Sounds like a setback for the "peaceful democratic Palestinian state."

Excellent piece.

I think the biggest problem with the "peaceful democratic Palestinian state" is both the words "peaceful" and "democratic", actually.

It's so sad when you think about it. They're all for the cause and if their passion could be directed in another way, they might actually be able to acheive freedom...

I'm not sure we read the same piece. I think he's saying the Palestinians cannot achieve self-determination using their current tactics. He didn't say anything about the Palestinian people "deserving" self-determination. That's a broad, sweeping statement which may be your conclusion, but not the author's.

The inhuman brutality of Muslim to fellow Muslim--800,000 Pakistanis killed by Pakistan in 8 months in 1971, 20,000 Syrians killed in a week by Syria in 1982, 1.5 million Afghans killed by the Taliban in 5 years, 200,000 Iraqis killed by Saddam in 1988, 5,000 Palestinians killed by Jordan in one month in 1970, 300,000 Palestinians ethnically cleansed by Kuwait in 1991--dwarfs anything done by Israel ...

The Palestinians have always known this. When Jordan started killing them in 1970, those that were able fled to the border and asked the IDF to protect them.

The sad plight of the Palestinian is that his "friends" in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc., would just as soon see him in a mass grave, the minute he is no longer useful as a tool against Israel.

Likewise, his flag-waving leftist "friends" abroad will instantly forget about him the minute he is no longer a useful tool against US-Zionist Imperialism. They will give him no more thought than they give the Kurds.

In the end, Israel may be the closest thing to a friend that the Pals have.

Whatever your take on the piece, it clearly is a step in the right direction and one, that if ever adopted by the Palestinians, may bring some kind of a solution the situation there.

Dr. Bala Ambati says the Palestinians have lost the sympathy of Americans with their rejectionist campaign of terrorism—and they don’t deserve self-determination.

Great. That takes care of America. Now how about France, Belgium and other creepazoid Euros? What about the Muslim/3rd world dominated UN? How about Canada full of politically correct poseurs?

terrorism is the reason I no longer have sympathy for the Palestinians. They have never even tried non violent civil disobedience. Even though it would probably work with the Israelis if they tried it.

Brilliant, brilliant piece.

Glen Wishard #5--what is your source regarding Palestinians fleeing "Black September" seeking IDF protection? I'd love to lay that one on my "Israel is the problem" acquaintances.

Money quote from this piece:

Ideals that Muslims proclaim are belied by revolting realities practiced in their name--love dies where hatred is preached, freedom wilts under despotism, learning is unattainable when free scholarship is banned, tolerance flees where dissent earns death, equality is a sham when women and minorities are enslaved, justice is mocked by shari'a with a travestic set of rules for believers and another for women and "disbelievers" and peace is a veiled fraud when the peace of the grave is pursued by killers with Hitler's enthusiasm.

Can I get a "hallelujah"! What a great sentence.

#8

Unfortunately, for the Palestinians terrorism DOES WORK! Otherwise, they wouldn't have the promise of their own state and wouldn't have all the publicity about their cause.

And when or if that happens, you'll bet other groups such as the Kurds (and perhaps Armenians) will take notice and start their own terrorism campaign.

We should instead reward the Kurds with their own country because they don't committ International terrorism!

JG

"They have never even tried non violent civil disobedience. Even though it would probably work with the Israelis if they tried it. "

This is totally false. Civil disobedience was their first tactic in the original intifada. Read Tom Friedman's book From Beirut to Jersusalem. He laments that they did not stick with civil disobedience and turned to violent tactics. You shouldn't assert things you suspect may be true without verifying it first.

Matt #11,

The original intifada had nothing to do with civil disobedience. See, for example:

[Link: www.adl.org...]
[Link: www.palestinefacts.org...]
[Link: www.us-israel.org...]

Matt, you are clueless.

You have to stop acquiring your information from the New York Times editorial staff...
 

#11 Matt. No significant number of Palestinians or any palestianian leader in a position of real authority have ever tried to use non violent civil disobedience. The non violent first intifada included rocks and molitov cocktails. They have had over 50 years now to come up with a Gandhi or a Martin Luther King JR. We are still waiting.

You shouldn't assert things you suspect may be true without verifying it first.

I have seen and heard the "news" from the Middle East for some 30 years. Sometimes I got so fed up, so I shut the radio when they mentioned Israel. I knew what they would say. I could have written a text processor template with five parameters to produce all the news items. I had got thoroughly fed up with the Arabs.
What astonished me was that seemingly intelligent people fell flat for the leftist (oh, no, please do not use the word liberal for Marxist) propaganda.
I cannot remember when I decided that the solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict has to include the annexing of the West Bank and Gaza and expelling the "Palestinians". It was long ago. Even the geographical shape of the country and security concerns dictates it.
To the root causes of terrorism must be added that the Arabs have never got the sound beating that they so desperately need.

Uh, excuse me "Superfly", but I did verify my information. It comes from the leading Middle East Correspondent of the world's foremost newspaper. A man sympathetic to Israel and very critical of the Palestinian leadership. And, by the way, a man who was actually there. You can either believe him or you can believe those absurd, one-sided accounts Ariel posted links to. But be careful - I'm not defending the intifada, because it did eventually degenerate into violence. I was responding to the original post where it was claimed that they had never resorted to civil disobedience, when in fact that is exactly how it started.

Occasional -

I saw this recently in an old book called Entebbe Rescue which was written by 3 Israeli journalists -- they related the story of an IDF outpost near Kalkiliah. After the Jordanian attacks began, a steady stream of Palestinians came to the frontier, asking the Israelis to hide them.

Israel took in about 40,000 Palestinian refugees in the years following the Six Day War, though not all of those were fleeing the Jordanians. You could probably find some more exact statistics --- there is a ton of material on the web about everybody's all-time favorite refugees.

As far as I have ever heard, the first intifada always involved rocks & molotov cocktails (with occasional gunfire coming from the back row - and of children in the front row taking the return fire). The leftists hailed this as "non-violent" protesting, because the Palestinians could have used guns & grenades. So, just as they have cheapened the word "activist" and even "guerrilla," they cheapened the word "non-violent."

The Women in Black were true non-violent protestors. They should stood there solemnly.

Drat, that's - "of course children". Sorry.

Sorry dude,

I cannot sympathize with people who strap bombs on themselves and then explode them on buses full of women and children, in churches full of women and children, and in shopping centers full of women and children. I cannot sympathize with old, corrupt terrorists like Arafat who because of self interest influence young people to commit acts like I've mentioned above. I do not want people like them to have a country. They do not deserve self-determination...they are murderers.

I am no great friend of Israel either but at least they are a democratic country.

#16 My problem with your argument is the use of the word "they". Who exactly are you talking about. Arafat? Hamas? The PLO? Some random bunch of Palestinians with no power that no one has ever heard of? How long did they try? Five minutes? Were any of them armed?

When did any significant number of palestinians try non violence? Pease provide dates, names, and numbers. All you have done is named some book I never heard of. I would like to be convinced that I am wrong, but you have a ways to go to do so.

I have yet to see any evidence of a significant use of nonviolence by palestinians. I know the word "significant" is vague, but I just do not think one or two palestinians holding a sit in counts.

Score one for clear thinking in academia. What an extremely well-written piece. I am consistently puzzled by the widespread sympathy for and activism on the part of such a questionable cause when there are so many truly just causes out there to spend one's energy on. I just don't get it, or maybe I do and just don't want to believe the real reason.

The Palestinians will never achieve anything until they get rid of Arafat and find leadership that will work in the best interests of the Palestinians. Arafat has done nothing but line his own pockets with Palestinian foreign aide for the US and EU and done it at the expense of 16 - 21 year-old Palestinian children. I think Palestinian parents should be rising up to take him out.

Hasn't anyone out there (Eurokooks) noticed that Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, and a host of other non-democratic Arab nations actually want the Palestinian situation to continue? The minute they lose the "I hate Israel because of the Palestinians" card they will have to find some other way to divert their own peoples opinions from internal problems like lack of freedom and poverty.

21 - if you want to know about this issue - you should have read "from beruit to jerusalem" by thomas friedman allready.

But dont JUST read that. There is an unfortunate problem with people that just read ONE source....

#16

...I tend to believe Friedman - that there was infact a non-violent beginning to the uprising - unfortunately - the people who started the uprising were infact the same people who caused the mass meyhem he described earlier in his book. Unfortunately im not at my library right now, but wasnt friedman out of the country at the beginning of the intifada? And wasnt the intifada (by definition, what did it mean? THUNDER? no... struggle? was that what it meant??) in a part of the country that he didnt cover? (remember the man was covering politics, et al... not the lives of the everyday palestinian like current correspondents do)

Dont forget - throwing stones is NOT non-violence. Infact stone throwing is incredibly destructive, and insanely dangerous. Stone throwing mobs have overthrown governments in the not so distant past.

Also - dont forget that friedman may be a "leading middle east correspondent" and all - but he still has to be able to take meetings with arafat, and other nasties in the region, and not get his ass shot off. And if youve ever read "lexus and the olive tree" you will realize that his opinions of what he sees are less instructive than his DESCRIPTIONS of what he sees.

Let's be clear, folks; perhaps SOME Palestinians began the first stupidfada... sorry, intifada (means "uprising", #24) with some sort of nonviolent strategy. Frankly, I don't know. But Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Fatah Hawks, and that whole merry band of psychopaths have NEVER, EVER, relied on "non-violent civil disobedience". Both their creed and their actions have always centered around violence. And unfortunately, they have never been merely marginal groups in Palestinian society, even during Intifada I. So even if there were SOME Palestinians at that time advocating civil disobedience, that's rather irrelevant.

I just hope some Duke students read this and challenge their own uninformed opinions. Ignorance breeds hatred. It is a sad time in this country when we have American citizens supporting brutal murderers like Arafat and Saddam, while calling our President a fascist.

#25 Occassional, Which was the point of my first post. The Palestinian people as a whole have not tried nonviolence.

I did verify my information. It comes from the leading Middle East Correspondent of the world's foremost newspaper.

Check out some of this reporting on Israel by "the world's foremost newspaper":

[Link: www.honestreporting.com...]

As I noted earlier, The New York Times is the last place to look for objectivity, especially regarding Israel...
 

#28 The New York Times was the paper of record. They are getting to be more of a joke with each day of Raines at the helm.

#27 superfly: okay, then, I'm amending my post #25 in its entirety to read as follows:

"What superfly said! Word up!"

Matt #11 - your assertion (based on Friedmann's book) really surprised me. I had no idea. I must have blinked when it happened.

If it did happen, it must have been a small number of very brave people that tried it. What we see now is, in my opinion, more in the true nature of the beast.

Non-violence is much more in the nature of people like Dr. Ambati. That doesn't mean NO violence; it means that non-violence is the underlying (and ideal) philosophy of Hinduism; not so (very apparently) with Islam.

Namaskar Dr. Ambati.

I already recommended this source on another threat, but will repeat it here:

This piece takes the argument made on BEHALF of creating an Arab state in the land of Israel and fisks each one of them.
"Twelve Bad Arguments for A State of Palestine" -- on web site [Link: www.israel.net...]

If the argument here is that Palestinians did not give civil disobedience enough of a shot, you'll get no disagreement from me. If the argument is that Palestinian terrorists deserve no sympathy, you'll get no disagreement from me. But that's not what I said. My original point was...actually, my original point was that the author of this blog misread the piece he cited. We got off on this tangent because I resonded to a poster who claimed Palestinians were violent from day one, which is simply not true. Their original tactics were resistance of curfews, refusal to buy Israeli permits, and opening businesses when it was not allowed. All of these were unjust laws to begin with. Unfortunately, the resistance quickly turned into rock throwing, and later even worse. It doesn't matter that I got this from one source (I actually only referred to one source. There are others). What matters is the quality of the source, not the quantity. Ariel's three links, for example, are just the same propaganda from three different places.

#33 Matt: Day one was the start of the intafada? What the heck do you mean day one? The palestinians have been using violence for over fifty years.

Re #10,

Suicide bombing isn't working for them. Israel will never yield an inch in response to the terrorism. If the palis ever stop the killing, they will get nothing more than what was offered at Camp David, probably less. It cost the palis any remaining sympathy the US had for them. It has plunged pali society into a death cult spiral. Whatever economy they had is destroyed. They have thousands dead and many more hopelessly brainwashed.

The only reason the pali refugee story gets so much air time is because of the concerted, unrelenting propaganda coming out of the middle east. Keeping pali suffering center stage 24/7, along with spreading virulent anti-semitism, is part of the arab plan to destroy the jewish state. They push all of western society's hot buttons: occupation, racism, apartheid, naziism, human rights, terrorist state (!), refugees, suffering children, jewish blood libels, jewish conspiracies, jewish influence. The useful idiots in the west, hardwired to react to such progaganda, and keen to latch on to an anti-american cause in the wake of the demise of communism, keep the misinformation flowing. The western media participates by broadcasting the engineered images. The latter, not suicide bombing, is what's working. Ignorance and propaganda.

The interesting thing is that the arabs and their useful idiots are now giving the US the same treatment regarding Iraq. The applicable propaganda labels have been applied to the US, e.g., oil, occupation, imperialists, crusaders, baby killers, nazis, racists, terrorist state. All false, but the world eats it up. Ignorance and propaganda.

Ok supid question/devil's advocate question:

Why not just set up a Palestinian state within current confines? Pay no attention to whether the Palis want those borders or not - just declare it, and get them into the U.N. (hold on there, let me finish)

They will continue to behave as they behave now - suicide attacks, etc. Their elections, if they ever have any, will be a joke. But the behavior that so many excuse because the Palis are portrayed as stateless refugees loses its excuse.

And the Israelis could just finally declare war and get it over with.

#35 Jan: what a ridiculous, loathsome, stupid idea.

#33 Matt: well, superfly keeps beating me to the punch, but I'll just back him/her up again; you seem to keep assuming that Palestinian "resistance" began with the first intifada. Even if there was some moment in which that intifada, in and of itself, was defined as nonviolent civil disobedience and nothing else, that constitutes barely a ripple in the overall half-century-plus pattern of violence perpetrated against Israel. The PLO was founded in 1964, let's not forget--before the Six Day War--and promptly embarked on a campaign of violence.

"It comes from the leading Middle East Correspondent of the world's foremost newspaper."

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA

#39 Its him. I have never heard of a female superfly. The only two superflies I know of are very male: jimmy superfly snuka and
superfly

#37 Graype,

Because, the palestinians would refuse such a solution. The regional powers, EU, etc. would not recognize it. Israel wouldn't do it unless the palis agreed to the borders, because they know a unilateral solution woudn't stop the terrorism, it would just give the palis another reason to splode. It would rule out discrete military actions to kill or arrest terrorists in sovereign pali territory. The only options would be absorbing the deaths, complaining to the UN (stop laughing), or declaring war. Declaring war would most likely draw in neighboring arab countries and probably destroy Israel's lukewarm relationship with Jordan. Plus, you have the dilemma of connecting Gaza and the West Bank in a secure manner without pali cooperation . . .

Matt #16, #33,

Hmmm... So my links are not satisfactory, eh? Well, a simple question for you: what does the word intifada mean? Uprising is one translation, throwing off is another. Neither are particularly peaceful meanings.

If you have proof that there was a non-violent period of the intifada which was mildly extensive, I would love to hear about it. All of the information I saw was that the reason the world got in a tiff was because the Israelis broke the arms of the stone throwers. So, assuming this is true, it suggests that the world wasn't upset because the Israeli storm-troopers broke into the "palestinian" boycott and shot them all to death and wrapping their bodies in pigskins. So come on. I'll have to pick up From Beirut to Jerusalem and see if even Tom Friedman can claim what you say he does.

Jan,

Thanks for your solution. Please feel free not to mention it again. Ever. Shit like that is unnecessary.

"Plus, you have the dilemma of connecting Gaza and the West Bank in a secure manner without pali cooperation . . . "

Why try?

Let them have two states.

While Gaza is smaller than Hong Kong or Singapore, it's larger than Monaco or Macao, and has a lower population density than all of the above. There's no reason it couldn't be a viable state if it followed similar economic polices.

#39, I basically agree with you. I don't think civil disobedience was effectively used by Palestinians. My original point was merely that it was used, so we seem to agree. However, your assertion about continued Palestinian aggression worries me, because it sounds like you're viewing the conflict from one side. It's not like Israel never did anything wrong. It was never the right of the Israeli government to tell Palestinian businessman when they can and cannot run their business, or demolish a house because it didn't have the right kind of permit. These are simply more civilized forms of aggression than rock-throwing. And remember - those Palestinians didn't wander into Tel Aviv and start throwing stones. They were throwing stones at Israeli soldiers in Palestinian land. When soldiers from another country come into your land, you're entitled to throw rocks, grenades, or whatever the hell you want. If the Israeli soldiers didn't want explosives thrown at them, they should have stayed home. The Palestinian aggression we see today, where they come into Israel itself to commit acts of terror, took quite a while to happen.

Also recall this hard news story reported by "the world's foremost newspaper" last November:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

The closing sentence of this hard news story (not an op ed) quotes Saudi Arabia's Prince bandar:

"Of course I am worried," he said. "When we start bad-mouthing other people's religion, common sense goes out the window."

End of story.

No highlighting the sheer gall of the Saudi ambassador to make such a statement. The story just ends.

The NY Times -- following its leftist agenda -- fails to point out the facts about Saudi religious tolerance.

This is not fact-driven information (i.e., news), it is agenda-driven information.
 

Matt #50,

It was never the right of the Israeli government to tell Palestinian businessman when they can and cannot run their business, or demolish a house because it didn't have the right kind of permit.

Really? So when Jordan attacked Israel during the 1967 war, Israel should have capitulated? Or should Israel, like all other non-Jewish countries, have had the right to counter-attack? If Israel had the right to counter-attack, it also had the right to seize land in a defensive counter-attack, as all other non-Jewish states do. If Israel had the right to seize the land in a defensive counter-attack, it also had the right to administer those lands as it sees fit, as all other non-Jewish states do. That Israel has been generous enough to allow that the status of the territories might be disputed and that the inhabitants of the territories might be allowed some autonomy in no way invalidates Israel's prior claim to the disputed territories or their administration.

They were throwing stones at Israeli soldiers in Palestinian land. When soldiers from another country come into your land, you're entitled to throw rocks, grenades, or whatever the hell you want. If the Israeli soldiers didn't want explosives thrown at them, they should have stayed home.

What exactly is "palestinian" land? According to them, the answer is clear.

Also, "staying home" wasn't an option. Israel, you may recall, was attacked in 1967. Or is that just "Zionist propaganda" like the non-violent intifada?

The Palestinian aggression we see today, where they come into Israel itself to commit acts of terror, took quite a while to happen.

I believe it started in 1948. It didn't relent in 1956. It showed it's face again in 1967.

This is a non-comprehensive list of terrorist attacks against Israel and the US: [Link: www.multied.com...]

Matt #50: I think the statement you made which people here have found controversial was in #11:

Civil disobedience was their first tactic in the original intifada.

In imputing this to the Palestinians, generally, as "their" tactic, this sentence seems to imply that at the time of Intifada I, violence stopped; civil disobedience was tried, with no concurrent violence by any of "them" (the Palestinians); then, later, violence resumed. I think the point that I and others have been trying to make is, no, the violence never stopped.

As for the rest of your post #50, the moral equivalency bit... ummm, I'll just step out of the way and let other LGFers open up on that.

If the Israeli soldiers didn't want explosives thrown at them, they should have stayed home

They would have, if Islamic terrorists were not blowing up cafes, wedding parties, pizzerias, nightclubs, comuter busses...

Arafat rejected a peace deal at Camp David 2000.

He, and his brainwashed people, do not want peace.

You, like many others, have fallen for the Big Lie.
 

Matt #50,

OR's comment inspired this in me:

It was never the right of the Israeli government to tell Palestinian businessman when they can and cannot run their business, or demolish a house because it didn't have the right kind of permit. These are simply more civilized forms of aggression than rock-throwing.

Yeah, whenever my state passes laws I don't like, I run crazy and start throwing rocks at the policemen. They don't mind, after all, it was their fault for allowing the law to pass. [/sarcasm] Do you see why that's problematic?

Dr. Balamurali K. Ambati (Bala Ambati), the author of the above piece, is not Arab and probably not Muslim.

He's a native of India who might accurately be described as a former Doogie Howser. :)

From the "Sulekha" website (the Indian Experience in a Connected World) [Link: www.sulekha.com...]

>>> About me:

I [Bala Ambati] am currently a fellow in corneal and refractive surgery at Duke University in Durham, NC. I was born in Vellore, India, came to the US with my family when I was 3, and graduated from NYU for college and Mount Sinai School of Medicine, going on to finish residencies in internal medicine from Beth Israel Medical Center and ophthalmology from Massachusetts Eye & Ear Infirmary. Of note is that I graduated from medical school at age 17, becoming the world's youngest doctor.

Occasional Reader (if that is your real name), I'm not going for moral equivalency. Far from it. I'm merely saying that Israel has some culpability as well. I didn't think saying that was very controversial.

Ariel, I see your point. Other countries do in fact sieze land in war. It's called conquering, and it's wrong. It's wrong no matter who does it. America doesn't conquer, nor does it impose its laws on other territories through force. Even if Jordan was wrong to attack Israel and Israel was right to counterattack, they still had no right to sieze land that was not there's, and they definitely had no right to start imposing arbitrary permit and business laws. When the intifada began in 1987, Israeli soldiers were attempting to enforce Israeli laws regarding curfews and such. Those laws were wrong and unjust. And I'll tell you what Palestinian land is. It's land outside the borders of Israel occupied by Palestinians. Simple, no?

I love all these comments about the New York Times. They reveal more about the bias of those commenting than about the newspaper.

Matt #58,

America doesn't conquer, nor does it impose its laws on other territories through force.

Really? That's funny. I guess California wasn't part of the Union. I seem to remember not having to use my passport to go there though. More contemporaneously, many would characterize our Latin American interventions as imposing our laws through force. Many would characterize our forthcoming Iraqi intervention as such.

Even if Jordan was wrong to attack Israel and Israel was right to counterattack, they still had no right to sieze land that was not there's

Says who? There's tons of precedent for it. And international law says that it is right and just for a country which fought a defensive war to claim territory. This may be the opinion of Matt, but it's hardly the majority opinion of the world, which is just fine with any non-Jewish country taking land in a defensive war.

If this weren't true, countries could attack with no fear of any loss. Think about it: If your principle were expanded to cover all situations, no country would ever lose territory. What disincentive could there be to launching wars?

and they definitely had no right to start imposing arbitrary permit and business laws.

Perhaps those laws had something to do with the conduct of the occupants of the disputed territories? Regardless, assuming that the territories are occupied, the Fourth Geneva Convention allows for Israel to administer the territories as it chooses, within certain limits. Arbitrary or capricious laws which don't contravene 4GC rules are just fine, even if you believe that the territories are occupied.

When the intifada began in 1987, Israeli soldiers were attempting to enforce Israeli laws regarding curfews and such. Those laws were wrong and unjust.

So were they justified in their violent response?

And I'll tell you what Palestinian land is. It's land outside the borders of Israel occupied by Palestinians. Simple, no?

I suppose if you ignore their own claims, sure.

I love all these comments about the New York Times. They reveal more about the bias of those commenting than about the newspaper.

To give just one of the many examples that are widely known, have you ever heard of why Honest Reporting was founded? Also see here.

#58 Matt: Conquering territory is not always wrong. It is only wrong if it is aggresive conquering. International law is extremely clear about this. All of the territory that Israel conquered from its neigbors it did so defensively. Israel gave some it it back, but morally it did not have too. Just like France, Poland, and the Czech republic do not now owe Germany the land they won from it in WWII.

#51 John S. Totally peaceful methods can work depending on who the people you are complaining to. It can work if the country you are prtoesting against has respect for individual rights and the rule of law. That is why nonviolence worked in the US and in India (and would work in Israel if given enough time) and would not work in Nazi Germany or in present day Iraq.

In the US when northerners were watching the evening news and saw peaceful demonstrators being knocked over by fire hoses and attacked by police dogs it had a major impact on public opinion. Northerners who could care less about civil rights before began to sympathise with the blacks in the south and this led to passage of the civil rights legislation in the sixties.

Matt #58: in fact I've always meant to ask my parents why they chose to name me "Occasional". (I assume it was the name of an illustrious ancestor or something.) You can imagine the taunts I endured on the playground as a child. But not so many as my brother, Avid.

Other countries do in fact sieze land in war. It's called conquering, and it's wrong. It's wrong no matter who does it.

"It's called conquering, and it's wrong". Well, that has a nice, stomping-my-foot-down feel-good quality to it. But reality is just a bit more nuanced. In this case, it was more like: "conquering" land, some of which had originally been ceded to Israel by the UN anyway (but which had been occupied by Jordan and Egypt in contravention of the UN mandate); AFTER a defensive war against a coalition of Arab states whose announced intention was at least "ethnic cleansing", if not genocide; and in the face of a continuing state of war with those nations and their refusal to recognise Israel's right to exist. To return that land in 1967, in the teeth of a demonstrable intent by the Arabs to re-militarize it and use it AGAIN as a launching pad for another genocidal war, would have been a prescription for national suicide. To look at this as, "it's conquering! so it's wrong!" is just a little... dare I say it, simpliste?

#58 -

"America doesn't conquer"? That would be news to the Hawaiians, the Puerto Ricans, and the folks in Guam, not to mention the Filipinos (but we did give them independence, eventually). Not to mention the Mexican owners of Texas, etc. etc. Wow.

#60:Superfly

I have yet to come across a liberation struggle that was completely peaceful. Gandhi's and M.L.King's struggles were ofcourse peaceful but without the ongoing violent backdrop, the British or for that matter the powers in the US would have simply ignored both these men. Its the violence that adds a touch of piquncy and urgency, to what otherwise could be ignored, as just mere whimsy of two old men. The impetus on the powers are that if they didnt come to some form of mutually satisfactory agreement, the matter would be decided by force per se rather then the force of argument.
It goes without saying that this works only with rational people in a rational political environment.

Thanks for the response

#58 -

Another point of fact, regarding "Palestinian land" -

The Jews lived in Hebron from time immemorial until 1929, when they were massacred and "forcibly relocated" (ethnic cleansing, anyone?) by the Arabs (with the help of the Brits, I believe). After 1967, Israel allowed the original Jewish owners to reclaim their land in Hebron. So, does that make Hebron "Palestinian land"? How about the other areas that were Jewish-owned until the Jews got thrown out by the Jordanians? For instance, Gilo? Hm?

after listening to dozens of spokepersons from the PLO and having done much reading and studying regarding the Middle East I have come to this conclusion:

To hell with the Palestinains and the camel they rode into town with.

Other countries do in fact sieze land in war. It's called conquering, and it's wrong. It's wrong no matter who does it.

Wow.  We are entering a new realm here.

Do you think the world started with borders of every country already pre-mapped out?  Countries exist today, because they conquered other countries, and claimed the land for their own.

Countries that remain in existence today, do so because they have been able to defend their country from conquerers (except for cases like France, who rely upon others to liberate them after they have been conquered).

America doesn't conquer, nor does it impose its laws on other territories through force.

Out of curiosity, how do you think America came into existence?  Did it break off Pangea with large letters "United States of America" written across it?
 

Good piece by Bala Ambati. He wrote: "Won't the political success of suicide-bombing inspire others?" It certainly will, and terrorism should not be rewarded anywhere. Because the success of terrorism anywhere encourages terrorism elsewhere.

#58 Matt You seem to believe that the land belonged to Yasser Arafat or his buddies or some defined group of Arabs. They had no such title to the land. State land was the possession of the Ottoman Turkish Empire for hundreds of years because of their conquests; after Allenby's victory in WWI the British got the Palestine Mandate; after Israel proclaimed its independence, forces of Transjordan led by Britain's John Glubb conquered the West Bank; in 1967, after Jordan's intervention in the war with Egypt and Syria, Israel defeated the Jordanians in the West Bank. Whose territory is it? It is disputed territory.

When the Jordanians were displaced, there was a restoration of the right of Jewish settlement that was guaranteed by the League of Nations Mandate, and the founding of the UN did not supercede pre-established rights according to its founding articles. Article 6 of the League of Nations Mandate:
'The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.'

Read the article by Joseph Farah, entitled An unconventional Arab viewpoint
[Link: www.wnd.com...]
"The Arabs have build 261 settlements in the West Bank since 1967. We don't hear much about those settlements. We hear instead about the number of Jewish settlements that have been created. ... Is this a new phenomenon? Absolutely not. This has always been the case. Arabs have been flocking to Israel and its environs ever since it was created and even before, coinciding with the wave of Jewish immigration into Palestine prior to 1948.
Winston Churchill said in 1939: 'So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and mulitplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population.'
And that raises a question I never hear anyone ask: If Israel's policies make life so intolerable for Arabs, why do they continue to flock to the Jewish state?"

Incidentally, Arafat was born in Egypt. He is a settler.

#62 Laura

When did the US "conquer" Hawaii? I seem to remember something in some history book about how Japanese bombed the hell out of the place (but they surely did not conquer it). I don't remember ever hearing about the US using military force against Hawaii.

Puerto Rican, Guam, and the Philippines were "conquered" by the US? Was that before or after Spain somehow aquired them, and subsequently lost them after declaring war on the US? Or was it when the US seized control of those islands from the Japanese?

As for Texas, I thought they declared independance from Mexico and subsequently joined the Confederacy before conquered by the US. I guess you are technically correct on that one - But you'll never get a Texan to admit it.

[Link: www.hawaiiscubadiving.com...]

[In 1893] To counter sluggish Hawaiian sugar sales to the U.S., which were severely restricted by a hefty tariff imposed by Congress, sugar planters plotted to end the monarchy with a U.S. takeover. Annexationists overthrow Queen Lili'uokalani. At the time, U.S. President Grover Cleveland called the coup "not merely wrong, but a disgrace." Nonetheless, Provisional Government was established and was later replaced by the Republic of Hawaii

[Link: www.spanishamericanwar.com...]

Victory in the Spanish American War made the U.S. a nation with global interests. In one brief clash of arms the U.S. acquired Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippine Islands from Spain.

db,
Hawaii: Independent Hawaiian Republic annexed in 1898. That republic had been established by a coup a few years before by American immigrants with the intent of getting the islands annexed, but the President of the time, Cleveland, refused.

Puerto Rico, Guam, Philippines: conquered during the Spanish American war. Subsequently there was a three-year war in the Philippines to put down the rebellion of Filipino nationalists, mainly Tagalog speakers. Other Filipinos aided the US for fear of being oppressed by the nationalists if they got power.

Texas: Texans rebelled against Mexico in 1835 when General Santa Anna's coup overturned the liberal constitution of 1824. For some reason the Texans, including both the American immigrants and the Mexicans, did not want to live under a brutal military dictator. Texas was victorious, but the US refused to annex the country until 1845. This annexation sparked off the Mexican-American war, in which the US conquered the Southwest and California.

If you want to learn more about the Hawaiian Soveriegnty movement, the site below provides some interesting infomation and links. Or yo can visit your local Library.

[Link: www.hawaii-nation.org...]

Can you imagine if Sharon said that any final peace agreement in the middle east must include a just settlement for the Hawaiians?

#71 piglet

Can you imagine if Sharon said that any final peace agreement in the middle east must include a just settlement for the Hawaiians?

You know, that's an idea... "Any final peace agreement in the Middle East must include a just settlement for the Kurds, the Chaldeans, the Assyrians, the Druzes, the Maronites, the Copts and the Basques." Let the Arabs and the Euros stew on this one.

#69, #70, & #71 - Thanx

From my limited knowledge of history, I have always understood that the US obtained most of its territory, not by "conquest" of the indigenous peoples, but by dumb luck in battle with the European colonial powers (i.e.: Manifest Destiny) that were already recognized as having sovereignty over those territories.

#70 was kind enough to point out that the US south west was won in the Mexican-American war. Without looking it up, I doubt those battles were against the indigenous people (but against Spain’s colonial child Mexico).

Other territories “conquered” by the US would include the Louisiana Purchase - a huge chunk of real estate bought from Napoleon’s French that runs from New Orleans through to Canada. Steward’s Folly - Alaska was purchased from Russia. I am not sure of the circumstances, but Florida was picked up from Spain, not from conquering the indigenous people.
The original 13 colonies (and their claimed territories to the west) were not obtained by the US by conquest, but by rebellion against Mother England. The conquest against the natives had already been done by others.

There is some vacant space in there - in particular the Great Lakes region - but with placenames such as Detroit and Charlavoix I think that the French had already, at the least, a toehold before the US gained control (French-Indian Wars anyone?).

Onto the conquest of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines - Spain had recognized sovereignty over these areas (regardless of what the locals thought) and Spain ceded there authority to the US after the war. That was a naval war between Spain and the US - and dumb luck / manifest destiny - the US won.

To this day Puerto Rico chooses territorial status over statehood or independence. The next plebiscite may not have the option of territorial status. Maybe, as a peace offer, the US should offer it back to Habana in lieu of “independence”.

Guam I have not read much about, never heard of plebiscites, demands for independence, nor their people being conquered by the US.

Philippines is very interesting in that the US, initially, did not want it, and, after winning it from Spain, lost it to Japan, and then retook it from Japan...
The Philippines national holidays include “Independence Day” which is celebrated on 12 June every year in honor of their declaration of independence from Spain in 1898 (rather odd considering the claim that the US conquered them shortly after that day).
Another Filipino national holiday is 4 July, with an oddly named holiday, “Friendship Day”. Hmmm, what also happens on 4 July? Strange too that they would have money with the image of the US flag on it...
So, the Philippines was “conquered” by the US, celebrates a holiday predating that conquest, celebrates a holiday honoring their conqueror, and somehow booted the conqueror’s military out by merely asking them to leave (Subic and Clark were closed at the Filipinos request).

Hawaii - the only question I have is, “Why would an event that occurred in the 1890’s confer special benefits on those who can trace ancestry to over a hundred years before that event?”
Also, the US, aside from having an Embassy in the country at the time, had almost nothing to due with the overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy (aside from the consulate providing moral support for the overthrow - which they got slammed for), the number of American adventurers involved number less than the number of Hawaiians or nationals of other countries.
Oh, yeah, they voted for statehood.

There are other territories "conquered" by the US as well. For one, The Pacific Trust Territory. Once, they were free, then Spain claimed them, then Germany, then the Japanese. After WWII it was the US (but the US always considere them to be foreign countries). Now they are their own again.

It seems to me that what the US does best is clean up the mess that colonial europe leaves behind.

Just a dumb ass question to clear my own ignorance. I know plenty out there in LGF land will know the answer -

I read a lot about the settlements in the west bank, and pressure from pro-palistinians, anti-israelis, and those who just want to see peace and the problems go away.
A lot of times the question of these settlements comes up - what is the problem.

I am your average American, and think that one's property is sacred and the government has no business mucking with it (unless they provide just compensation, something about the 5th, I think).

So, whenever I hear about the need for the settlements to be removed I get these images in my head about a bunch of israeli settlers rushing cross the borden to stake a claim on vacant land that the palistinians claim is theirs but never bothered to improve (preferring to live in camps), and then the IDF moves in keeps the pals at bay.
Or the image of settlers wearing safari hats on a hilltop with binoculars, scanning the horizen, and then they see a herd of plump and ripe palistinians on a distant hill, ready for picking! The settlers move in, club the pals like baby seals, and then carve out their carcases and use the skins to make huts.
Or do the settlers, like most of the world's inhabitants, actually buy the land, and then build a house, and then settle down. [Hey, the real estate, given the crime rate, must be dirt cheap!]

If the settlers are doing a land grab, or killing baby seals, I can understand the pals demanding their removal as a prerequisite for peace (never mind, for now, any further motives).

But, what if they are paying market price for the land, recognizing the high crime rate, lack of infrastructure and fire protection, etc.?

Anyway, the questions...

Did the settlers buy the land they settled?

And is this demand to remove settlements (under threat)just an asinine demand that Israel 'ethnical cleanse' its own?

#74 db
I found some information that may be somewhat relevant to your question.

This is not recent stuff, but it indicates what the policy has been.
"The bulk of the land used for the new communities has been in the categories of state domain, ownerless, or private property owned by absentee landlords. When the owners could be located, they were given the choice of cash compensation or alternative land." --p 63 Myths and Facts 1982.

I can't find the reference offhand, but I have read that settlements were made mostly on "state land".

When the Ottoman Turkish Empire ruled the area for a few hundred years, besides some privately owned land there was state land. The Ottoman Turkish Empire had this land, not any individuals. After their defeat in WWI, the Ottoman Turkish Empire lost control of the state land. Britain had a League of Nations Mandate after Allenby's conquest. Transjordan took it after John Glubb's conquest on behalf of Transjordan, and it was named the west bank of the kingdom. Israel's victory in 1967, after Jordan entered the war with Egypt and Syria left it with the state lands.
Sorry, I cannot find the reference, but I believe that state lands are leased to people, so that they can build on them.

More recent stuff:
"An estimated 80 percent of the settlers live in what are in effect suburbs of major Israeli cities such as Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. These are areas that virtually the entire Jewish population believes Israel must retain to ensure its security." Myths and Facts, 2001

#74 db

Did the settlers buy the land they settled?

Not all of the settlers bought the land they settled. But, either they did buy it, or it was 'state-owned'.

When the bought it from a Paleostinian, he was immediately killed by his 'brothers', though. Y'all know Paleostinians are forbidden to sell land to Jews, right?

#74 db
"Did the settlers buy the land"

There is a legal system in Israel, including a Supreme Court. And there are human rights organizations that are concerned about the rights of the Arabs, and very willing to go to court.

But what about Arab settlements?
"The Arabs have built 261 settlements in the West Bank since 1967"
[Link: www.wnd.com...]
Considering the wealth of Arafat and his cronies, and the kleptocracy Arafat created, I can only guess that Arafat and his buddies enriched themselves at the expense of the Arabs they had within their grasp.

It's odd that I hear from European diplomats about stopping Jewish settlements, but I have not heard a word about stopping Arab settlements in the West Bank.
A one-sided freeze on Jewish construction does not sound fair at all to me. If a Jewish family cannot add a porch or an extra bathroom to their house, why should an Arab family be permitted to do so?

And if a Jewish town in Judea or Samaria cannot build a new home within the town itself, why should an Arab town be able to do so?

In other words, why are Jewish settlements treated by the Euros as all bad, and Arab settlements treated as all good?

Dr. Balabati is spot on. Thank god some in academia have the courage to think the unthinkable and to speak the truth. For example, two years ago, before the current campaign of violence, the Palestinian economy showed great promise, in part due to trade with and Palestinians working in Israel. Now 50 percent of Palestinians live below the poverty line with unemployment tripling to 30 percent. Gross national income fell by at least $2.5 billion, effectively bankrupting the government. Yet despite the collapse of the Palestinian economy, 63 percent of Palestinians say the suicide bombings should continue, and a staggering 80 percent support the intifada. These people don't deserve a state. They don't deserve anything but our contempt. Their suffering and deprivation are all self-inflicted.

To those who believe that the NY Times maintains perfect journalistic integrity:
Please note that the Times' journalists habitually use the term 'militants' when referring to groups such as the Hamas. The Hamas, Islamic Jihad and a host of other groups have been defined as terrorist organizations by the US State department for years.

[Link: usinfo.state.gov...]

According to Webster's, the terms 'militant and terrorist are not synonomous. Of course, the Times' journalists--such as James Bennet-- use the recently released Newspeak version of Webster's.
Seriously speaking, Orwell was entirely correct in his belief that language defines thought. Therefore, if you believe in promoting accurate journalism, write to any paper that is guilty of refering to terrorists as militants and COMPLAIN. When an editor receives several thousand emails all pointint out the same error, it sometimes helps--for a day or so.