[OAW]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Race == skin color? If the KKK were to wear shoe polish when they lynch people, would it not be racism because they would be "black people" in some sense of the term?

Some white guy painting his face makes him "black" in some sense of the term? Surely you jest?

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Pretty much. There's no other basis besides appearance for the concept of races. Genetically, we're all one race.

Exactly. "Race" has no biological basis. At best, it's a social construct rooted primarily, but not exclusively in skin color. Ancestry also plays a role of course. My point on the pictures I posted on the Darfur situation is that one would be hard pressed to distinguish the parties involved on a "racial" basis in the colloquial sense of the term. IOW, none of them would want to get caught slipping at a Klan rally!

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

If you want to say "The [Arab nations] were handed [land for] a state... and it was their unwillingness to compromise that cost them their state." then I would agree completely. in 1948 when the Arab states surrounding Israel had a chance to form the state of Palestine they chose not to and chose war instead. Absolutely correct. But it is completely false to say the Palestinian people made this choice. They were never given a chance to decide for themselves due to the attack on Israel by their Arab neighbors.

It's this insistence by some to use the terms Palestinian and Arab synonymously that leads to the most ridiculous arguments. Like Big Mac talking this foolishness ....

Originally Posted by Big Mac

The Arabs already have far more than their fair share. They already have multiple sovereign states extending over most all of Eretz Yisrael. They have 22 sovereign Arabs states in total, and thirty more (give or take) which are predominately Islamic. There is only one Jewish state on a tiny portion of our land, and that is too much for people like you (dcmacdaddy, OAW) to bear.

I mean seriously. WTF does "22 sovereign Arab states" have to do with the price of tea in China? The issue isn't about the other 22 sovereign Arab states. It's about Palestine! If the Chinese decided to "partition" a big chunk of Ethiopia and setup a homeland there for the Tibetans ... it's not a big stretch to think that the Ethiopians living there would have major problem with that. And somehow I don't think a "the Africans have 53 sovereign countries, there is only one Tibetan state" argument will hold much water. As if the Nigerians having their own country makes the dispossession of Ethiopians OK because they are fellow Africans. That's about the dumbest sh*t I've heard in this entire thread.

OAW

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

If you want to say "The [Arab nations] were handed [land for] a state... and it was their unwillingness to compromise that cost them their state." then I would agree completely. in 1948 when the Arab states surrounding Israel had a chance to form the state of Palestine they chose not to and chose war instead. Absolutely correct. But it is completely false to say the Palestinian people made this choice. They were never given a chance to decide for themselves due to the attack on Israel by their Arab neighbors.

It was not a 'chance' for anyone to give them, but a 'chance' for them to take.... and they failed. And that is not anyone else's fault.

They've been sulking about it for 60 years while more chances have been passing them by.... who's fault is that ?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Some white guy painting his face makes him "black" in some sense of the term? Surely you jest?

OAW

Shoe polish does make you black — like, if you look at the skin of somebody wearing shoe polish, you will see black. Try it if you don't believe me. That's my point: Saying, "Well, they both look dark to me" is a pretty lousy way to determine race.

[Hawkeye_a]

As a person who took several Anthropology classes in University..... if i remember correctly 'race' is not just about color, nor 'ethnicity', nor 'religion'. it's anything that a group of people can claim as their unique identity. hence the Gales(?) and Saxons although both 'white' were considered to be 'racially' different.

There is a 'racial' difference between Ethnic Africans and Arab Africans. i think it has to do with biology. Read up on it if you're interested in the technicalities.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by OAW 

It's this insistence by some to use the terms Palestinian and Arab synonymously that leads to the most ridiculous arguments.

'Arabs' are the people who live on the Arabian Peninsular, and Palestinian are not. They happen to share the same ideology.... Islam.

They were/are united against a state in the region which does not share said ideology.

That isn't racist now is it ? Of course not</end sarcasm>

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

'Arabs' are the people who live on the Arabian Peninsular, and Palestinian are not. They happen to share the same ideology.... Islam.

They were/are united against a state in the region which does not share said ideology.

That isn't racist now is it ? Of course not</end sarcasm>

Wooooooooow! Let me dispense with this briefly.

1. Arabs originated on the Arabian Peninsula, but have migrated far and wide from there. See the Arab League for a list of countries.

2. Most Arabs are Muslims, but not all. This is especially true among Palestinians which has a significant Christian minority as well as much smaller communities of Druze, Jews, and Samaritans.

Sarcasm or not, what you said is just ... off.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

As a person who took several Anthropology classes in University..... if i remember correctly 'race' is not just about color, nor 'ethnicity', nor 'religion'. it's anything that a group of people can claim as their unique identity. hence the Gales(?) and Saxons although both 'white' were considered to be 'racially' different.

There is a 'racial' difference between Ethnic Africans and Arab Africans. i think it has to do with biology. Read up on it if you're interested in the technicalities.

Believe me I have read up on it. And the bottom line is that race is a nebulous concept. At best.

"Race" in the so-called scientific, anthropological sense generally refers to the categorization of humans on the basis of various sets of heritable characteristics. These are most often skin color, cranial/facial features and hair texture.

The 20th century racial classification by American anthropologist Carleton S. Coon, divided humanity into five races:

- Caucasoid (green)
- Negroid (yellow]
- Capoid (pink]
- Mongoloid (blue]
- Australoid (orange]

This classification system shows the origins of these "races" in the following regions of the world.



Source

And it's still used to this day. Just check a U.S. census form which defines "Caucasian" as anyone descending from the indigenous populations of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. Yet this North African claim includes Sudan (ancient Nubia) so according to this definition Omar Hassan al-Bashir is "Caucasian".



Yet this flies in the face of the colloquial use and understanding of the term "race" and "caucasian" because we all know the latter is typically used in reference to white people. And clearly Mr. Bashir, nor any of the other people in the pictures I posted regarding Darfur, are white or even fair-skinned. By any stretch of the imagination. And then if one starts to use the term even more loosely as you suggest and base it on self-identification .... well then things become even more muddled. The example you gave being one example. Another would be the Yoruba and Hausa of Nigeria. Are they different "races" because they are distinct ethnic groups? If you lined up 20 people from each group randomly, would you be able to distinguish them by "race"?

So just so we are clear, when I use the term "race" I use it in the colloquial sense. This is because that's how the typical person is going to interpret it when they hear/read the word. And in this sense I stand by my assertion that the Darfur situation is not a "racial" conflict. The participants are black people on all sides. Even in the so-called scientific anthropological sense it's not a "racial" conflict. Because according to that foolishness the conflict is among "Caucasians" on all sides. Again, the differences are "ethnic" (or tribal). I use that term specifically because it's clearer and more definitive. It's best to avoid using the terms "race" and "ethnicity" synonymously. Just as it's best to avoid using the terms "Palestinian" and "Arab" synonymously.

OAW

[Hawkeye_a]

Ah good. So referencing the original post, where the Arabs/Muslims are trying to equate Zionism with racism, etc... and the theories you have presented above. it is also technically impossible for Israel to be considered 'racist'.

Cheers

[Big Mac]

Anyone who calls Israel a racist country is either a biased hater of Israel or expressly ignorant of the truth on the ground. I'm sure most of the leftists who parrot that Arabist claim have never once set foot in the country to see the myriad of races living there. It's probably one of the most diverse countries on earth with regard to race. And I doubt such people have any understanding of how inclusive Israel is of its Arab minority and the extreme lengths to which Israel goes to coddle and not offend the Arab population.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Actually I did address this, though only partially. I haven't said anything about the original partition plan in 1947 in this thread. At least not directly. Certainly I think it was a bad idea. This entire clusterf*ck came about due to European, primarily British, meddling.

Not really. The area has been controlled by foreign interests for a long time. Romans, Ottomans, Turks, British/French, British. Blaming it on the British alone is pretty inexact.

In fact, there was no national identity in that area as recently as 1936. Arabs from the area at that time described themselves as Southern Syrians, not Palestinians. They had described themselves this way for decades upon decades.

Source

So we have a plan designed to cater to the interests of the British that called for the establishment of a new state controlled by foreigners ... without the consent of the native population! And you wonder why there was conflict? You really expected the Palestinians to just accept that because outsiders made an agreement regarding the land that they lived on without their input? And you say it like someone was doing the Palestinians a favor! Like they were supposed to accept the establishment of a state controlled by foreigners on their land! If the UN decided to establish a state in Iowa controlled by immigrant Chinese I daresay the Iowans who live there would naturally have a problem with that.

You need to realize that this was not something just sprung on residents overnight. Since the 1850s, Jewish communities in the land had been growing and buying up land and talking about establishing larger communities and then areas of autonomy and then a state. It wasn't "controlled by foreigners," it was proposed to be controlled by people living in these communities which had been there for centuries.

There were partition plans discussed before 1947. The one discussed with Arabs in Palestine in 1937 was nearly identical to the one discussed in 1947.

This was a long time in the making. No one can say they didn't know, or had no say.

In 1948 when the war came, Israel encouraged the Arab residents to stay and be a part of the country. The surrounding Arab nations encouraged them to leave, on the basis that they could avoid the war, the Arab nations would wipe out the Jews, and Arab residents could return to their homes. It didn't exactly work out this way.

Instead, the Arab residents in large numbers took the advice of the Arab nations who were preparing to attack, fled to those nations as refugees. After the war, if they were unable to return to their homes as the Arab nations promised, they should have been taken in by those Arab nations and granted citizenship. Instead, the Arab nations rejected this and preserved them in refugee status. See: Lebanon for examples. Classically, the definition of refugee is one where the parent who flees is a refugee, but their offspring are citizens wherever the refugee has taken refuge. In this one case in the world, the UN created a new and separate definition of refugee that applies only to Palestinians, that preserves offspring and offspring of that offspring in refugee status, in perpetuity - rather than resolving the problem as the definition for the rest of the world does.

Each of the four times that Israel has offered to partition itself, already a partitioned land, the offer has gotten smaller. Each time, Palestinians or surrounding Arab nations have launched and lost a war.

On every occasion, land for peace has meant in reality giving up land and getting no peace in return.

Why does it make any sense at all to revert to the dangerous and weak position that the 1967 borders represent?

Having said all that, at this stage in the game I suggest Israel agree to the 1967 borders. Completely. That will leave them with substantially more than what the 1947 partition called for. And it would give the Palestinians a viable state as well.

Actually, it would give rise to calls for a return to 1946 borders. After a few years of such calls, I have no reason to believe that you wouldn't start advocating for such a return.

Or ......

They can keep on doing what they've been doing and keep getting what they've always got.

OAW

Arab nations and self-described Palestinians could also take that message to heart. They can keep on launching wars/suicide attacks/missiles aimed at pre-schools, keep on insisting on the eradication of Israel (by violence says Hamas, by stages says Fatah) and keep on getting what they've always got (lost wars, counter-offensives and deterrents like destruction of the suicide-bomber's home) or...

Or...

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Ah good. So referencing the original post, where the Arabs/Muslims are trying to equate Zionism with racism, etc... and the theories you have presented above. it is also technically impossible for Israel to be considered 'racist'.

Absolutely correct. I am not arguing Israeli government policy is racist towards those in the Palestinian territories. The Israelis and the Palestinians, and Israel's Arab neighbors, are all part of the same Semitic grouping as defined by anthropologists and linguists. It's you folks arguing Jewish people are somehow different and special and entitled to a homeland based on the teachings of a religious text that are trying to separate yourselves from your Semitic brothers in the Arab community.


Listen, I understand your concern about wanting a "safe haven" for Jewish people. But if you are going to advocate this safe haven approach as a premise for Israel's existence you need to understand that dispossessing a people from their land to make way for a new land is creating a safe haven for one Semitic group at the expense of endangering another Semitic group. I am all for Israel having all of the land in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. But you need to advocate for it to be gained the only way possible, by force.* Israel needs to invade the Palestinian territories and forcibly remove all those residents into other countries and claim a united, whole Eretz Yisrael for itself. I would totally support such an approach as it would decide who has ownership over that land. So, instead of arguing that Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and West Bank need to start accepting their status as semi-independent actors struggling for sovereignty, I would like to see you advocate for a complete and whole Israel via the surest means possible in the history of humanity for settling territorial complaints, war. If you and Big Mac and vmarks and others were to come out and advocate for total war against the Palestinians so as to remove them from the Gaza Strip and West Bank, I would support you 100%. But as long as you continue to advocate for a plan whereby Palestinians are kept marginalised and not allowed the sovereignty of an independent nation, I will continue to oppose all your arguments. If you want Israel to be whole and at peace, force the peace upon the enemies of Israel.



*To his credit, ebuddy is the only person on here that has ever advocated for Israel's right to existence apart from some historic religious basis or sense of entitlement for sufferings endured by Jews in the Holocaust. He has consistently argued the "might makes right" approach in that Israel fought wars to defend itself and claim land and because it was victorious in those battles Israel has the right, through their might, to own the land that comprises their country. I would like to see others of you among the pro-Israel camp adopt a similar approach to justify Israel's right to exist. It will be much more palatable than the notion of divine right or compensation for suffering.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Listen, I understand your concern about wanting a "safe haven" for Jewish people. But if you are going to advocate this safe haven approach as a premise for Israel's existence you need to understand that dispossessing a people from their land to make way for a new land is creating a safe haven for one Semitic group at the expense of endangering another Semitic group. I am all for Israel having all of the land in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. But you need to advocate for it to be gained the only way possible, by force.* Israel needs to invade the Palestinian territories and forcibly remove all those residents into other countries and claim a united, whole Eretz Yisrael for itself. I would totally support such an approach as it would decide who has ownership over that land. So, instead of arguing that Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and West Bank need to start accepting their status as semi-independent actors struggling for sovereignty, I would like to see you advocate for a complete and whole Israel via the surest means possible in the history of humanity for settling territorial complaints, war. If you and Big Mac and vmarks and others were to come out and advocate for total war against the Palestinians so as to remove them from the Gaza Strip and West Bank, I would support you 100%. But as long as you continue to advocate for a plan whereby Palestinians are kept marginalised and not allowed the sovereignty of an independent nation, I will continue to oppose all your arguments. If you want Israel to be whole and at peace, force the peace upon the enemies of Israel.

In the broad strokes, I agree with you. However, as vmarks just illustrated in his last post, the goal of Zionism is not a Jew-only state, or an Arab-free state. The desire is for a legitimate, recognized, safe state, ideally coexisting peacefully with Arabs and Muslims both internally and externally. It was only the aggression and zealotry of the neighboring states (which we can generally classify as Muslim) that prevented this from happening in the first place, and which created this whole Palestinian mess.

Unfortunately the rest of the world, and therefore the UN, has contra-factually taken the side of the 'benighted' Palestinians. And as much as I don't believe that we do or should rely on the UN or international opinion for legitimacy, the political situation is such that taking Gaza and the West Bank by force would very likely put Israel at even greater risk and only increase the number and power of her enemies.

[Hawkeye_a]

dcmacdaddy,
The reason i support Israel is not JUST because i support the idea of a 'safe haven' for Jews. Personally i think, their determination to have one is all the reason required to have one. Looking at post WW2 history, when so many nations were forged, there tended to be blood loss across the board. India-Pakistan for example, which seemed to be kinda similar (dividing a british colony).

One of the reasons i support Israel is because just looking at the area they ended up with in 1947, was so much smaller than what was originally promised, yet they accepted it. it was compromise, and in situations like this... i think, it's those who make compromises who are in favor of peace. And despite those compromises, the other side was unable to live with it.... and still is. imo.

IMO, all those wars started with the intent of "pushing the Jews into the sea" or "wiping Israel off the map", etc... were all the more reason for Israel to have more of the land, because they won a defensive war. ie... start a war.. loose a war... face the consequences.

I believe what's going on in Darfur is ethnic cleansing, just as what the Turks did to the Armenians was ethnic cleansing, just as what happened in the Balkans in the 90s, just as what the Nazis did, Just as what the Arabs did in Lebanon/Jordan to the Christian minorities, and if anything... i think the way the Arab/Muslim nations regard Israel (and Jews) is racist. Which is pretty ironic since they want the world to perceive it the other way around.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Ah good. So referencing the original post, where the Arabs/Muslims are trying to equate Zionism with racism, etc... and the theories you have presented above. it is also technically impossible for Israel to be considered 'racist'.

Cheers

Well if we are being "technical", then the question about whether "Zionism = Racism" and the question of whether "Israel is a racist country" are two different things.

As I said in my first post in this thread, I don't believe it is accurate to equate Zionism with Racism. And I gave my reasons. Having said that, I understand why some do it. Zionism is primarily a European phenomenon.

The modern movement was mainly founded by secular Jews, beginning largely as a response by European Jewry to antisemitism across Europe.[4] It is a branch of the broader phenomenon of modern nationalism.[5] Initially one of several Jewish political movements offering alternative responses to assimilation and the position of Jews in Europe, Zionism grew rapidly and after the Holocaust became the dominant power among Jewish political movements.

Source

So you have a situation where Ashkenazi Jews .... who, to be blunt, are perceived by many as "white people with a different religion" .... are dispossessing people of color from their land. So in the minds of many it is yet another example of European colonialism. Whites colonized Africa. Whites colonized Asia. Whites colonized the Americas. And for many the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is perceived as "Whites colonizing Palestine". The fact that in this instance the whites doing the "colonizing" are primarily Jewish instead of Christian is immaterial. Take a look at a picture of Benjamin Netenyahu .....



... and this picture of Palestinian refugees .....



... and it should be quite apparent why many people perceive the conflict to have racial elements.

As for the second issue as to whether or not Israel is a racist country, well let's just say that I disagree with Big Mac's assertion that merely being a diverse country with a "myriad of races living there" automatically precludes a country from being racist. The USA has always been a diverse country from the very beginning, yet it has a long and sordid history of racism. As do many other countries around the globe. As I mentioned in my original post, racism is a worldwide phenomenon. And we have yet to see it not rear its ugly head to one degree or another in any modern country controlled by whites that has a significant level of racial diversity. So I would argue that Israel is no exception. Arabs and non-European Jews routinely complain of discrimination and second-class treatment in Israeli society.

So like I said before, is Israeli society stratified along racial lines? I'd say yes. Does Zionism equate to Racism? I'd say no.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Not really. The area has been controlled by foreign interests for a long time. Romans, Ottomans, Turks, British/French, British. Blaming it on the British alone is pretty inexact.

True. And I've stated that myself. But I suppose I was speaking of the 1947 Partition plan and the events that directly led up to it. And in that light I think the British policies directly led to the Israeli/Palestinian and greater Israeli/Arab conflict. Even though the area has been under foreign rule for centuries (today being no exception in the minds of many) the level of enmity between Arabs and Jews in the region was nowhere near the level that it is today.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

In fact, there was no national identity in that area as recently as 1936. Arabs from the area at that time described themselves as Southern Syrians, not Palestinians. They had described themselves this way for decades upon decades.

Again, what the Palestinians called themselves or whether or not there was a nation-state called Palestine is immaterial. The issue is about the land. And the dispossession of the native population. The people who already lived there could have called themselves the "Kenenaba" people and it wouldn't change a thing. The conflict would still exist.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Why does it make any sense at all to revert to the dangerous and weak position that the 1967 borders represent?

It must not have been too much of a "dangerous and weak position". The Israeli army mopped the floor with the armies of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. In 6 days.

And now the Israeli army is even more advanced. The most advanced in the Middle East. Not to mention its nuclear deterrent.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Arab nations and self-described Palestinians could also take that message to heart. They can keep on launching wars/suicide attacks/missiles aimed at pre-schools, keep on insisting on the eradication of Israel (by violence says Hamas, by stages says Fatah) and keep on getting what they've always got (lost wars, counter-offensives and deterrents like destruction of the suicide-bomber's home) or...

Or...

Indeed. IMO both sides need to get it together. Regardless of whether the creation of an Israeli state on Palestinian land was right or wrong, it is a fait d' accompli at this stage in the game. Israel is not going anywhere. At the same time, the Palestinians are not going to all pack up and move to other Arab countries. Whether or not these countries should grant their Palestinian refugees citizenship status doesn't matter. The Palestinians are not going to abandon their desire for statehood. And they are not going to stop resisting occupation, by violent means or otherwise.

This chicken vs. the egg sh*t has got to stop! One side saying, "We are not going to end the occupation until you stop the violence." The other side saying, "We are not going to stop the violence until you end the occupation." So again, the options seem to be ...

1. Do as dcmacdaddy said, and have the balls to admit the goal is a Greater Israel. Take the occupied territories by force and deport all the Palestinians. And suffer the wrath and isolation from the international community.

2. Annex the Gaza and the West Bank as a one-state solution. Grant all residents Israeli citizenship and equal status.

3. Withdraw completely to the 1967 borders, which the Palestinian Authority, the Arab League, even Hamas has publicly stated they will accept ... and implement a two-state solution.

I mean jeez .... pick one already! In the long run it will save a lot of lives, both Israeli and Palestinian.

Or ..... persist with the current foolishness for another 60+ years and see how that turns out.

OAW

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

It was only the aggression and zealotry of the neighboring states (which we can generally classify as Muslim) that prevented this from happening in the first place, and which created this whole Palestinian mess.

No, it was the zealotry of both sides that led to this conflict. Zionism and arab nationalism back then had their fair share, you just need to read the writings and words of Begin, Gurion, Shamir... and similar figures among the arabs of that time. It's like two trains running on the same rails from opposite sides and opposite directions.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

In 1948 when the war came, Israel encouraged the Arab residents to stay and be a part of the country. The surrounding Arab nations encouraged them to leave, on the basis that they could avoid the war, the Arab nations would wipe out the Jews, and Arab residents could return to their homes. It didn't exactly work out this way.

It's strange to see otherwise intelligent and sensible people sticking to already debunked versions of history.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I am all for Israel having all of the land in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. But you need to advocate for it to be gained the only way possible, by force.* Israel needs to invade the Palestinian territories and forcibly remove all those residents into other countries and claim a united, whole Eretz Yisrael for itself. I would totally support such an approach as it would decide who has ownership over that land.

This approach to territory is pretty much outdated since ww1 and espescially ww2. Japan and Germany were condemned and made war on espescially because of their expansion-policies, didn't Iraq's adventure into Kuwait led to a condemnation and subsequent military onslaught and a sanction-regime, wasn't Serbia's expansion-dreams stopped militarily by the Nato..?

Israel though won't have to worry about receiving the same treatment as Iraq or Serbia because it is allied with the US, the leader of the Nato and a veto-power in the UN-SC.

Sudan pretty much has a similar protection through China, and all the UN-SC-members protect themselves and are at the same time the biggest weapon-traders in the world.

The only suggestion to improve the situation I have is to strip the UN-SC-members off their veto-rights.

Taliesin

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

It's strange to see otherwise intelligent and sensible people sticking to already debunked versions of history.

Only if you buy Arab propaganda. The same Arab propaganda that claims that there are no ancient synagogues or other places holy to Jews throughout the land of Israel.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Do you think the other Zionism-focused Op-Ed published in yesterday's paper will be equally "instructive and relevant"?
Zionism is the problem - Los Angeles Times

Not really. Mostly, it's important to talk about because it's mis-informed.

He cites Rosenwald. Rosenwald advocated a position that kept Jews seeking refuge from Hitler in harms way, by turning them back to Germany to die. He advocated staying out of WWII, which prolonged death in practice.

He did an about-face on some of this, by acting to accept refugees in 1943, but he never really renounced his earlier positions.

"Rosenwald was the best known Jewish supporter of the America First Committee, which advocated American neutrality in World War II before the attack on Pearl Harbor, and was led by his successor at Sears-Roebuck and lifelong friend Robert E. Wood. He resigned from the committee's board in December 1940 over concerns about anti-Semitism, but stated that he remained "fully in accord with the Committee's objectives".

In 1943, Rosenwald accepted the invitation to become President of the American Council for Judaism, an association of anti-Zionist Reform Jews, a position he held until 1955; after that he remained Chairman of the Board. During this time, Rosenwald was also active in rescue efforts of European Jews, and urged the United States to admit large numbers of refugees, both Jew and Gentile." - wikipedia on Rosenwald. Other sources concur.

Then the author of the op-ed goes on to site Ultra-Orthodox opposition to Israel on the basis of 'forcing G-d's hand' - This would be true, if the state of Israel were founded as a Kingdom of Israel, which the Torah speaks of. Instead, it's a state, which is an entirely different sort of entity, and not forcing G-d's hand. Also, it's important to note that the Ultra-Orthodox he refers to are the Neturei Karta, a tiny minority of ultra-Orthodox who consistently side with Israel's enemies (Arafat, Ahmadinejad, and more) while a number of them practice the hypocrisy of living within Israel's borders.

Next, the author cites his Marxist Jewish parents. Marxists pretty much disregard or disdain religion, Marxism first, religion a distant second or third. Of course creating a safe haven for Jews meant little to them. Creating a safe haven for Labour might have gotten their allegiance, I speculate.

from the op-ed
"To be Jewish, I was raised to believe, meant understanding oneself as a member of a tribe that over and over had been cast out, mistreated, slaughtered."

Correct so far. He continues,
"Millenniums of oppression that preceded it did not entitle us to a homeland or a right to self-defense that superseded anyone else's."

Also true, as far as it goes. It fails in that everyone has the right of self-determination and self-defense, regardless of oppression.

The Jewish communities in pre-state Israel were beset by oppression, harrassment, and massacre of Jews. The British witnessed and testified to that which was committed against hundreds of years old Jewish communities - see http://www.zionism-israel.com/Hebron_Massacre1929.htm - and if you don't like the site, there are many others that also document these brutalities.

The Jewish communities had a right to defend themselves from these attacks. They had a right to self-determination, to remain in existence, and govern their future. In the face of these attacks, banding together was one way to guarantee that future and defense.

The author says it is impossible to cry out against the tenets of Zionism on which the state is founded. I say that it is impossible to decry those tenets without espousing hatred. As the other op-ed posited, it is hatred to say that every other people on the planet possess the right of self-determination and self-defense but Israel must be denied it.

Those rights are not denied to the self-described Palestinians. Israel supplies arms to the PA defense forces. Those arms are then used against Israel. Israel has offered repeatedly to aid in the creation of a Palestinian state, and each time been met with refusal either stated or in actions.

This isn't the only context in which Palestinians have attempted to take a state and failed. The Black September refers to an attempt by Arafat to take over the Kingdom of Jordan. King Hussein originally offered refuge to the Palestinians under Arafat provided he not try and act like a state-within-a-state by luring Jordanians to his military. Arafat responded by doing just that, by issuing his own driver's licenses, license plates, and a whole number of other state functions. Hussein went to war with Arafat and Arafat ended up fleeing to Lebanon dressed as a woman. And 3000 self-described Palestinians died in the process.

The author of the op-ed writes: "Founding a modern state on a single ethnic or religious identity in a territory that is ethnically and religiously diverse leads inexorably either to politics of exclusion (think of the 139-square-mile prison camp that Gaza has become) or to wholesale ethnic cleansing. Put simply, the problem is Zionism."

Again, fails on facts. Jews lived in Gaza and employed self-described Palestinians to work in the greenhouses that provided Gaza with a thriving agriculture business. Israel made the very painful decision to make Gaza Jew-free or Judenrein by military force. This left Gaza as a place totally occupied by Palestinians, under the charge of the PA. It is not a prison. The problem is, Israel controls its borders and Egypt controls theirs. Hamas as leader of the PA has tried to break down those borders. Are we saying that countries surrounding have no right to control their borders, especially with a proven violent population on the other side?

Let the PA declare a state within Gaza and open negotiations under that premise. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from doing so at this moment. They may wish to avoid this because it has huge responsibilities attached to it that they don't wish to assume. They may wish to avoid doing so because they feel it will negate any bargaining over other lands they wish to control. But the fact of the matter outside of my speculation is that they have chosen to not declare themselves a state over territory over which they are the absolute authority.

I had a professor in university who had met many times with Buber and discussed with him the holistic inclusive I-Thou relationship. That this author names Buber to say that Buber was anti-Zionist is unfortunate. Buber was inclusive. Buber's friends were Zionists. Buber had hopes for utopia, and wanted Israel to establish diplomatic relations and trade with other nations in the area - his hope was that Israel would be more than just a nationalist venture. There's nothing wrong with hope, or working towards that ideal, that puts it in contradiction with Zionism. Remember, Zionism is simply the name for creating a state that is a safe haven for Jews. It doesn't exclude anyone else by definition.

The author quotes Buber: "The establishment of a Jewish state, Buber feared, would mean "premeditated national suicide."" - but doesn't offer any citation. Googling 'buber premeditated national suicide' gives two pages of links quoting the author of the op-ed and one wikipedia article on a one-state solution saying that this quote requires a citation. I'm afraid I have to doubt the author's use of the quote.

The editorial author says facts on the ground have reduced the possibility of a two-state solution. " Israel's new prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has even refused to endorse the idea of an independent Palestinian state, which suggests an immediate future of more of the same: more settlements, more punitive assaults." This is not certain. Netanyahu has shifted gears before. He was for the forced removal of all Jews from Gaza until it was nearly completed and only then did he make the political gesture of saying that he was only then against it. Netanyahu, after all, signed the Wye accords with the PA.

The author of the op-ed suggests that anti-Zionism is not hateful. I'm not surprised, he's positioned himself as anti-Zionist. He's in error - it intentionally denies a right to one people that he wishes to grant to another. If that isn't discriminatory, what is? Mind you I don't have a problem with discrimination on its own (I discriminate against all women of the world when I go home to my wife every night) - but I do have a problem with the author's discrimination based on a people who wish to associate in a society that protects them.

He says we need to take our values seriously. My values are equality, self-determination, freedom, and property rights. Israel has those. The PA abhors those internally, and refuses to exercise them as an authority. It's pretty much a tyranny with a fetish for voting. I don't support tyrannies.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

The only suggestion to improve the situation I have is to strip the UN-SC-members off their veto-rights.

When trade in natural resources(ie: oil) is not used to influence the votes, that suggestion can actually be taken seriously. imo.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by OAW 

So like I said before, is Israeli society stratified along racial lines? I'd say yes. Does Zionism equate to Racism? I'd say no.

OAW

Given your lengthy post about "races" and "racism", and that map you provided, you state that the Darfur conflict is not racially motivated. but then you contradict your own 'proof' of that by calling Israel racist ? "Technically", by your assertions, European and the Arabs in the vicinity of Israel are the same 'race', so why again is this a 'racial' issue and Sudan not, to you ? is it merely your 'perception' of the issue ?

I'm sure Israel, like any nation, has some 'racial' issues..... so is it fair for the Arabs to want to single out Zionism and Israel ? it seems to me that while they point a finger towards Israel, there are a heck of a lot more fingers pointing towards them for being even 'more racist'.

On the latter issue of free speech and 'blasphemy'...
Why are the Arabs so afraid of free speech, political/religious/cultural ? do they fear that the pillars of their societies cannot stand up against open criticism ? and thus feel the need to stifle criticism from both outside and inside their communities ?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

The state of Palestine was never established, and the Palestinian peoples in the British mandate were never given the chance to establish a state of Palestine due to the Arab countries attacking Israel.

Okay great, so basically attacking Israel was a really dumb idea, and the Arab countries that did so are responsible for the Palestinians not getting to establish a state. So let me guess... this is Israel's fault?

How much Palestinian anger is directed toward those that cost them having a state- Arab countries! And how the hell do you blame Israel for that?

If you want to say "The [Arab nations] were handed [land for] a state... and it was their unwillingness to compromise that cost them their state." then I would agree completely. in 1948 when the Arab states surrounding Israel had a chance to form the state of Palestine they chose not to and chose war instead. Absolutely correct. But it is completely false to say the Palestinian people made this choice. They were never given a chance to decide for themselves due to the attack on Israel by their Arab neighbors.

Great fine- it's a total Red Herring to say I've ever said it was only the fault of the Palestinian people. Read any debate I've ever taken part of in this subject, and you'll see that I've said essentially what you're saying above. The only difference is, I don't do quite what you're doing and act like the Palestinians were all just innocent bystanders in the attacks against Israel, and the subsequent loss of their own chance for statehood. But the facts remain, even as you've pointed out- the real blame is on the actions of the Arab nations, NOT Israel.

As I put it the last time this came up, the Palestinians were shown two doors- the first piled high with **** -with leaders of the other Arab nations grinning from behind it- and the second piled with gold. There weren't even any curtains. Unfortunately, they chose (and continue to choose) the first door- and that choice, whether you want to try and sweep it under the rug or not, is that collectively they chose allegiance to the Arab powers, and the huge pile of ****- over the chance at statehood. It's been pretty clear, that hatred of Israel has been a much greater priority than having their own state that co-exists peacefully with Israel.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

So we have a plan designed to cater to the interests of the British that called for the establishment of a new state controlled by foreigners ... without the consent of the native population! And you wonder why there was conflict?

I don't even know where to start with this- you're muddling way too many things together. First off, nearly 80% of the entirety of the original 'Palestine' became Jordan. This is another fact often swept under the rug by your side- Arabs were given well over half of the original land that was Palestine.

The UN partitions of the REMAINING land, weren't to be under the control of foreigners- the British were trying to wash their hands of the whole thing and leave. Had the Palestinians accepted what they were given -and that they WOULD have governed had they and their Arab neighbors not attacked Israel instead (dcmacdaddy at least addressed this fact, why can't you?) then something like 88% of the original Palestine (Jordan, plus the original UN-drawn borders of Palestine) would have been in under Muslim control. That Jews would have had a homeland in less than 20% of the original mandate should not have been any big deal, and for rational people it never would have been.

You really expected the Palestinians to just accept that because outsiders made an agreement regarding the land that they lived on without their input? And you say it like someone was doing the Palestinians a favor!

Once again, when the choices were: have your own state and Muslim control of over 80% of the original Palestine, OR... side with your Arab neighbors and attack Israel for getting less than 20% of the original Palestine, live in squalor, literally be canon fodder and used as pawns to fight an endless idiotic attack against Israel (IE: the big pile of steaming ****!)...

You really think it was more rational to have made that choice?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Once again, when the choices were: have your own state and Muslim control of over 80% of the original Palestine, OR... side with your Arab neighbors and attack Israel for getting less than 20% of the original Palestine, live in squalor, literally be canon fodder and used as pawns to fight an endless idiotic attack against Israel (IE: the big pile of steaming ****!)...

You really think it was more rational to have made that choice?

Actually back then it was the more rational choice: Part of the palestinians lived in the area that were decided by colonial forces to become the state of Israel, and they were supposed to live as a minority in Israel, a 45% minority, while jews were 55% of the population with millions of jews still outside of Israel granted and offered free access and citizenship, thus opening up the potential for these palestinians to become a 20% or a 10%-minority in the middle-term.

Additionally the zionist movement made it back then pretty clear in their writings and sayings that the establishment of Israel according to the UN-partition-plan was merely a first phase and that they seeked to establish Greater Israel with force after Israel became a state and strengthened its population and army.

In order to secure the palestinians' rights and to prevent a future threat of an Israel expanding in its ambition to create Greater Israel, as their zionist thinkers envisioned, it was a very rational decision to attack, espescially after the zionists declared the foundation of Israel before the UN-time-plan allowed it, and thus underlining that the zionists respected the UN only as long as it served their interests.

The reasons why the arabs failed in defeating the zionist forces were multifold:
- Their forces weren't as trained and motivated as those of the zionists, that were trained by the British colonialists.
- Lack of proper funding.
- Lack of good coordination and communication... and:

The only force that were trained and credibly equipped at that time was the jordanian army, led by a british officer. But Jordan and the zionist regime in Palestine made a deal beforehand, to the effect that Israel and Jordan would use the inevitable war to gain more territory for themselves, with Jordan gaining East-Jerusalem and the Westbank and Israel West-Jerusalem and everything west of it.

Taliesin

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Actually back then it was the more rational choice: Part of the palestinians lived in the area that were decided by colonial forces to become the state of Israel, and they were supposed to live as a minority in Israel, a 45% minority, while jews were 55% of the population with millions of jews still outside of Israel granted and offered free access and citizenship, thus opening up the potential for these palestinians to become a 20% or a 10%-minority in the middle-term.

First off, thanks for your honesty in addressing the fact that it was (and continues to be) a choice.

But clearly we'll continue to disagree that it was a logical choice. So rather than have your own state (where you ARE the majority) and also be a minority in another state, you reject having your own state, and attack the other, lose, end up in squalor- all the while allowing Arab nations and terrorist groups to use you as pawns in their hatred of Israel. (Take note: you can't float the same minority argument in rationalizing away why the other Arab nations attacked Israel).

Sorry, but that's just a crap choice to have made. It would always have been better for the Palestinians to have accepted a state of their own, and then work on (in a RATIONAL way, therefore with the ability to garner support from the rest of the world) their differences with Israel from there.

In order to secure the palestinians' rights and to prevent a future threat of an Israel expanding in its ambition to create Greater Israel, as their zionist thinkers envisioned, it was a very rational decision to attack, espescially after the zionists declared the foundation of Israel before the UN-time-plan allowed it, and thus underlining that the zionists respected the UN only as long as it served their interests.

This is simply amazing rationalization of a really bad idea.
So in a nutshell- in order to prevent zionists from expanding- and citing a disrespect for the UN to boot- the Arab world attacks Israel- seeking to EXPAND itself!- and all of course with the total blessing of the UN I'm sure!

That's just amazing.

So basically, if you suspect the zionists are going to do something, then it's okay to do EXACTLY THAT yourself, and then cite "well they MIGHT have done it!" as your excuse.

Wow. Just wow.

Almost in a nutshell you've illustrated why this conflict will never end. Seriously, your side of this will justify ANYTHING -even the most illogical stuff- simply because the Arab side sees it as beneficial to them. There's no hope for the conflict other than countless more deaths when this is the case, and that's the simple, sad truth of it.

The reasons why the arabs failed in defeating the zionist forces were multifold:

All of this aside, it does highlight another glaring irony, and problem with your side of this- in the earliest days, Isreal WASN'T by anyone's stretch of the imagination a threatening superpower that was guaranteed to win against the Arab states. It was a small, fledgling, relatively weak country in its infancy. The irony is, it was being attacked by the Arab states- right from birth- and the constant need to defend itself that's turned Israel into the superpower it is and has to be! So once again, the Arab side is the cause of it's own self-fulfilling problem- they bitch and whine about a superior armed Israel, when in fact, THEY MADE IT THAT WAY!

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Given your lengthy post about "races" and "racism", and that map you provided, you state that the Darfur conflict is not racially motivated. but then you contradict your own 'proof' of that by calling Israel racist ? "Technically", by your assertions, European and the Arabs in the vicinity of Israel are the same 'race', so why again is this a 'racial' issue and Sudan not, to you ? is it merely your 'perception' of the issue ?

Again, in my post I stated that when I use the term "race" I mean it in the colloquial sense because that is the way most people will interpret it. I also pointed out the utter absurdity of the supposedly "scientific" or anthropological sense of the term because by that definition President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan is "Caucasian" because he is indigenous to North Africa. So if you want to think that I contradicted myself by hanging your hat on a definition of the term that I was clearly discrediting then knock yourself out.

So let me make it even more plain for you. In Darfur, it is not a racial conflict in either the colloquial sense of the term or the BS anthropological sense of the term. In Israel/Palestine one could legitimately view the conflict (I'm not saying Zionism itself) as a racial conflict in the colloquial sense of the term. Moreover, the only way one could say it is not is to appeal to the nonsensical anthropological sense of the term.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

I'm sure Israel, like any nation, has some 'racial' issues..... so is it fair for the Arabs to want to single out Zionism and Israel ? it seems to me that while they point a finger towards Israel, there are a heck of a lot more fingers pointing towards them for being even 'more racist'.

Well I've made my position on whether or not Zionism = Racism known. As to your other point about "fairness" .... well that's the crux of the entire Israeli/Arab conflict n'est-ce pas? Is it fair for Arabs to single out Israel? Was it fair for Palestinians to be dispossessed of their land and property? Is it fair for Israel to use a modern army and air force to attack a lightly armed militia in a densely populated civilian area? Is it fair for Palestinian militias to launch rockets at civilian Israeli areas? I suspect the question of "fairness" in this conflict is one for the ages.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

On the latter issue of free speech and 'blasphemy'...
Why are the Arabs so afraid of free speech, political/religious/cultural ? do they fear that the pillars of their societies cannot stand up against open criticism ? and thus feel the need to stifle criticism from both outside and inside their communities ?

Honestly I can't speak much on this topic other than to say that this is the danger when people begin to believe that they have a corner on the market when it comes to understanding the nature of God. Which, if truth be told, is not a problem unique to Islam or the Arab world.

OAW

[Hawkeye_a]

I disagree with you on Darfur, completely. your definition of 'race' imo is incomplete. While they might 'look alike' to you, they see themselves and each other as in some way different, and that difference is leading to aggression on a large segment of the population. but thanks for making it 'plain' for me, now all you need to do is find out what makes the people in Darfur 'different' from others in Sudan, and call it whatever you want. I'll just agree to disagree with you on that.

On fairness, it is one for the ages if you choose to incorporate all those other questions, which can each be discussed to great lengths separately from the issues presented in this particular thread's original post. the question here is not the definition of fairness, but if it is fair for the Arab world, to single out Israel, the country with the largest muslim minority(i repeat) as being racist ?

OR

Comparing the Judeo-Christian world to the Arab/Muslim world of today (ie 2009), which one would you personally consider as being politically/culturally/socially more racist (the differentiator being religion) ? (Hint: an indicator would be things regarding freedom of speech, economic/financial laws, immigration trends, etc).

Also note, that if your answer is 'everyone is racist'. why then, should Israel be singled out ?

And yeah it is a danger when some believe they have a corner on the market when it comes to understanding God..... and truth be told every religion has probably done so. Unfortunately that does not excuse one from admitting that in our time, it happens to be one specific religion.

For example.... the Catholic Church(i am Catholic) has been known to have done some terrible things in the past. Yet today, as an example, when i turn on TV, i see a comic character of Jesus on South Park with another character spewing all sorts of anti-semitic rhetoric. And guess what.... it's funny. I see the DaVinci Code and see that although the Church does not condone the book, it does not issue 'fathwas' against the author or publishers. So, in the year 2009, when it comes to freedom of speech and openness to change(although conservative, it is still there), i think we are relatively eons ahead of the 'way of life' which is not only stuck in the past, but refusing to change.

One might chalk that up as a 'difference in culture', well my point is... that is the problem. And in 2009, one religion seems to be at the root of it.

Cheers

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The UN partitions of the REMAINING land, weren't to be under the control of foreigners- the British were trying to wash their hands of the whole thing and leave.

The foreigners I'm referring to were not the British. They were the European Ashkenazi Jews who were immigrating to Palestine. They are the ones who were viewed by the indigenous population as foreigners. And are to this day. That is the fundamental nature of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

OAW

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The foreigners I'm referring to were not the British. They were the European Ashkenazi Jews who were immigrating to Palestine. They are the ones who were viewed by the indigenous population as foreigners. And are to this day. That is the fundamental nature of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Racism on the part of the Palestinians?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

I disagree with you on Darfur, completely. your definition of 'race' imo is incomplete. While they might 'look alike' to you, they see themselves and each other as in some way different, and that difference is leading to aggression on a large segment of the population. but thanks for making it 'plain' for me, now all you need to do is find out what makes the people in Darfur 'different' from others in Sudan, and call it whatever you want. I'll just agree to disagree with you on that.

At this stage in the game it's apparent that the disagreement we have is rooted in semantics. I've already stated that I use the term "race" in the colloquial sense. I've also already stated that the participants in the Darfur conflict do see themselves as "different". I've even already stated that the fundamental reason for the conflict is water scarcity ... and the encroachment of nomadic, camel herding tribes onto the land occupied by farming tribes in search of this essential resource that has been severely limited by decades of drought. I already that these differences are ethnic (or tribal). Clearly there are differences. Those differences just aren't "racial" in nature.

For example, are the English, and the Scottish, and the Irish different "races"? Or are they different "ethnicities" or "tribes" within a larger racial group we commonly refer to as Caucasians or "white people"? Well I say it's the latter. And I daresay just about everyone else would as well. It is in that light that one should view the Abbala, and the Fur, and the Zaghawa people in Darfur. Different ethnic groups within a larger "racial" group.

Now if, OTOH, you wish to use the term "race" to denote any difference whatsoever between groups of people ... be that ethnic, cultural, religious, etc. ..... well, again that only serves to confuse the issue. Because it gives the impression that the difference is in a particular arena when it's really something else. I mean jeez ... most African-Americans in the US are Protestants ... but there's a sizable number that are Catholic. Does that mean that Catholic African-Americans are a different "race"? Are Southern conservative, rural white guys with gun racks in the back of their pickup trucks a different "race" than liberal, urban white guys living on the west coast? Are Chinese Americans a different "race" than Chinese on the mainland or in Taiwan?

But hey, if you insist on referring to those different groups of people as different "races" then knock yourself out. We will have to just agree to disagree on that because there's only so much one can do to explain what should be patently obvious.

OAW

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The foreigners I'm referring to were not the British. They were the European Ashkenazi Jews who were immigrating to Palestine.

Were they immigrating to Jordan? (nearly 80% of 'Palestine')? No.
Were they immigrating to the UN partition that would have been Palestine? No.

They, along with the intolerant Arab world, were simply pissed off that Jews got even the tiniest portion of 'Palestine', which by the way, was always inhabited by, and is the birthplace of, all three major religions. Where does this stupid assumption come from that Muslims get all of it- even when they do have over 80% of the original Palestine, and they rejected their share of the remaining 20% (IE: the stupid choice). A Jewish homeland in the area is no more far-fetched than Catholics inhabiting Vatican City.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Were they immigrating to Jordan? (nearly 80% of 'Palestine')? No.
Were they immigrating to the UN partition that would have been Palestine? No.

They, along with the intolerant Arab world, were simply pissed off that Jews got even the tiniest portion of 'Palestine', which by the way, was always inhabited by, and is the birthplace of, all three major religions. Where does this stupid assumption come from that Muslims get all of it- even when they do have over 80% of the original Palestine, and they rejected their share of the remaining 20% (IE: the stupid choice). A Jewish homeland in the area is no more far-fetched than Catholics inhabiting Vatican City.

I agree with you on that. Just like the Budhists should get Tibet, the Hindus get the Ganges, the Catholics have the Vatican, the Anglicans get England and yes, even the Muslims get Mecca and Medina.

Jerusalem, being the capital of the Jewish state..... all i can say is.... it's about damn time.

I was in Italy this past summer and there were Synagogues and Mosques there as well. Goto Saudi Arabia with a bible/crucifix/rosary in your luggage and see what happens at customs(try this at your own risk, from what ive heard they're confiscated and destroyed). Also, i remember seeing muslims inside the Vatican as well.... not the slightest problem with it... in fact im glad. Do non-muslims get he same courtesy in the capital of Islam? Take it a step further..... Italy a predominantly Catholic nation, has Jewish and Muslim citizens, and to the best of my knowledge, they have the right to own property, businesses and practice their faith to the full extent of the Law. Compare that to the Arab-Muslim states in the Arabian peninsular.

The whole headscalve issue... personally i am against government telling people what to wear... period. but it has to be said that their culture is respected to the extent of the law in the Judeo-Christian world, now.... goto Saudi Arabia and see if you are afforded the same respect to your culture, especially women ? And these same people point their fingers to Israel as being racist ? At least there is a genuine attempt to be secular as far as the laws and policies go in the non-muslim world.... can the same be said of most nations with a Muslim majority ?

In fact look at the entire world today, and find me a more racist culture (as far as religion goes) than the Muslim world ? Thats not to say that everyone else is innocent.... just a lot 'less guilty' of this crime, imo.

[Big Mac]

I just have to correct a small detail. Eretz Yisrael is the birthplace of Judaism and Christianity. Islam's birthplace was quite a distance away in Arabia, around 700 years after Christianity.

[ebuddy]

All I can say is that anyone who claims a Palestinian people of today were in any way rooted from the namesake of Palestine at its inception is either woefully naive or motivated by an interest not founded from facts. Iowa was mentioned which I presume would relate to Iowans. There are Muslims, Christians, Jews, blacks, whites, native Americans, Asians, and a host of others in Iowa and yet they are all Iowans. Palestine was no different at its inception and they were all referred to as Palestinians. This was not the namesake for an Arab populace in Palestine, it was so for all of them. While approximately 90% of this region was essentially under Arab control from 1949 to 1967, there was never an expressed desire to create a "Palestinian" State.

"Palestinian" means little more than "Arab pawn" in a plight against Jews in Israel evidenced by the fact that the surrounding Arab regions are as interested in giving safe haven to "Palestinians" as Israel. Apparently.

Sorry, just wanted to let you all know exactly where it was I stopped reading this thread.

[Hawkeye_a]

Australia is boycotting this conference. I am glad.Link

UK on the other hand has caved.... possibly due to internal pressures.