Requiem for a Jewish Settler

But snap judgements about Israelis are what you do best McGirk.

Forget analysis. That's not for bloggers.

Only biased comments and snide comments.

BTW, paragraph five, its take, not taken.

McGirk, even in a complimentary story, you still manage to find a way to be critical of the Israelis you know nothing about. By the way, most Israelis deal with Arabs on a weekly, if not daily basis. You would know that if you did some "reporting" and stopped "blogging"

Beautiful.....

Shows how the power of understanding can make a big difference

How often do we have requiems for a terrorist, a gangster or a murderer? What are we celebrating here? This guy is a criminal. Not only did he settle someone's land illegally, he used force to put down his own law in a land he did not belong.

As for his prediction of ultimate defeat, I suspect he is right. But sadly, Zionist defeat will not have a countering victory on the Arab side but still deeper defeat. A nation and people has been ravaged, forever!

One day most Jews will realize the massive moral mistake entailed in Israel's creation.

I, unlike the other distasteful commentors here, enjoyed this story. There are so many paths the people of the world travel; being able to hear the side of the tale not often heard is truly a blessing in modern life.

I'm with T. Greer. I really enjoyed this story. Stories like these remind us all of the human factor so often overlooked when crafting policy. When you draw lines on a map, you are drawing lines across people and their families.

Dubak is right, sort of. The Arabs will win in the end because they have right, instead of might, on their side. They didn't steal anybody's land. Despite Israeli efforts to destroy even the idea that there has ever been a Palestinian people on this Earth, they still survive and live to carry on the fight. The Palestinian people are the embodiment of the power of the human spirit.

Dubak is a good representation of Israel. He is a dedicated Zionist, isn't reluctant to use force to defend his ideas, and has had limited success (Arabs stopped throwing stones). But despite his toughness, Zionism still cost him his son's life and hasn't brought him any peace or happiness.

Jacob & Anonymous, why don't the 2 of you do everyone a favor and point out the objections that you have to Tim McGirk's article and tell us your reasons/arguments. Quit launching all of these stupid personal attacks against people you also know nothing about.

The Palestinians, in honestly loving the land AND in being right about the many perils of political Zionism, won long ago- Tragically Zionist ideologues would rather play out this cruel and divisive charade called "The Jewish State" for as long as possible, as if there can ever be true peace or security for any one in the mess made by racist Israeli laws and walls.

My problems with the "article"

1) McGirk states that he is tempted to "make snap judgments about Israel". This would run counter to the qualities one would look for in a reporter, correct? What about an un-biased look at the region, I guess that does not figure into McGirk's essays.

2) McGirk states that it is rare for an Israeli to have contact with Arabs. This is not at all true, most Israelis have contact with Israeli Arabs on a constant basis, and anyone who had ever been to Jerusalem or Haifa would know this.

3) I know much about the people of the region, having lived in these territories. McGirk throws out constant generalizations in this and every other article he writes. This is an issue because some people who have never been to the region will take his opinions as fact, which they rarely are. Also remember that Jews were not the first to use violence in Modern Israel, but were forced into it after constant aggression by their enemies.

A rebuttal to anonymous:

1) It is human nature to make snap judgments. You do it every time you see or learn something new. (I suggest reading the book "Blink" by Malcom Gladwell.) McGirk is simply stating that he has had an experiance that taught him such snap assumptions are wrong, and should not be utilized.

2) I believe Mcgirk was referring to non Israeli Arabs, however he should have clarified.

3) I concede this point to you.

1) as a reporter you cannot wait to have an experience that teaches snap judgments are wrong. a reporter's job is to tell a story based on evidence, things need to be backed up, not based on personal judgments, a reporter needs to start with an unbiased opinion.

"McGirk throws out constant generalizations in this and every other article he writes." Talk about generalizations... Do you have examples to support your claim?

"Also remember that Jews were not the first to use violence in Modern Israel, but were forced into it after constant aggression by their enemies." He started! No he did! Nuh uh, he did! Who gives a flying !&$@ who started what? Both sides have commited horrendous crimes against the other and depending on which side of the fence (or wall) you sit, the situation looks very different. What matters is finding a way for both sides to peacefully coexist.

"as a reporter you cannot wait to have an experience that teaches snap judgments are wrong."
There is a much to be gained from learning about the experiences and opinions of others. If all events could be boiled down to cold, hard facts, there wouldn't be a need for human diplomacy--we could have machines do all the work.

Also, I do believe this is a Middle East BLOG, hence the BLOGGING. I come here to read about issues and viewpoints washed out of the cookie-cutter AP and Reuters stories. If you want facts, try an encyclopedia, or a comprehensive history book. I suggest "Power, Faith, and Fantasy" as a starters...

Don't listen to them McGirk (as if you need a commentor to tell you that). I loved this story.

I know that people have been trained to believe that these foreigners, Jews, came from afar and took this Garden of Eden from its endogenous population. However, the truth is quite different. For over three thousand years there has been a Jewish presence in this land. That works out to twice as long as the Arabs. The ancestral home of the Arabs is Arabia. Perhaps that is why Arabs are called "Arab"ia. The few people who wrote about the Holyland described an almost desert. In the late 1800’s Mark Twain wrote about his own travels through the Middle East. He described a land in a state of severe desolation. It was the hard work of the Jews, both those who lived there and many from Europe that made the land bloom. The flow of Arab works was no different then what we see today where the poor stream to low paying jobs in developed countries. But, the large number of Arabs that lived in Palestine before Israelis Independence was not endogenous. If fact the UNWRA made special rules just for them. Refugee status was given to Arab who was able to show that they had lived there for a minimum of two years. One must also look at what was the situation in 1922 when the mandate went into effect. At that time Palestine included the eastern section, or “transJordan. Almost 78 % of the land was turned into an Arab country today called Jordan. Jordan was meant to fulfill the territorial aspirations of the Arab population. So on many levels Jews have a stronger claim to all the land from the sea to the river.

Good story and its sounds like a good life.

I think McGirk was wrong to put the final focus on the statement “Because the Arabs love this land more than we Jews do.” I would argue that that Israel will survive because the Jews love each other more than the Arabs do, and, in spite of disappointments, still have hope in humanity as a whole.

Dabak seemed to be talking of an affinity to the physical land. I've met many Israelis who would fit that description but many more are urbanized and have a spiritual connection to the land. History has shown that Jews can't be too rigidly attached to any one place, so its a cautious love, but its a deep love nonetheless.

Technically, shouldn't this be a kaddish for a Jewish settler, Mr McGirk?

I found yr piece moving and Dubakseemed like a hard character out of the wild frontier of Samaria and Judea.
What must have made Dubak unusual was that love of the physical land, not some urbanite Jew's idealized notion of homeland. He seemed tough but also dealt with the Arabs as human beings who can thirst and reason. Mutual respect was shown, not just mutual fear. Thank you for a different way of looking at things.

Frankly, all these quibbles about this blog are out of place. Save that for a magazine piece. I click here to read a correspondent's opinion, with detail unavailable elsewhere.

Johnny, it's great that Jews have been living in that area for thousands of years, but they don't live there by themselves. They share the land with other people (Palestinian Arabs). This Jewish minority took up arms and dispossessed all the other people in that area and claim sole power over the land. Are you saying that since the Arabs' "ancestral homeland" is Arabia, they don't have strong claims on the land? Let's apply your argument to America. Since the ancestral homeland of Japanese-Americans is Japan, then clearly Japanese-Americans don't have as strong of a claim on their homes as "native" Americans?

Nathan, I have an idea for peaceful co-existence. The Zionists give up the idea of racial supremacy, and submit to a democratic vote in which everyone is allowed to participate. White South Africans did it, so can the Zionists. White Southerners in America did it, so can the Zionists.

To Dubak & the Arabs.

Often people like to use: The Ends Justify the Means. (Not that it always does.) Just like Muslims, Christians and Jews lived in the Holyland for hundreds of years, they also lived in the eastern section of Palestine, the part that became Jordan. The British had little problem throwing out all the non-Arabs to create an area in Palestine for Arab rights, fulfilling Arab aspirations for their own land. Again, there was a Jewish presence along the eastern side of the Jordan, but this did not stop the exchange of people. However, the British ignored completing the job. They were meant to move the Arabs from the remaining 22% of Palestine to the Arab designated territory. In hindsight it seems likely that their plan was to create an Arab continent and to overturn their mandate.

The League of Nations mandate divided up the Ottoman Empire and created numerous States, all but one being Arab. One small area was designated to be Jewish, Palestine, their ancestral home. Yes, it would require some movement of people, but from a historical basis this was common. Just look at what happened to ethnic Germans after W.W.II and the carving out of Pakistan from India.

In the early 1900's there were few people in the Holyland. As I mentioned before, Mark Twain found a desolate desert. Back then the only people described as "Palestinian" were the Jews. The area was under the rule of Syria. So the Arabs living there were actually citizens of Syria. That explains why Syria is so deeply involved in Lebanon. Also why they have attacked Jordan. To Syrians this entire are belongs to them. It also explains why the first English language Jewish paper was called the Palestinian Post. (Which became the Jerusalem Post.)

So much could have been solved had the British carried out their mandate. The Arabs should have been moved to Syria and TransJordan. The Jewish State should have been established in the early 1900's. This would have prevented the Holocaust. Few Arabs would have been effected. And, many of the problems would have never happened. Instead the British limited Jewish emigration while maintaining an open door policy for the Arabs. As Jews built the economy large numbers of Arabs moved in shifting the demographics. So much so that an Arab only had to show that he had lived there two years.

Instead historical facts are ignored and the world wants Israel to pay the penalty. The payment almost assuredly will destroy the Jewish State.

Another factor is the Arab Refugees. These refugees have been given very special status. First they need not be historically associated with the area. All they had to show was that they lived there for "two years." Also, their descendents inherited the status of refugees. For almost 60 years these people have been cared for by the UN (the cost mostly borne by western countries). In the mean time their population has ballooned, the larger the family the more the support. Around the same time almost one million Jews where truly forced out of their ancestral homes in Arab countries and were moved to Israel. This was a much larger number then the Arabs who became refugees. And, the vast majority of the Arabs left their homes at the bequest of their "brothers" in Syria. This is well documented in the bibliography of, From Time Immemorial," by Joan Peters. Yet, the Jews were never defined as refugees. Even today you down hear much about the confiscation of Jewish property I’m Arab countries. At that time the Jewish loses far outweighed the Arab loses.

So the entire crisis is due to Arab insistence to keep these people as an ongoing problem and the world unwillingness to solve it. Instead it has festered and history has been rewritten to demand that Israel eradicate itself to give the Arabs one more State.

L. King writes;"Jews love each other"...

Precisely, and that is the problem with your race. They "love" each other so much, and love themselves so much... to the exclusion of any other race that lives among them...and that is called pure RACISM. Can you explain to the American reader why Arab Israelis are not allowed to vote?

There is an old Indian saying, part of it goes; "Wisdom is knowing we are nothing". Humility seems to be a genetic devoid that runs in each Jewish blood cell! You want to survive? In the Middle East? Show compassion to those you have been oppressing (treating like animals) for half a century now..maybe less rock throwing will be directed towards you...

perhaps the rock throwing needs to stop first as well as suicide bombings before the israelis can worry about how they treat palestinian terrorists.

in addition, anonymous, israeli arabs can vote, in fact they can even be members of knesset, and to date there are three arab parties in the knesset. so maymbe you should first get your facts straight.

and your statement of "Humility seems to be a genetic devoid that runs in each Jewish blood cell!" may possibly be the most antisemitic, or as you like to label it, racist, comment, not to mention a gross generalization.

To anonymous

Everyone loves their own more then someone else's. Do you not love your children more then your neighbors? Amd, your neighborhood more then your city? And, your city more then... So love is missing the issue. There are many countries associated with various groups. You have westernized countries that are mostly Christian. You have Arabic countries and India. On this globe we are speaking of a sliver of land, just look at a map, that will represent the Jewish People. And, we speak of a territory that is their ancestral homeland. Yet, even this is to much to expect.

As far as Jews opening up their heart to help others, let me remind you that Israel took in a group of Vietnams that were on a sinking ship because no one else showed an interest. Even now Jews are trying to figure out a just way to deal with refugees from Darfur. While they do not have the perfect solution they aren't abusing the refugees. Look at how many refugees have been murdered in Egypt.

It is a total lie to say that Arab citizens of Israel do not have the right to vote. Their are currently several Arab MK's in the Kennest (Parliament). How many Arab States allow non-Muslim to be part of their government? It are only non-citizens that cannot vote. The demand to make all Arabs (Gaza, west bank and, while you are at it, all the Arab refugees) citizens will eradicate the Jewish State. Of course, if that is the hidden goal then what is a small lie here and there to bring about the desired end.

Dubak, you use the example of Japanese-Americans. May I remind you that during WWII these people were gathered and placed into camps. And, even today there are Native Indians that live on reservations. What right does America have to Texas, southern Calif. Etc? So your very examples prove that you are wrong.

The time frame to look at the ME is the early 1900's when the League of Nations divided up the entire area. England was given a mandate, but as I have explained, did not carry out their responsibilities. At that time almost 78% of what was designated as the Jewish National Homeland was given away to the Arabs. Local movement of population was not an unheard of thing. Even today things like that happen. Just look at the division of Cyprus between Greeks and Turks. So the Arabs really got a very favorable deal. But, the British had other plans it seems. So why must Israel pay the penalty for what the British and the world has done since then. Let the problem they created be solved by them.

"Even now Jews are trying to figure out a just way to deal with refugees from Darfur. While they do not have the perfect solution they aren't abusing the refugees." I wouldn't make it seem like Israel is the only country in the world attempting to help refugees from Darfur. Also, Israel has deported most of them, sending them back to Egypt where they must endure more violence.

"The few people who wrote about the Holyland described an almost desert. In the late 1800’s Mark Twain wrote about his own travels through the Middle East. He described a land in a state of severe desolation. It was the hard work of the Jews, both those who lived there and many from Europe that made the land bloom."

This is incorrect. Mark Twain traveled throught the Middle East (called The Orient at the time), and he found everything he saw unappealing, including Egypt. Twain was an exception to the norm as hundreds of other pilgrims found the land spiritialy fulfilling--after all, Palestine was full of Biblical landmarks and imagery.

Also, from the late 1700's up until the end of the 1890's (as the Ottoman empire began to crumble), Christian missionaries traveled to the region in droves hoping to restore the land to Jewish control and expedite Christ's second comming. The missionaries believed that the Jews would need to be taught how to farm so they could establish a strong agrarian society as a base; however, the missionaries found the Jews resisting the idea and nearly all attempts to establish such a society in Palestine failed. The Jews certainly didnt make the desert "bloom".

"Back then the only people described as "Palestinian" were the Jews."

This is incorrect. There were many more Arabs than Jews living in and around Palestine. The vast majority of Palestinian residents were in fact followers of the Islamic faith. There were also several Christian missionaries in the region. Mark Twain refered to the Jews as Palestinians because he referred to the Arabs as Musselmen or Mahometans.

"At that time almost 78% of what was designated as the Jewish National Homeland was given away to the Arabs."

I have no idea where you are getting this 78% figure... The League of Nations gave Britian the task of recognizing "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country and securing the establishment of the Jewish national home while simultaneously safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine." The British Mandate did exactly the opposite as you suggest. It RECONSTITUTED a Jewish National Homeland. The period between WWI and WWII saw a massive increase in Jewish (and non-Jewish) immigration to the region, while the native inhabitants grew by natural population growth alone. "According to official records, 367,845 Jews and 33,304 non-Jews immigrated legally between 1920 and 1945. It was estimated that another 50–60,000 Jews and a small number of non-Jews immigrated illegally during this period. Immigration accounts for most of the increase of Jewish population, while the non-Jewish population increase was largely natural."

My point in all of this is to make it clear that both sides have an equally legitament claim to the land, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not at all a cut-and-dry issue. Both sides need to work together to come to a peaceful solution, and we need the rest of the international community to foster an atmosphere of mutual concessions and hold both sides (yes this means Israel as well) accountable for breaches of peace, violations of international laws, and the killing of civilians(Israeli or Arab). When the US encourages Israel to marginalize and war with its neighbors in the name of defeating terrorism, it destroys all previous progress towards peace, and in the end, neither side wins.

This discussion is eye-opening and I'm grateful to all the posts.

Johnny, all the cases you mentioned were all involuntary dispossessions of people by force. I am opposed to all of them. Jews shouldn't have been evicted from Jordan. The same for ethnic Germans after WWII and all the people dispossessed during the India/Pakistan split. The League of Nations/British had no right to force anyone to move and to play God and just designated certain areas to be Jewish or Non-Jewish. As mentioned in my previous post, the area consists of Jews and Arabs. It makes no sense whatsoever to dispossess by force either group and to deny that group the right to vote and have a say in how the area is to be governed. It's terrible that Jews are being forced out of Arab countries. That is wrong. It's also terrible that the Arab inhabitants of the land where Israel is now was forced out. That is also wrong.

Johnny, my point with the Japanese-Americans is that it's irrelevant where someone's "ancestral homeland" is. A person's ancestors can come from Arabia, Japan, or any other place and that person can still have as strong of a claim on a piece of land as any "native" person. My family and I immigrated to the U.S. 20 years ago, we bought our first house 3 years ago, and my claim on the land/property is just as strong as any "native" person. It troubles me that you seem to suggest (Post on 8/26) that the Arabs don't have as legitimate of a claim on the land because their ancestors originally came from Arabia.

It is fantastic that Israel extended assistance to the Vietnamese refugees. The generosity and kindness of the Israeli people are great. Now, please extend the same level of compassion and kindness to the Arabs who were dispossessed from the area that's now Israel.

Thank you.

I was a personal friend of Dubak. As a friend and member of a Search and Rescue Unit I shared with him many days and night in the Judean Desert helping to save lives of people who where in need of help. We went out together to help all – tourist, Palestinians and Israelis. If someone was in need of help – Dubak was there to help!
From what Tim wrote it is clear to me that he had the opportunity to spend some time with Dubak. It is hard to explain to people who never meet him, but Dubak was one of kind. Far from any typical settler I have ever met! If Tim would have dropped the title Settler and referred to Dubak as a human more justice would have been done with the memory of this very dear human. I think that if Tim would have left out the story about the olive trees and focused on the many stories about Dubaks very special relationship with his Palestinian and Bedouin neighbors then people would be judging Dubak differently. Yes, Dubak did do a few wild things in his days but he did more good then bad! Dubak loved Israel and respected all that respected him.

Thank you Dubak for all you have done...

You wrote that his son was "waiting at a bus stop" when killed. That's not true.

My nieghbor here in Shiloh, Yitzhak Shpatz, was driving back from Jerusalem and picked up the son and another girl in his car, what we call a "tremp" in Hebrew slang. The car stalled on Palestine Road at the southern entrance to Rammallah for in those days, we residents of the Jewish communities in the Binyamin area drove straight through the city.

Yitzhak went under to try to tinker and the two stayed in the car. Arab terrorists drove by and sprayed the car with bullets, killing the boy but, miraculously missing the girl sitting next to him and Yitzhak on the pavement.

Great story - sweet, sad, hopeful, sad.
Disappointing comments - the few I read seemed thoughtless and do not match the story at all.

I understand that it isn't nice and proper to throw people out of their homes. Yet, where was the outcry when Jews were thrown out of Gaza. They were not living on lands belonging to the Arabs. These people had almost three generations of family there. Yet, the Supreme Court ignored the Human Rights issue (an issue that they frequently use to favor the Arabs) and the Left-wing media painted these people as evil. But, look at the outcome. Are the Arabs better off?

For those who agree that all population transfers are wrong, that hasn't stopped them from happening. Look what is happening today in Africa. Look at what is happening today in Southern Sudan, where Arab Muslims are killing Black Muslims.

As bad as moving populations around it would have been a whole lot easier back in 1922, had the British carried out their mandate. Today people might offer historical comments, but no one would demand a change. Now, the world not only wants Israel to suffer, but also wants the refugees and all the descendants to return to Israel proper. Now what do you think that will do? These descendants have exploded thanks to the way the UN allows the status to be passed on to the next generation. Can anyone name of a similar group of refugees with that right? And, many of the original refugees were not even from the area. The refugee status was given to any Arab that had lived there for a minimum of two years.

As far as what Mark Twain did or did not say. All one needs to do is read his book.

The fellow who claims that England favored the Jews helped me by pointing out just how the British twisted the mandate. Yes, the mandate was to also protect the endogenous population. However, the British open door policy for the Arab added to the protected population. At the same time the British limited Jewish entry. This constantly diminished the Jewish census. Also, the British cut off almost 78% of historical Palestine and gave it to the Arabs. The purpose was to fulfill the Arab rights to territory within Palistine. Any doubt that Jordan is the eastern section of what was to be the Jewish National Homeland/historic Palestine can be proven by looking at the 1930's edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica which clearly describes Palestine as extending eastward to Iraq. The only area between the Jordan River and Iraq is the State of Jordan.

Anyone who wants a detailed timeline of events can use the extensive bibliography of Joan Peters book "From Time Immemorial." Another interesting article was published in "The Nation," back around 1949. Unfortunately the publisher has not released that article on their internet site. You will have to go to a library to find that one. The paper described how England manipulated the situation in their effort to stop the formation of a Jewish State, even after the partition vote. Apparently British Generals assisted the Arabs in planning the attacks on the newly founded State.

While one can talk about rights and fairness, can anyone name another country that has been made to suffer the way Israel is suffering? The closest possibility is America. But, doesn’t that tell you something about the people complaining the loudest. Why don’t these same people scream about China. Cuba, Sudan, …

Addendum: Nathan writes

"At that time almost 78% of what was designated as the Jewish National Homeland was given away to the Arabs."

I have no idea where you are getting this 78% figure... (I speak of what was chopped off to make Jordan.) The League of Nations gave Britian the task of recognizing "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country and securing the establishment of the Jewish national home while simultaneously safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine." The British Mandate did exactly the opposite as you suggest. It RECONSTITUTED a Jewish National Homeland (which was to include all of Palestine, including the eastern section called Jordan). The period between WWI and WWII saw a massive increase in Jewish (and non-Jewish) immigration to the region, (Yes, was that not the purpose of setting up a Homeland?) while the native inhabitants grew by natural population growth alone. "According to official records, 367,845 Jews and 33,304 non-Jews immigrated legally between 1920 and 1945. It was estimated that another 50–60,000 Jews and a small number of non-Jews immigrated illegally during this period (estimates is meaningless without facts). (The British were pretty good at making illegal immigration possible. Also, by that time the Germans were making it almost impossible to leave Europe.) Immigration accounts for most of the increase of Jewish population, while the non-Jewish population increase was largely natural (Not true, many Arabs flowed into the area from Syria and Egypt. Since the British wanted to inflate the facts they treated these immigrates as natives. Note that the UNRWA offered refugee status to any Arab that could show that they had lived there for just two years. Now is that natural growth?)."

The Jewish population did grow by the way of immigration. However, with the opening of WWII the British changed policy as described in their White Paper. They limited Jewish immigration to 6000. The Arab population was constantly in flux. Many Arabs would move from place to place. They were not limited by borders.

A true sense of what developed can be gathered by simply picking up a copy of, From Time Immemorial. While I don't agree with all of the author's interpretation, she does provide a detailed timeline and direct quotations from the key players. Then the reader can decide what they hold to be true.

How can Tim McGirk leave out the fact that Dubak was a "settler" and what he did with the olive trees? These are all aspects of Dubak's character and are needed to give the whole picture. Are you saying that these things are untrue?

Agreed on Gaza. Any Jewish family who can prove that it has lived in Gaza before 1948 and the land was not taken from Arabs should have been given the option to stay. Forced dispossessions of people are wrong, regardless if the victims are Jewish or Arabs. Why are you bringing up Southern Sudan? Are you saying that just because the same atrocities are occurring in the Sudan, then it's OK to dispossess Arabs to create Israel?

I think the vast majority of people want a fair and just way to resolve the refugee issue created when Israel was formed. If my family and I were evicted from our house by force, then how can there be a just resolution without us being able to return home?

Dhimma is much like apartheid, and far predates it. Haven't heard of any reform movement in the Muslim world to revise this.

By contrast, Israel has several Muslim MKs, one or two Muslim cabinet ministers, etc.

In Jordan, it's illegal for a Jew to own land. Laws against Jews and Christians in Saudi Arabia, which is considered Muslim holy soil, are even stricter.

Interesting since the Quran reports that Muslims seized the city of Medina from the Jews. Perhaps reparations or repatriation is called for.

With or without the caliphate, which Wahabism technically opposes, most devout Muslim Arabs would like to create a unified Muslim state from the Atlantic to the Persian Gulf. Some even aspire to recover al-Andalus.

Why not accommodate this goal? And declare Israel, within this Muslim super state, to be a Jewish Bantustan?

DJ Stahl,

The Dhimmi system is not practiced today in any part of the Muslim world. Reform has already taken place. With the death of the Ottoman Empire ca. 1920 and the establishment of national states, non-Muslims in predominantly Muslim countries have enjoyed equal rights under the law. In countries without a non-Muslim population, like Saudi Arabia, expatriates receive the same treatment whether they are Muslims or not.

While the Dhimmi system does not exist, the free practice of religion is not always a right in the Arab world. In some countries any religious belief outside orthodox Islam is restricted. The levels of restriction vary, from Saudi Arabia at one extreme and Lebanon and Syria at the other. Even most Gulf countries allow the building of Churches, though there remain restrictions on the practice of religion especially on proselytizing.

While Christians and other non-Muslims do not have the right to practice their religion freely in some Arab countries, they continue to enjoy as individuals equality before the law.

Sure wish there was a chatroom where Johnny and anonymous et al could retire and duke it out and we could stick to the story of Dubak.
Any other friends out there with personal memories about those searches in the Judean desert or life in the settlement which could shine a light on Dubak's character and its mass of contradictions?

to natan. 'both sides have commited hurendes crimes agains the other' there is one maijor diffrence between the 2 'sides' and is the cause as to why,given the current arab mentality, there cant be peace. and that is a few days ago an israeli soldier made a wrong turn and ended up in jenin and was attacked by a mob of local residents and nearly linched. thank god the palistian police interved and for that they deserve much credit. how ever if a jew making a wrong turn will mean he is liable to end up linched, like when 2 soldiers were brutally beaten to death by a mob of local arab residents, that shows that the mentality of the arabs are if we can kill we will and with such a mentality there can be no peace these people were regular residents not terorrists. that shows on how they are brought up at home in school and at the mosque till they change that any conncetions on israels part wont help in fact it will only strenthen the idea that killing works. while what ever 'hurendus crimes' your refearing to on the israeli 'side', wich im not sure what youre refering to, does not have the mentality if i can kill i will that is the fundimental difference between the 2 'sides' you commented about

Oh please...do you really believe Israel hasn't provoked the Arabs? What about all the Palestinian refugees? Or the Jewish terrorist groups? Or the West Bank Barrier? Or the Jewish Settlements? Or the bulldozing of "illegal" villages? Or the withholding of Palestinian tax revenue? Or the indefinite imprisonment of Palestinians without due process? Or the bombing and shelling of civilian areas? Or the economic blockade of Gaza?

Don't misunderstand me. This is not to say that Arabs haven't provoked Israelis. You clearly look at the situation through Israeli eyes. Try stepping over the fence and looking from the other side.

And johnny, you're spouting Zionist propaganda.

http://www.ameu.org/summary1.asp?iid=114

"Readers of her book should be warned not to accept its factual claims without checking their sources. Judging by the interest that the book aroused and the prestige of some who have endorsed it, I thought it would present some new interpretation of the historical facts. I found none. Everyone familiar with the writing of the extreme nationalists of Zeev Jabotinsky's Revisionist party (the forerunner of the Herut party) would immediately recognize the tired and discredited arguments in Mrs. Peters's book. I had mistakenly thought them long forgotten. It is a pity that they have been given new life."
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5249

You should check your sources next time.

once again Nathan, the Palestinian refugees, as johnny clearly stated, are not actual refugees, they are given special status. what Jewish terrorist groups? the west bank barrier? is that the security fence, to protect Israel from Palestinian terrorists? the imprisonment of Palestinians, i think you forgot the word terrorist or suicide bombers, or both, there, as well as the fact that they are holding several Israeli soldiers without abiding by any rules of war, and the bombing and shelling of civilian areas, good point, that is what the Palestinians do to the Israelis, as opposed to the other way around, Israel does everything they can to avoid civilians, but sometimes its impossible, when in order to protect their own country they need to seek out the terrorists, who purposely live amongst civilians, in order to create more causalities.

Batsheva, when you've been driven from your home by force, then you're a refugee. An Arab family being driven out of the home that they've lived in for generations by armed Zionists is a family of refugees. Similarly, a Jewish family being driven out of their home by advancing Wehrmacht forces is also a family of refugees.

It's easy to put labels on people ("terrorists") and ignore their reasons for fighting.

Look at the reasons why people are fighting you.

to natan. fist of all you failed answer the main point of my comment and that was there can be no peace if the mentlaty is if they can they will.no such mentalty exists among the israelis. and in regard to your comment most your ??? would not be their if they did not blow them selves up in cafes and buses and civilan casaulties happen because the terrorsts purpously fight in populated areas so they are to blame.and the prisoners are there because theyre terrorists and the refugee issue came mainly from the fact that they fled durring the 48 war those who stayed became israeli cittsens whith equal rights. and the fact that still 60 years later theyre still refugees is thier leaders problem who tell them to stay there to gain international sypathy after 3 years there were no more jews in th dp camps. the 'refugees' should move on with thier lives as the jews managed to do after being buchered in the houlcaust. and in regard to the jewish terrorists of whome there are so few and have barely ever manged to do serious attacks excluding baurch goldstien. and they are condemded by all jews and thrown in prison.

dubak & the arabs, it does not matter what your reasons are for fighting, if you go into a crowded civilian area to blow up innocent people, you are a terrorist, if you throw rocks and and shoot rockets into civilian neighborhoods, you are a terrorist, period.

Batcheva..If you claim a piece of land to be yours, where in fact is not, that is stealing... If you demolish native civilians homes, to make way for Jewish immigrant settlers, that is greed. If you bomb in-discriminately into a neighboring population (Lebanon), that is savagery... If you wall off cities and towns in order to torment people's lives, that is tyranny... If you control an open air prison called (Gaza) and deliberately deprive its civilians from basic human needs, that is brutality.... If you think you are "better off" then them (Palestinians), that is prejudice... If you deny or try justify any of the above facts, you are a sample of the quintessential hypocritical EVILS that are walking on this earth. Have a good day!

smiley, lets first get the facts straight, not "deny or justify" them. your first statement, incorrect, Israel's settlements may be disputed but they are not illegal, so its not stealing. Jewish settlers in Israel are not immigrants, Israel is the Jewish national homeland, thereby meaning Jews can live in the land, and the settlements being developed today are not on Palestinian civilian's homes. when exactly did Israel "bomb in-discriminately into a neighboring population," was that a war in which Lebanon started by capturing Israeli soldiers? and your examples of tyranny and brutality are simply incorrect, because there is no siege in Gaza, "a siege can be defined as 'a military operation in which enemy forces surround a town or building, cutting off essential supplies, with the aim of compelling the surrender of those inside.' This is certainly not the case of the Gaza Strip, where Israel continues to supply the Palestinians with electricity, humanitarian and medical supplies through border crossings - the very opposite of a 'siege'.(excerpt from honestreporting), and your example of prejudice is simply a generalization. now, lets not jump to another biased and untrue conclusion that i am "a sample of the quintessential hypocritical evils that are walking on this earth," all i like to do is provide you with facts.

Not illegal? You want facts? Here's a nice little fact for you:

"The establishment and expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have been described as violations of the fourth Geneva Convention and as "having no legal validity" by the UN Security Council in resolutions 446, 452, 465 and 471. These resolutions were made under Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter which relates to the "Pacific Settlement of Disputes" between parties, and as such have no enforcement mechanisms and are generally considered to have no binding force under international law. Israel has chosen not to heed them. The International Court of Justice has asserted in paragraph 120 of its Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004 that the settlements are illegal. The International Court of Justice has also asserted in an Advisory Opinion that "it is not possible to find in the Charter any support for" the view that only enforcement measures adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter are binding. The European Union and the General Assembly of the United Nations consider the settlements to be illegal."

"the prisoners are there because theyre terrorists"

Oh sure, since terrorists are less than human and don't deserve the protections afforded to ALL humans under the Geneva Conventions, like the right to not be imprisoned indefinitely without trial.

It is true that Palestinian refugees are counted differently. The UNRWA definition of a Palestinian refugee is as a person "whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948 and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict". The UNRWA also registers as refugees descendants in the male line of Palestinian refugees, and persons in need of support who first became refugees as a result of the 1967 conflict. However, it excludes persons taking refuge in countries other than Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

There are many refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, the West Bank, and Gaza, and these areas are in dire need of economic and developmental assistance, yet Israel continuosly restricts Palestinian freedom of movement and access to the Palestinian camps under the guise of security. You know what? The very same rational was used for the construction of the Berlin Wall.

Desperation and despair breed extremism and violence, and the Palestinian territories are most definitley desperate and disparaging areas. Address the causes of the desperation and despair, and you eliminate the threat of extremism. Increase the despair and frustration and marginalization and you increase the threat. Israel has it backwards.

Terrorism is relative. It is a tactic, not a belief. Israel has used terrosim in the past to achieve its goals. The US has used terrorism. Europeans have used terrorism. Russia has used terrorism.

Contrary to what you all would like to believe, you can't kill every terrorist in the world and still have people left to live in it.

Settlements are Not Illegal

1.The settlements are not located in "occupied territory." The last binding international legal instrument which divided the territory in the region of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza was the League of Nations Mandate, which explicitly recognized the right of Jewish settlement in all territory allocated to the Jewish national home in the context of the British Mandate. These rights under the British Mandate were preserved by the successor organization to the League of Nations, the United Nations, under Article 49 of the UN Charter.
2.The West Bank and Gaza are disputed, not occupied, with both Israel and the Palestinians exercising legitimate historical claims. There was no Palestinian sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza Strip prior to 1967. Jews have a deep historic and emotional attachment to the land and, as their legal claims are at least equal to those of Palestinians, it is natural for Jews to build homes in communities in these areas, just as Palestinians build in theirs.
3.The territory of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was captured by Israel in a defensive war, which is a legal means to acquire territory under international law. In fact, Israel's seizing the land in 1967 was the only legal acquisition of the territory this century: the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank from 1947 to 1967, by contrast, had been the result of an offensive war in 1948 and was never recognized by the international community, including the Arab states, with the exception of Great Britain and Pakistan.

The Settlements are Consistent with Resolution 242

Many observers incorrectly assume that UN Security Council Resolution 242 requires a full Israeli withdrawal from the land Israel captured in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. Some may have a hidden agenda aimed at depriving Israel of any legal rights whatsoever in the disputed areas. In either case, they use this misinterpretation to conclude that settlement activity is unlawful because it perpetuates an "illegal" Israeli occupation.

The assumption and the conclusion are deeply flawed. Resolution 242 calls for only an undefined withdrawal from a portion of the land -- and only to the extent required by "secure and recognized boundaries." Israel has already withdrawn from the majority of the land it had captured, and nearly all of the areas in which it retains communities are essential to "secure and recognized boundaries." The specific location of Israeli settlements was determined by Israel's Ministry of Defense over the last 30 years, not by the settlers themselves, and they were set up in order to strengthen Israel's presence in those few areas from which it cannot, militarily, afford to withdraw.

Settlements are Consistent with the Geneva Conventions

In three recent emergency special sessions of the UN General Assembly, Israeli settlement was cited as a violation of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention. These international humanitarian instruments, forged in the ashes of the Holocaust to prevent future genocidal brutality and oppression, were never invoked in 50 years until the case of condominium construction in Jerusalem during 1998. Was such construction -- any settlement construction -- a violation of the Geneva Convention?

No. The relevant clause, Article 49, prohibits the "occupying power" from transferring population into the "occupied territory." Aside from the fact that the territory is not occupied, but disputed, Morris Abrams, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, had pointed out that the clause refers to the forcible transfer of large populations. By contrast, the settlements involve the voluntary movement of civilians. The U.S. Department of State, accordingly, does not view Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention as applicable to settlement activity in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. For that reason, the official U.S. position has been over the years that settlements are legal, even though successive administrations have criticized them on political grounds. (Only the Carter administration for a short time held that settlements were illegal; this position was overturned by the Reagan administration.)

--Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

UNRWA gives special status to Palestinian refugees, that no other refugees in the world get from UNHCR. Therefore, today there are 4-5 million Palestinian refugees calling for a "right of return", but if they were dealt with by the UNHCR, which dealt with tens of millions of other refugees, less than a million - most of whom are in Syria and Lebanon - could be considered refugees. the problem of these refugees is not on the hands of Israel, as you imply: "There are many refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, the West Bank, and Gaza, and these areas are in dire need of economic and developmental assistance, yet Israel continuously restricts Palestinian freedom of movement and access to the Palestinian camps under the guise of security." (which by the way, is not a guise, they are actually presented with a security threat, but nonetheless)Palestinian refugees have not been suffering under Israeli occupation. (the 150,000 Arabs who remained in the Galilee and other places in Israel after the 48 war were given full Israeli citizenship, while those who fled to Arab countries were often treated as unwanted outsiders)Until the six-day war in 1967, the Palestinians of Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza were living under Arab occupation, not Israeli. For almost 20 years the opportunity existed for the Arab Governments to establish a sovereign Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, but they did nothing of the kind. and you are right, Nathan, "Desperation and despair breed extremism and violence, and the Palestinian territories are most definitely desperate and disparaging areas," and that's why in 1964 different groups came together and formed the PLO which is committed to terrorizing Israel, and was clear about its goal to annihilate Israel. "Address the causes of the desperation and despair, and you eliminate the threat of extremism," once again Nathan you're right, but the cause is not the establishment of Israel or the displaced refugees that resulted of the offensive Arab war, but of surrounding Arab countries' refusal to help the Palestinian refugees, and instead left them in camps for their situation to grow worse.

"it does not matter what your reasons are for fighting, if you go into a crowded civilian area to blow up innocent people, you are a terrorist"

You are talking about the Israely army right?

The Arabs do not beleive or agree with the british mandate..so all that follows is worthless to them.

Be realistic and love these people and nobody will scary anymore when you make a wrong turn.

WHAT AN AWESOME ARTICLE, GOD REST HIS SOUL

when was exactly did the Israeli army go into a civilian area to blow up innocent people? oh right, never! but the Palestinians did it on a pretty regular basis during the second intifada and in fact, they still try to do it now.

"but the cause is not the establishment of Israel or the displaced refugees that resulted of the offensive Arab war, but of surrounding Arab countries' refusal to help the Palestinian refugees, and instead left them in camps for their situation to grow worse."

That is rubbish I say, very ill-informed..pathetic
mercy be with Palestenians living with you..God save us from your liking on both sides.
I said I would not engage with you, but it seems you do not want to lose and want the Palastineans the cause of it all..GO AWAY

when was exactly did the Israeli army go into a civilian area to blow up innocent people? oh right, never"

Why don't read the news? Enough with you, you are sick

sheirf, I'm pretty sure I've told you this before, the things that i post are historical facts, so read them maybe you can learn a thing or two, instead of basing all your opinions on nothingness. at least my encounters with Nathan, though i don't agree with him, are intelligent, he cites things he writes, much unlike you who spews bias, stupidity, and hate.

i do, daily, and i've never come across that.

but i have read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/world/middleeast/30mideast.html?ex=1327813200&en=a630c54fdfac6f84&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=r

mind you, this is the first attack in 9 months, that Israel wasn't able to prevent, not that the Palestinians didn't plan others

what news exactly are you referring to?

You don't call what you write stupid? The Arab countries were responsible for the Palistenean refugees? Is that smart? The Israely army going ino Gaza on a weekly basis and dropping bombs on civilians? The wall is a security wall? That's racist you retard!Or when you were in Lebanon? Yes I disagree with your stupid one sided facts, and your hate to the Palestenians is in every silly word you write, like you're a teacher in class with your onlycorrect opinion! The U.N. resolutions go both ways why don't you mention the other side? I will tell you why: You are a Zionist beleiver that want your country to run from the Nile to the Forrat!These days are over, you have to understand Palestinans are human beings with rights to go back to their stolen homes(YOU THEIF), do you want to prove it to you? Take a picture of your house and see how many arabs owned it before you did!
Whats there to argue about anymore? You are obviously over 60 in age and have a one sided view, which will keep you and the Palestinians where they are till we have a fair foreign policy.

nah-nah we're victimised...grow up and deal with respect, now that you don't have it..this is over

Sorry but sometimes I have to work. So I cannot always respond to things.

Personally I don’t like giving quotes since even quotes can lie. There have been claims against former PM Sharon of which the footnotes lead to false sources. The best known example of this is the Russian fabrication called “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” There are group that claim it to be true, tellingly it is a very popular book in many Arab countries. Instead, my approach is to encourage people to search out the original sources. This is the beauty of Joan Peter’s book. The fellow who said that the book is worthless purposely missed what I wrote. Don’t read the book for her conclusions. Pick up the book only a resource for it quotes of important players and the footnotes that will prove the quote to be true. By calling the book worthless the implication is that there is nothing of value. The fellow really wants you to ignore the treasure load of information. Don’t let yourself be tricked.

Another issue that comes up is the Geneva Conventions and the rules that govern war and protection of civilians. These rules were developed after the evils that occurred in WWI. The framers of these rules knew that there were times that bad thinks will happen to good people. The sections that are frequently used against Israel are not the applicable rules. The laws understood that sometimes a Nation/People will find themselves in a situation where they need to defend themselves from aggression. In so doing it is possible that civilians would be injured or even killed. In such situations the laws make those who instigated the outcome responsible for the results. If you doubt this then go and read a full copy of the rules. Saying that the UN resolutions and the International Court has decided against Israel is meaningless since these bodies are stacked against Israel. When you add up the Arab countries and the non-aligned countries there is little chance that Israel will be heard and justice served.

How does this apply to Israel? Leading up to the six-day war Syria brought up its forces to armisters lines and stated their intent to attack. Egypt not only called up its troops, but also throws out the UN troops along the armisters line and blockaded the international port of Elat. Sorry, but these actions are “an acts of war.” Anything that Israel did was in self-defense. Today, there are people that claim Israel was not threatened. However, anyone has the ability to go to a large central library and get out microfilms of the daily papers from that time. You will then be able to judge for yourself. I believe you will agree that Israel acted in self-defense.

So what? Well it makes an important difference. The same Geneva Conventions state that when a country responds to an act of aggression and in so doing comes into possession of land, this land is NOT occupied territories. That is why, until recently, America stated that settlements do not contribute to peace negotiations. It isn’t that the settlements are on occupied lands; it is that they don’t move the process towards peace. Many years ago Madelyn Albright, then Sec. of State, was cornered and admitted that these lands are in “dispute.” The point is that Israel has many reasons to claim these lands as her own. First, the people who were occupying these areas had no rights to them. Jordan and Egypt were true occupiers according to the Geneva Conventions. The partition agreement was rejected by the Arabs Nations, so no people took possession of these lands. The PLO was set up in 1964, three years before the six-day war. The PLO charter stated that their purpose was to free occupied lands. What they meant was Israel not Gaza or the west Bank. The Armisters lines did not constitute borders. In fact the Arabs were very clear that the so called green line was temporary. So even if one insists on blaming Israel the facts remains that the situation was simply a continuation of the 1948 war, which few people deny was an Arab attack on Israel. Again, I encourage people to go back and check the original facts which can likely be uncovered in a large central library.

As someone point out:
“Johnny, all the cases you mentioned were all involuntary dispossessions of people by force. I am opposed to all of them. Jews shouldn't have been evicted from Jordan. The same for ethnic Germans after WWII and all the people dispossessed during the India/Pakistan split. The League of Nations/British had no right to force anyone to move and to play God and just designated certain areas to be Jewish or Non-Jewish. As mentioned in my previous post, the area consists of Jews and Arabs. It makes no sense whatsoever to dispossess by force either group and to deny that group the right to vote and have a say in how the area is to be governed. It's terrible that Jews are being forced out of Arab countries. That is wrong. It's also terrible that the Arab inhabitant of the land where Israel is now was forced out. That is also wrong.”

This is all nice to say, but in practice these things happened, are happening and will likely happen in the future. Israel is not the first case or the last. Yet, look at how many people are focused only against Israel.

As I pointed out before, many more Jews were thrown out of their ancestral homes in Muslim Countries. Of the Arab refugees very few were interned in camps as the result of Israeli threats. Most Arabs left at the advise of the own brothers, mostly in Syria. The Jews were given citizenship while the Arabs were kept locked up. As explained in Joan Peter’s book there were many unique provisions given these refugees. They were given the right to inherit the status of refugee. They were only expected to show that they had lived in Palestine for a minimum of two years. They were given a special division at the UN for the soul purpose of protecting their rights, according to their interpretation of those rights. There was not provision to find ways to integrate these people into other places, except to return to Israel. By inheriting the status of refugee their population ballooned, since each new member was given full benefits.

Whoever claims that Dhimmi system and wishes to set up a caliphate is not true must be sleeping at the wheel. This is one of the fundamentalist wishes.

Nathan wrote: “Oh please...do you really believe Israel hasn't provoked the Arabs? What about all the Palestinian refugees? Or the Jewish terrorist groups? Or the West Bank Barrier? Or the Jewish Settlements? Or the bulldozing of "illegal" villages? Or the withholding of Palestinian tax revenue? Or the indefinite imprisonment of Palestinians without due process? Or the bombing and shelling of civilian areas? Or the economic blockade of Gaza?”

Many of these claims have already been addressed. However we will summarize the facts again. The way the Arab refugees have been maintained is unlike any other refugee cared for by the UN. Jewish terrorist groups. Few and far between, unless you want to include “settlers.” Jewish terror doesn’t come close to world wide terror of the Muslims. And, why should Israel be blamed for Muslim terror in Asia and the Pacific? Bulldozing of “illegal” villages. The vast majority of the time Israel ignores illegal Arab building even in Israel proper. The majority of the buildings destroyed were for security purposes. Withholding taxes. Interesting point. Personally I think this money should go to the houses of Jews destroyed by Kassam rockets and other terror. The Arabs should be overjoyed to get anything. Economic blockade of Gaza. Firstly the people have the exit point with Egypt. They are not sealed in. The closure of the gate with Israel is for security reasons. The moment that terror does not emanate from Gaza you will see the gates swing open. In fact, Arab workers from Gaza will be welcomed again.

sherif,i truly see no value in anything you said, you did not address any of the issues i brought up, other than to cast it off for no reason. at least what I'm saying is not an attack on others' views, much like your posts are, but valid points with sources to back them up (though johnny does make a good point that sources can be false, but as far as i know the ones i quote are reliable, feel free to check them out), you may disagree with my views, thats fine, but tell me why, other than to make generalizations about who i am or what i want, show me why I'm wrong, and why you're right. let's talk about it. I've clearly stated my opinions, and I'm happy to explain them again, with history to back it up.

and one more thing, you're closing line "nah-nah we're victimized" coincides perfectly with a statement made by Ralph Galloway, former director of UNRWA, in 1958 : "the arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. they want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront to the UN and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don't give a damn whether the refugees live or die." why don't you get over that you were "victimized" (whether thats true or not) and start doing what you can to help the cause (which does not mean killing Israelis).

I fail to see how the settlements could be called legal when the UN has passed several resolutions referring to the settlements as illegal and demanding that Israel remove them.

"The United Nations Security Council (in Resolution 446, Resolution 465 and Resolution 484, among others), the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention[5], and the International Committee of the Red Cross[6], have each resolved that the territories discussed in this article are occupied and that the Fourth Geneva Convention provisions regarding occupied territories apply. In its decision on the separation barrier, the International Court of Justice ruled that the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem are occupied."
-"Legal Consequence of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory" International Court of Justice, July 9, 2004

As for the claim that the 1967 war was defensive in nature, I defer to the then US secretary of state Dean Rusk, who wrote: "We were shocked...and angry as hell, when the Israelis launched the surprise offensive. They attacked on a Monday, knowing that on Wednesday the Egyptian vice president would arrive in Washington to talk about re-opening the Strait of Tiran. We might not have succeeded in getting Egypt to reopen the strait, but it was a real possibility." Typically, pre-emptive strikes are not considered a defensive action, especially when diplomatic methods have not been fully explored, or do you consider the US invasion of Iraq a defensive war as well?

Clearly the lands were taken and occupied. Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt as part of their 1979 peace treaty. You can't return something you own. If you own it, and you hand it to someone else, that's called giving a gift. Israel's return of the Sinai wasn't a gift--it was a return of occupied territory.

When Israel ignores the rulings of the UN and the ICJ on the grounds that the land is "disputed" not "occupied", Israel is deliberately ignoring the spirit of the rulings and international agreements. Israel has essentially chosen to rewrite and reinterpret the definitions of previous agreements to shirk the responsibility of adhering to them. There is no excuse for this. In fact, Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 states that : "a state is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purposes of a treaty when it has undertaken an act expressing its consent thereto." Shortly after the 1967 war Israel agreed that the Geneva Conventions applied to the recently-occupied territories, but then rescinded the decision a few months later.

Also, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs is an extremely biased source. Their stated objective is "the need to present Israel's case in the wake of the renewed Palestinian violence", as well as "the return of anti-Semitism in the post-Holocaust period". This is hardly an organization devoted to finding the truth. It's an advocacy group. It's like citing gun statistics from the National Rifle Association.

Johnny, your awareness of history is biased and one-sided.

Your "facts" come from biased historians with an agenda who deliberately cherry-pick their sources and pass them through the Zionist filter before feeding them to gullible readers like yourself. Israel supports this actions as a means of influencing public opinions about the state. After, all, we all know the infamous quote about controlling the past.

Peter's "From Time Immemorial" is just another one of these Zionist history books attempting to re-interpret the past and whitewash history. Have you read every one of her sources to verify her claims? I have not, and I suspect you have not either. No casual reader would. But others have performed very thorough peer reviews and have concluded that her book is a misrepresentation at best, and an outright fraud at worst.

It's only been recently that a few historians of the likes of Benny Morris and Tom Segev (who call themselves the New Historians or Historical Revisionists) have begun to paint a more accurate picture of events by referencing recently unclassified papers direct from the Israeli government. Here's an excerpt from one that attests to just the opposite of your claim that Palestinian refugees left of their own accord or from instruction by Arab leaders:

"At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations." To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi,, which "directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration". A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to "fears" and "a crisis of confidence" affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases.."

"Jewish terror doesn’t come close to world wide terror of the Muslims." This is an incredibly prejudiced and intolerant remark. Not only have you misrepresented the reality of the terrorist threat (I refer you to my previous post about terrorism), you have stereotyped and generalized all Muslims as terrorists.

By the way, the Irgun and Lehi were paramilitary Jewish groups that used terrorist attacks against British forces. By following your logic, this must mean all Jews in the world are terrorists...

"They are not sealed in. The closure of the gate with Israel is for security reasons." The closure of the Erez crossing and other checkpoints is nothing more than collective punishment. Its cuts off Palestinian access to their jobs, their family, their hospitals assigned to serve them, and so on. In some areas, the West Bank Barrier has cut off palestinians from their water and their farm land, and has increased the time to get to a hospital from 10 minutes to 110 minutes. Imagine if you couldn't go to work for a month or more because some border crossing was closed. Do you think you would still have your job when you were finally able to cross?

Israel exercises disproportionate control over Gaza and West Bank yet none of the residents are afforded Israeli citizenship or access to Israeli courts like the residents of the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. In addition, the barriers have completely destroyed the economies of these areas:

"According to a 2007 World Bank report, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank has destroyed the Palestinian economy, in violation of the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access. All major roads (with a total length of 700 km) are basically off-limits to Palestinians, making it impossible to do normal business. Economic recovery would reduce Palestinian dependence on international aid by one billion dollars per year."

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWESTBANKGAZA/Resources/WestBankrestrictions9Mayfinal.pdf

"...Arab countries' refus[ed] to help the Palestinian refugees, and instead left them in camps for their situation to grow worse."

Like I've said above, Israel exercises an inordinate amount of control over the movement and well-being of those inside Gaza and the West Bank. Since Israel is occupying those lands without giving the residents proper representation, the responsibility for economic development and assistance resides primarily with them. Had Israel returned the lands or set up a permanent palestinian state, then other parties would be responsible instead of Israel.

I'm sorry, but Israel can't have it both ways. Either give up control of the land, or enshroud them under the Israeli political process and afford them equal benefits in a democratic society. Israel is a democratic society, correct?

Current refugee counts:

# Jordan 1,827,877 refugees
# Gaza 986,034 refugees
# West Bank 699,817 refugees
# Syria 432,048 refugees
# Lebanon 404,170 refugees
# Saudi Arabia 240,000 refugees
# Egypt 70,245 refugees

I agree that it may not be feasible to ce leftaccommodate the return of 4 to 5 million Palestinians and Palestinian descendants, but they do not deserve to be ignored nor forgotten. They deserve the full attention of the international community. They deserve developmental assistance and a national identity. Right now these people feel forgotten and marginalized and abused. Israel does bear responsibility, as do the Arab states (Jordan has actually shown considerable hospitality toward millions of Palestinian refugees). Israel needs to show restraint as the dominant power in the region and quit violating the human rights of those living in Gaza and the West Bank. Then the international community and Israel need to make an enormous amount of effort to bring the Palestinians into the international arena and pump up their economy to the point where it can stand on its own. This is the best way--and in my opinion, the only way--to foster a lasting peace between the two groups. It may take a generation or two of mixing to dilute the prejudice and racism clouding the judgment of both sides, but a peace will come eventually. It always does.

And as for resolution 242, that is a deeply contentious issue. It is most definitely not black and white as the JCPA have described it. The actual text states:

"the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" to be achieved by "the application of both the following principles:" "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" and: "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency" and respect for the right of every state in the area to live in peace "within secure and recognized boundaries"."

The dispute is over this sentence: "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict".

Israel claims that the word "the" or "all" was deliberately left out of the sentence, meaning Israel does not have to withdraw from ALL the occupied territories just whichever ones it deems necessary.

It's purely semantics and it sounds like a childish argument to me. The UN was clearly upset with Israel's occupation of the conquered territory. Instead of deferring to an international court for clarification, Israel chose to ignore the intention of the resolution and instead interpret it differently to weasel out of complying.

It's like the child who doesn't clean up his room on time and when asked why replies "you didn't say whether you meant today or tomorrow".

to natan yo still are beating around the bush and bring up differnt topics like if the settelments are legal ect'. you still fail to answer my main question how can israel even relaese their tight security if the mentality of your avearge palistian is that if he could kill you he will. as seen from the fact that me as an american in israel would accdently make a wrong turn into an arab village then i would be linched. so till they change that mentalty there is no way to stop the tight security. and about the terrorist prisoners they get treated better in israeli priosons then they would outside. so natan stop beating around the bush and answer the question how can one have a peace with such a mentality. and by the way every time israel gives land or more rights all it does is strenthen the terroists for htey see there tactics working.

As for inculcating peace: Don't forget the arrest and detention of Palestinians who for generations have lived and gone to school in what the settlers call Judea and Sumeria. Since 1967, more than 650,000 Palestinians have been arrested by Israel. This equals approximately 20% of the total Palestinian population in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Considering that the majority of these political prisoners are male, it's close to 40% of the total male Palestinian population.
Incarceration adds to their resentment, which is stirred up even more when the uniformed kids at checkpoints deny dignity to the Arabs who stand in line in order to go about their daily life.
You wonder about cause and effect. let's stop trying to pin the blame on who started what and just look ahead to the future. Together.

i have already explained why the land is not illegal, but rather disputed, and in terms of the six-day war, yes israel striked frist but only in self defense. here was the situation: surrounding arab countries amassed all their forces to annihilate israel. in the sinai, Israel faced 120,000 troops and 900 tanks. Egypt had 100,000 troops and 300 tanks ready. In the Golan Israel faced 75,000 troops and 400 tanks. Iraq was moving their forces to Jordan and together they had 40,000 troops and 450 tanks. The combined arab forces had over 700 planes. Fuylly mobilized Israel had 250,000 soldiers 800 tanks and 300 airplanes. So what should Israel do? wait for the arabs to strike first, which clearly they were going to do without a doubt, and then israel would be wiped off the map, or plan an ambush attack, strike first, and have a chance for survival?
you're right the sinai wasn't a gift, it was part of a peace treaty, israel would do anything to live in peace with its neighbors, so in 1979 the Israel-Egypt peace accords took place and Israel returned the Sinai, though they could have kept it because it was captured in war, but they gave it to Egypt in promise for peace.

Nathan, like I've said before, the Palestinians of Jerusalem, the west bank, and Gaza were living under Arab occupation, not Israeli. (the Arabs living in Israel were granted full citizenship rights.) until the six-day war, the Arabs had the responsibility of these refugees. they could have absorbed them or created a state for them, but they did neither. instead they chose to keep them camps. you like Benny Morris, so here's a quote from him: "the insufficiency of the '100,000 offer' [in 1949, Israel reluctantly agreed to take back 100,000 refugees in the context of a comprehensive peace], the Arab states' growing rejectionism, and their inability to publicly agree to absorb and resettle most of the refugees...all meant that the Palestinian exiled Arabs would remain refugees, to be utilized during the following years by the Arab states as a powerful political and propaganda pawn against Israel."

refugee counts:
As a result of the 1948 war, approximately 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled their homes. Of those Arabs who left:
75,000 were settled in refugee camps in Syria, 100,000 in Lebanon, 70,000 in Jordan, 190,000 in Gaza, and 250,000 in the West Bank. Another 30,000 fled to Europe, Egypt, and elsewhere before May 1948. These numbers have increased overtime because instead of dealing with these refugees like all other refugees around the world, the UN created the UNRWA which allowed descendants to inherent refugee status. had the Palestinians been dealt with by the UNHCR less than a million of the 4-5 million would actually be considered refugees. Israel does not bear responsibility for them, they have agreed in the past to take in some in promise for peace but the Arabs did not agree, and the Arab countries themselves bear the responsibility. those Arabs that stayed in Israel became full citizens, those that went to neighboring countries were ignored, so clearly the responsibility is on the Arab countries, Israel dealt fairly with the Palestinians they were responsible for. in addition, after the war, Arab governments expelled over half-a-million Jews from countries they had lived in for centuries. Israel successfully absorbed these Jewish refugees into their newborn country. the Arab states could have and should have done the same thing with the Arab refugees. So I agree this issue deserves international attention, but not from the standpoint of "blame Israel" this does not have to do with Israel. Let the UN and the Arab countries find a place for the Arab refugee problem , in which they themselves created.

Tigermarks--dhimma

"The Dhimmi system is not practiced today in any part of the Muslim world. Reform has already taken place. With the death of the Ottoman Empire ca. 1920 and the establishment of national states, non-Muslims in predominantly Muslim countries have enjoyed equal rights under the law. In countries without a non-Muslim population, like Saudi Arabia, expatriates receive the same treatment whether they are Muslims or not.

"While the Dhimmi system does not exist, the free practice of religion is not always a right in the Arab world. In some countries any religious belief outside orthodox Islam is restricted. The levels of restriction vary, from Saudi Arabia at one extreme and Lebanon and Syria at the other. Even most Gulf countries allow the building of Churches, though there remain restrictions on the practice of religion especially on proselytizing.

"While Christians and other non-Muslims do not have the right to practice the religion freely in some Arab countries, they continue to enjoy as individuals equality before the law."

Seems Tigermarks is saying "equal rights under the law" but not "free practice of religion [as] a right." And "non-Muslims" presumably include Jews.

Dhimma has waxed and waned over the centuries. The Umayyads were lenient, the Almohavids strict. Today it may not be practiced to the fullest. But it exists on the books, under shari'a. There are several states that rule by shari'a, or nearly so.

Yemen had a benign form of dhimma till the 1950s: most Yemenite Jews at that point emigrated to Israel. In countries like Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, dhimma is not practiced because they've taken more extreme measures, and largely kept out any Jews. Sudan's Islamic gov't seems to be advancing toward dhimma, or beyond it. The Taliban regime demonstrated a similar outlook in destroying the buddhas of Bamiyan.

Iran's Islamic regime has enforced some shari'a restrictions on Jews--perhaps not the complete dhimma--and as a result tens of thousands of Iran's Jews emigrated, many to Israel. Blessing Israel with Shaul Mofaz and former president Katsav.

So shari'a, and with it dhimma, still seems to exist, and may be trending up.

"National states" in the Muslim world may be a passing fad. When a-Tatawi coined the term "wataniya" in the waning days of the Ottoman empire, he was criticized for importing an essentially European, non-organic concept into Arab political discourse.

A second response to the dissolution of the Ottoman empire was secular pan-Arabism, in its heyday led by Nasser. It probably died completely with Saddam. Nasser briefly unified Egypt with Syria in the "United Arab Republic," and made efforts to include Yemen and Jordan. Perhaps Assad continues a semblance of this.

The current movements that attract Arab enthusiasm are Islamic pan-Arabism and pan-Islam. Both speak of a unified Islamic super state. It's in the Hamas charter, AFIK.

Even as far back as the 1920s, the Hashemites envisioned a pan-Arab state, with a Hashemite on its throne as caliph. The Wahabi view is that there can be no future caliphs, but the Saudis nevertheless are active in spreading and consolidating an Islamic realm, from Dagestan southward. Iran, the Ikhwan, and a-Qaeda all tend toward a pan-Islamic view.

The Ottomans didn't encourage local nationalism, and those who advanced the idea usually were either European-educated or Christian Arabs, who favored it, and/or secular pan-Arabism, precisely because they would be dhimmis in a shari'a state.

Those states where the idea took more hold tended to be those with a notable pre-Islamic history and a substantial non-Islamic element of the population--Lebanon and Egypt in particular. Ironically, for Palestinian Arabs seeking to define themselves separately from other Arabs in the masriq, that distinguishing culture and population are the Jews.

Batsheva--defensive war, aggressive war

Conquest of land by aggressive war conveyed legitimate title, according to customary international law, for many centuries. This is how the early caliphate (an entity that some wish to revive) acquired the Holy Land, and the rest of the Middle East, from the Byzantines. It's how the Ottomans took it from the Arabs.

This was revised by international treaty in 1949, the Geneva Conventions. Since the emirate of Trans-Jordan seized the West Bank prior to 1949, its title was entirely legal, AFIK. Just touchy. The Saudi clan took the Hejaz, a principality previously held by the Hashemite clan, in the early 1920s, in a clear war of aggression.

When Sherif asserts that Israel kills Arab civilians, especially children, wantonly (heaven forfend), he's probably got real citations from Arabic-language media. Problem is that most of these cites don't have any basis in objective reality, from the p.o.v. of most Western media. But if you were Arab, which perspective would you trust.

Nathan--Dean Rusk, UN

Rusk is just one voice among several of that era. Most other sources say that Pres. Johnson wasn't going to open the straits with a US convoy any time soon, and the Egyptian ambassador very likely had no brief that Egypt would reopen the straits voluntarily.

There was a legal state of belligerency between Egypt and Israel in 1967. It continued uninterrupted from 1948 till Sadat signed the peace treaty. There were numerous fedayeen raids from Egypt into Israel between 1948 and 1967.

Nasser wanted to establish the United Arab Republic, and even had merged Egypt with Syria for a couple of years. He wanted to be seen as a leader, and having a war, particularly against Israel, was a good way in his view. He'd invaded Yemen prior to 1967, and much of his army was still there. He'd had several conflicts on his western border. So there's no particular reason to think he was bluffing. Blustering also, sure. Saddam blustered in 1991, for example, before firing rockets at Israel.

Egypt in those days was about 40 million people, Israel about 5 million. For Israel to match Egypt's standing army, a large part of the civilian workforce had to be mobilized. This did much harm to the economy, as did the blockade at Tiran. When Nasser ordered out the UN buffer force and moved his army hundreds of miles across the Sinai desert to the Israeli border, Israel had to mobilize. And to stay mobilized indefinitely, with Tiran blockaded, would have been to experience economic warfare.

Therefore there is little reason to believe that Egypt's ambassador in DC had any plans or instructions to do anything but drag things out. By that cite, Rusk at best was obtuse.

The UN is one-third Arab. The proven oil reserves of the Persian Gulf, under Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, and the other Arab principalities are more than 60% of the known oil on the planet. That provides a lot of influence.

There is so much to say, but why recreate the wheel. Better is simply to list several sites that will offer the opposing point of view. Then you fine readers will have the ability to choose what you want to believe. Now isn’t t