-year truce [with Israel] in return for a complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories: the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem."

Hamas also declared a unilateral ceasefire with Israel which, after Israeli air strikes, was formally renounced.

by rn Mon Jun 18, 2007 23:04

In November 2005 Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei, rejecting any attack on Israel, called for a referendum in Palestine:

We hold a fair and logical stance on the issue of Palestine. Several decades ago, Egyptian statesman Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was the most popular Arab personality, stated in his slogans that the Egyptians would throw the Jewish usurpers of Palestine into the sea. Some years later, Saddam Hussein, the most hated Arab figure, said that he would put half of the Palestinian land on fire. But we would not approve of either of these two remarks. We believe, according to our Islamic principles, that neither throwing the Jews into the sea nor putting the Palestinian land on fire is logical and reasonable. Our position is that the Palestinian people should regain their rights. Palestine belongs to Palestinians, and the fate of Palestine should also be determined by the Palestinian people. The issue of Palestine is a criterion for judging how truthful those claiming to support democracy and human rights are in their claims. The Islamic Republic of Iran has presented a fair and logical solution to this issue. We have suggested that all native Palestinians, whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews, should be allowed to take part in a general referendum before the eyes of the world and decide on a Palestinian government. Any government that is the result of this referendum will be a legitimate government.

Ahmadinejad himself has also repeatedly called for such solution. Most recently in an interview with Time magazine:

TIME: You have been quoted as saying Israel should be wiped off the map. Was that merely rhetoric, or do you mean it?

Ahmadinejad: [...] Our suggestion is that the 5 million Palestinian refugees come back to their homes, and then the entire people on those lands hold a referendum and choose their own system of government. This is a democratic and popular way.

by talksport Mon Jun 18, 2007 23:12

listen to James Whale now on Talksport Radio about s. Rushtie

by rn Mon Jun 18, 2007 23:18

http://www.youtube.com/v/QX7rH4egQBU

by davekey Tue Jun 19, 2007 04:10

Considering there was a state called Palestine up until the early part of the 20th Century which now no longer exists I don’t know what you are talking about.

by Mike Novack Tue Jun 19, 2007 11:40

"Considering there was a state called Palestine up until the early part of the 20th Century which now no longer exists I don’t know what you are talking about."

Davekey, where did you get that idea? Prior to WW I the area known as Palestine was simply part of the Ottoman Empire, under the rule of Turkey. In terms of being "states", there also wasn't a Lebanon, wasn't a Syria, wasn't a Jordan, etc. The latter three provide an example of something else. Going back to ancient days, there WAS at least a "nation state" that could be called Syria. There never was a Lebanon or Jordan as a nation state. Well hell, there wasn't a Greece as a nation state back then either . There was a Greek PEOPLE, but they were organized as "city states" (THAT you probably learned about in school). Well the Lebanese were organized similalry. The city states of the even more maritime "Phonecians" looked to the sea as their territory with far flung "colonies" along the Mediteranean litoral and never tried to organize the interior.

The "nation state" is only one of the forms of organizations we humans have chosen to use, and while globally dominant now, is of relatively recent adoption in much of the world.

This is NOT an argument against this form of organization. Just trying to point out that if/when a people chooses to adopt the form, no need to justify that by some specious claim of having been a nation state in the past. The right of the Palestinians to opt for a "state" does not depend on there having ever been such a state in the past -- any more than the perhaps more significant movement among the Kurds for statehood.

Keep in mind that this is an ancient part of the world, the recorded history of which dwarfs your own. Your own Ireland could be said to have only very briefly ever been a nation state until modern times (I'd consider the few years of unification under Brian Boru as a "state").

by davekey Tue Jun 19, 2007 15:07

"The right of the Palestinians to opt for a "state" does not depend on there having ever been such a state in the past "

I don't understand how you can say such a statement. Palestine was was largely populated by Palestinian Arabs, even up until 1947, the time of UN partitiion:
1,300,000 Palestinian Arabs and 630,000 Jews

In 1938, Ben Gurion told the World Council of Poale Zion in Tel Aviv:

“The boundaries of Zionist aspiration,” “include southern Lebanon, southern Syria, today’s Jordan, all of Cis-Jordan [West Bank] and the Sinnai"

In 1940, Joseph Weitz, the head of the Jewish Agency’s Colonization Department,
wrote:

"Between ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both peoples together in this country. We shall not achieve our goal if the Arabs are in this small country. There is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries - all of them. Not one village, not one tribe should be left. "

Both references from "The Hidden History of Zionism" - by Ralph Schoenman

by davekey Tue Jun 19, 2007 15:28

“Sunni and Wahhabist Islamic suicide jihadists - whether they crash airliners into skyscrapers or blow up London or Madrid commuters or blow up Iraqis or Afghans or Israelis - are all motivated by the goal of conquering the world in the name of Islam.”

There is not one shred of evidence that ANY of these bombings were committed by Islamic terrorists. Non whatsoever. Just tell me one piece of evidence that hasn’t been fabricated.

“No such concept exists in the mind of the extremist Muslims who rule Saudi Arabia and Iran and payroll Sunni and Shia terrorists and believe global domination is in their grasp.”

Considering the Zionists control The Federal Reserve, all the major media outlets in the world, the Council on Foreign Relations, most of the major oil companies and Hollywood that’s a pretty bizarre statement.

Most of our western impressions about Arabs have come from tv/films etc. Hollywood has always subtly portrayed them as psychopaths, even going back to some of the Laurel and Hardy films, as well as cartoons and not to mention most of the terrorist films.

And on a more anecdotal note: I’ve never had a Muslim knock on my door looking to convert me but I’ve had plenty of Fundamentalist Christians telling me that I needed to convert to them to be ‘saved’.

by Feyadeen Tue Jun 19, 2007 16:07

Sadly, Davekey may imagine he's helping the cause by denying Al-Qaeda didn't carry out the 9/11 attacks or that Zionists control the Federal Reserve and the media. A) They did and B) they don't. The media is (mostly) controlled by wealthy businessmen - some of them happen to be Jews, others aren't. Their support for Israel has nothing to do with any Zionist conspiracy - Rupert Murdoch doesn't give a shit about the Jews, he just reckons support for Israeli colonialism fits in with the far-right ideology that he subscribes to (an ideology that's very much in line with his business interests, of course). He'd just as happily denounce the Jews if he thought that was good for business. Nobody worth taking seriously has challenged the view that a cell connected to the Al-Qaeda networks carried out the 9/11 attacks.

Paranoid fantasies just distract attention from the real crimes that need to be challenged and exposed. Not surprisingly, I've never met an anti-war or pro-Palestinian activist who had the least bit of time for the conspiracy theories about 9/11, Jewish control of the media or whatever. These theories shade over (consciously or not) into the traditional narratives of the ultra-right fringe and should be challenged and opposed by all progressives.

http://www.mikemarqusee.com/index.php?p=243#more-243

http://www.mikemarqusee.com/index.php?p=34#more-34

A couple of useful articles by a Jewish socialist and Palestinian solidarity campaigner

by Mike Novack Tue Jun 19, 2007 17:03

""The right of the Palestinians to opt for a "state" does not depend on there having ever been such a state in the past "

I don't understand how you can say such a statement. Palestine was was largely populated by Palestinian Arabs, even up until 1947, the time of UN partitiion:
1,300,000 Palestinian Arabs and 630,000 Jews"

WHAT does the fact that "Palestinian Arabs" lived in the area that used to be called Palestine have to do with there ever having been a Palestinian STATE?

Davekey, do you understand what a nation state is?

And why for heavens sake did you take that sentence of mine (a statement about the right of a PEOPLE to have a STATE if they want to) to be saying ANYTHING about whether "Palestinian Arabs" lived in the place?

The "state" (nation state) is a particular form of human organization. It is not the only way humans have chosen to organize themselves, and until relatively recently was not all that common a choice. A people SHOULD have the right to organize themsleves as a "state" if that's what they want to do --- and whether they chose otherwise in the past has nothing to do with that.

Historical note --- the sense of there being a "Palestinian people" arose among the Palestinians about the same time as the 2nd Aliyah (first years of the 20th Century) and ironically enough was probably an idea brought in by the Jews*. In the early liberation movements (against the Turks) the Jews and Palestinians pretty much worked together.

* It was in 19th Century Europe that the idea that every people should organize as a nation state really caught on.

by davekey Tue Jun 19, 2007 17:53

“Sadly, Davekey may imagine he's helping the cause by denying Al-Qaeda didn't carry out the 9/11 attacks or that Zionists control the Federal Reserve and the media. A) They did and B) they don't.”

“Paranoid fantasies just distract attention from the real crimes”

If you have any proof of this then say so, otherwise don’t use such language to try and win you argument. There’s no proof the attacks were the result of Al Qaeda or any other such organization. The Federal Reserve has been controlled by the Zionists since 1914 and the media, particularly in the U.S. is controlled by the Council on Foreign Relations.

by To Mike Novack Tue Jun 19, 2007 18:00

"WHAT does the fact that "Palestinian Arabs" lived in the area that used to be called Palestine have to do with there ever having been a Palestinian STATE?"

I accept that I used the wrong term in describing Palestine in the first half of the 20th Century. However I still don't understand how you could make such a statement:

"The right of the Palestinians to opt for a "state" does not depend on there having ever been such a state in the past "

Whether or not it was a state is irrelevant, given that they had the largest population up until that point in history and were working the land, providing industry and living there.

So could you please clarify this statement?

by Malachy Tue Jun 19, 2007 18:29

The most egregious piece of abuse was someone's contention that "Israel is the only Democracy in the Middle East". I really feel for you TD.

by MichaelY - iawm/ipsc - per cap Fri Jun 22, 2007 10:33

For some useful info and analysis from Jerusalem, written on June 18 and from a Jewish anti-Zionist perspective please go to the article by Michael Warschawski in the thread :

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83140

by MichaelY - iawm/ipsc Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:12

How troublesome the Muslims of the Middle East are. First, we demand that the Palestinians embrace democracy and then they elect the wrong party - Hamas - and then Hamas wins a mini-civil war and presides over the Gaza Strip. And we Westerners still want to negotiate with the discredited President, Mahmoud Abbas. Today "Palestine" - and let's keep those quotation marks in place - has two prime ministers. Welcome to the Middle East.

For further reading go to: http://news.independent.co.uk/fisk/article2663199.ece

by Noel Fri Jun 22, 2007 17:51

'First, we demand that the Palestinians embrace democracy and then they elect the wrong party - Hamas'

Israel and the West have no issue with the choice of the Palestinian electorate.
However, if they choose to elect a group with murderous and genocidal intent - don't be surprised if the money tap is turned off.

You get the government you deserve.

by El no Fri Jun 22, 2007 18:49

The Israelis vote in a murderous and genocidal government who promptly devastate Lebanon and guess what the US bends over backwards to give them even more money. I wonder why the Palestinians have no time for the Americans?

by Mike Novack Fri Jun 22, 2007 20:39

""The right of the Palestinians to opt for a "state" does not depend on there having ever been such a state in the past "

Whether or not it was a state is irrelevant, given that they had the largest population up until that point in history and were working the land, providing industry and living there.

So could you please clarify this statement?"

EASY --- but first perhaps you need to take off the blinders of assumption. You are (incorrectly) assuming that just becuase I am a partisan with regard to the conflict I oppose the right of the Palestinians to organize themselves as a state. In spite of the fact that you (or anybody else) has NEVER seen me write an opinion of that sort.

So although it really should not be necessary, I will try to clarrify this for you. You made a statement along the lines "the Palestinians have a right to organize themselves as a state BECAUSE there was a Palestinian state in the past". I am saying that whether there was or wasn't (in historical fact, the wasn't) a Palestinian state in the past has NO BEARING on their right to organize themselves as a state now if that's what they want to do.

WHAT have I ever said led you to suppose that I opposed the right of the Palestinians to organize themslelves as a state?

by Dave Fri Jun 22, 2007 20:53

As Gaza descends into chaos and the Hamas government isolates itself from the international community it is clear that Israel and Egypt who neighbour the tiny breakaway territory are going to mount some sort of combined military assault on Gaza to crush Hamas.

Last weekend Israel's new defence minister and former prime minister Ehud Barak finalised plans for an Israeli assault by two armoured and one infantry division with air support.

Egypt has since then begun to mass military forces on the southern Gaza border.

Israel for obvious reasons believes a Hamas controlled Gaza will become a staging post for new attacks on its territory.

Egypt is nervous that Gaza will become a staging post for an Islamic revolution in Egypt which might sweep the Mubarack from power just as Fatah were swept out of Gaza.

It seems clear that the international community led by the US and Britain and Israel are courting the Abbas led government in the West Bank to pave the way for the suppression of "Hamastan."

Egyptian forces will cover the "backdoor" rounding up fleeing Hamas fighters as Israeli forces enter from the north and north east with its navy blockading the Mediterranean shore.

With new funds available from its unfrozen assets held by Israel and internation aid and new weapons deals the Abbas government in the West Bank can not only crush Hamas in the future but can begin to crush other Arab nationalist and Islamic extremist groups within the West Bank hostile to any peace with Israel.

Pressure can then be applied in a twin track approach both on Israel to dismantle the Jewish settlements and reduce its military presence in the West Bank and Abbas himself and future Palestinian leaders to begin the reform of Palestinian society from its current miserable state toward a viable independent democratic multi-party society which would no longer justify any Israeli military presence in the future.

The decades long task cannot get off the ground until firstly the extremists are crushed and corrupt "moderates" in the PA are forced to see the writing on the wall and open the way for radical reform of the political system.

If a twin track approach or some equivalent process is not initiated as soon as military action is over then the imminent destruction of Hamas will be followed once again by another cycle of terrorism from Palestinians, perhaps complete Islamic radicalisation of the West Bank and the extinction of the PA and its replacement with an even more extremist political umbrella.

Israel needs to seize this chance with both hands.

They have nothing to lose.

They can of course contain Palestinians indefinitely behind the security fences, assassinating terrorist leaders and launching raids to destroy weapons.

Or they can Hamas and restart the peace process with Abbas and open the door for the possibility for an end to decades of strife.

by davekey Fri Jun 22, 2007 21:38

“I am saying that whether there was or wasn't (in historical fact, the wasn't) a Palestinian state in the past has NO BEARING on their right to organize themselves as a state now if that's what they want to do.”

You are turning a subjective opinion into a definitive fact, one which displaced Palestinians and others may have a different opinion on, that’s my point.

by JohnHM Wed Jun 27, 2007 22:11 johnthemyers at googlemail dot com

While the Gaza Strip has a population density in the region of 3,823 /km²,
which does make it one of the highest in the world, this is still lower than
Monaco (23,660),
Macau (17,699),
Hong Kong (6,407)
and Singapore (6,208).
These prosperous territories could equally be termed "overcrowded".

It is a great shame that the PLO under Arafat the PA , Fatah under Abbass , and Hamas
failed to emulate these prosperous areas . They got money from the EU ,USA and Israel to develop their economy - there were numerous joint ventures [industrial areas straddlng the borders etc ]and even joint poliice patrols until the Arafat Intifada of 2000 -2005
They were given the infrastructure bur prefered to destroy everything in Intifada after Intifada .

by reply to JohnHM Thu Jun 28, 2007 14:19

John HM the major difference between the places you mentioned is that Gaza was under military occupation for 40 years, continues to be surrounded by an immense military regieme has been described by many charities and NGO's as the worlds largest open air prison, there is no freedom of movement, no economy and no way out.

Israel is to blame for creating the situation where people in desperation turn to violence.

by Michael Martin Tue Jul 03, 2007 11:41 Wicklowwolf at yahoo dot com

True spoken, Dave!

by Derek B Bird Tue Jul 03, 2007 18:15

Well worth studying:

http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html

by Eric Tue Jul 03, 2007 18:32

Odd that Fedayeen gets very agitated about material being copied from other "pro-Israeli" websites...but has no hesitation in directing people to his chosen material and links!

Come on Fedayeen - in your words "Come up with your own points and we might listen"

by Frank Adam - Private citizen Thu Jul 05, 2007 13:28 FrrankAdam at aol dot com Prestwich, Greater Manchester, UK

Dear Sir,
Many of these contributions are really odd on an Irish site! We have just seen thirty years wasted by the Unionists not talking at all, and the nationalist delusion that guerilla war is inevitably victorious. Finally Dr No and Dr Death agreed to power sharing they could have both talken up two dozen years earlier.
Perhaps IPSC buffs could note that the Palestine Arabs could have made their state in 1937, 1947, the 1949-67 Armistice gap. There was still a partitionist Labour Parrty in office till 1977 which would have returned the West Bank to Jordan excepting Latrun and Jerusalem so why were the PLO so bone headed not to allow that to end the occupation? If the occupation is their real gripe?
If the PLO state is their real gripe why did they not demand it from Jordan before 1967 - at least in home rule form?
The price of a Palestine Arab state is that it concedes Israel's right to be self determined Jewish majority and that Israel also has religious and historical items it wishes to hold on to because in the past Arab treatment of access and fabric to the Western Wall , Joseph's Tomb and the Tomb of the Patriarchs has been worse than Cromwell stabling horses in churches. Further if Palestine is [to be] a separate state its [Arab] citizens are foreigners in Israel and do not have citizens' rights in Israel - even now.
Yours faithfully, Frank Adam

by Feyadeen Thu Jul 05, 2007 13:44

"There was still a partitionist Labour Parrty in office till 1977 which would have returned the West Bank to Jordan excepting Latrun and Jerusalem so why were the PLO so bone headed not to allow that to end the occupation? If the occupation is their real gripe?"

I'm not sure why you think the Palestinians should have been happy to swap Zionist occupation for Hasemite occupation. The Jordanian dictatorship has always repressed Palestinians under its control brutally. In fact, the murderous attacks on Palestinians camps in 1970 (Black September) were so bad that Palestinians fled across the border and surrendered to Israeli troops, becuase that was the lesser of two evils.

As for the pre-1967 period - King Abdullah of Jordan made a secret pact with Ben Gurion before the 1948 war, that gave him the right to control the West Bank instead of allowing a Palestinian state there. Overthrowing the Jordanian monarchy is every bit as important for the cause of democracy in the Middle East as ending the occupation of the West Bank.

I'm not sure what point Eric imagines himself to be making - there's a big difference between posting a link to an article that people might like to read to inform themselves more, and cutting and pasting big chunks of text, passing it off as your own work, in an attempt to bludgeon people into submission. I can only assume you don't like what I was saying, but are unable or unwilling to tackle the argument so you resort to meaningless nit-picking instead

by Mirza Sat Sep 29, 2007 09:01

READ!

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html