Scratch a socialist and underneath you’ll find an anti-Semite;
[Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos] who was once the EU’s Middle East peace envoy, angrily denied an accusation at the conference by a former Spanish Jewish community leader that Zapatero’s remarks were anti-Semitic.
During the question-and-answer session at the breakfast, Mauricio Hatchwell, a member of Spain’s small Jewish community, accused Zapatero of being antisemitic.
Moratinos reacted sternly, saying one could be a loyal ally of Israel and still criticize it without being antisemitic. He addressed Hatchwell personally and told him not to repeat such criticism of the government.
“Let this be the last time you publicly denounce and condemn and express yourself saying a Spanish government is antisemitic,” Moratinos said.
He said he was not worried by the diplomatic effect of photographs in Spanish newspapers on Thursday of a grinning Zapatero wearing a black-and-white Palestinian scarf passed to him by a student at Wednesday’s meeting.
Emphasis mine.
A reader sent the following item by Ignacio Russell Cano via email. I’m looking for an online source to link to, but in the meanwhile, will reprint in its entirety; (Update – Source found).
Spanish Jews knew there were hard times ahead. Prime Minister Zapatero has not disappointed them
Madrid: Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Prime Minister of Spain and Secretary General of the Socialist Party, arrived to power at a time nobody expected, not even inside the Party.
Keen on populist tirades against the United States “Dickhead Bush” and “Ketchup Queen Kerry”, his whole campaign did not bring much attention until the moment Al-Qaeda decided to blow up Madrid trains, killing almost 200 people and bringing to an end Spain’s membership of the West.
From that moment on, everybody knew nothing would be the same, and Spanish Jews knew there were hard times ahead. Prime Minister Zapatero has not disappointed them.
‘Understand Nazis’
Although many experts had foretold of the imminent disappearing of European Jews, nobody expected such a virulent explosion of anti-Semitism in Spain, not even under a Leftist government.
The first signal came on Monday, 5 December, when during a dinner with the Benarroch family, Zapatero and wife began claiming what Vidal Quadras, member of the European Parliament, described on the radio as “a tirade of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism”.
By the moment the Benarroch couple had left the table to express their regrets, Zapatero was explaining his lack of surprise about the Holocaust: according to the people present, Zapatero claimed to understand the Nazis.
(More in the extended entry.)
What about Hizbullah?
Closing Hizbullah TV was another mission impossible for the man who understands the Nazis. It took more than a year to definitely close the channel connection to the Hispasat satellite, siphoning Latin America with more than a year of hate and Islamist propaganda.
In a country with the most anti-Catholic government in its whole history but with a multicultural obsession for Islam, A-Manar TV was part of the ‘freedom of press.’
The recent clashes with Hizbullah, however, have promoted the longest and hardest diatribes against Israel, forcing Zapatero to loose a cover for what it was long known in Spanish politics: His hate towards Israel, Jews and Zionism.
In the third day of such rants, before a gathering of the Socialist Youth Movement and a day before a demonstration against Israel, Zapatero showed at last his true colours: At the closing of the meeting he let the teenagers take pictures of him wearing a Palestinian kaffiyah.
Although according to Zapatero, Hizbullah and Israel are the same thing, he offers no words of condemnation for the Party of Allah, spending 100 percent of the time explaining, in a rather twisted way, that Israel should let Hizbullah kill Israelis.
Much of the theory belongs to controversial Spanish FM Miguel Angel Moratinos. EU envoy to the Middle East before and sinking in rumours of links to Hamas long before he left, Moratinos arrived to the foreign ministry cleaning the Elcano Institute up, firing the most prestigious experts and bringing in a group of friends of the oppression theory.
Since then, amid support for Castro and Chavez and mysterious support to Bolivia in order to bring Evo Morales to power, the Spanish FM has proved he has nothing to envy in terms of anti-Americanism, but nobody ever expected an explosion of anti-Semitism in Spain this big. It seems once more that the Jews are the canary in the mine, and the United States should take note.
Jews pay the price
The commotion caused in the Spanish Jewish community seems to be huge, especially taking in count that after some months of anxiety after his election, some Jews were feeling somewhat safe in Spain. Not anymore.
Some people were trying to alert the international community about what was boiling in Spain, but neither the OSCE nor the EUMC ever listened, preferring contacts with anti-Israeli NGOs based on the idea that anti-Semitism has to do with Arabs. Now the Spanish Jews are to pay the price for the international community’s inaction, once more.
If the United States does not want to see the American embassy in Madrid full of Jews fleeing Spain, President Bush will do well in isolating Spain in the international arena while pressing, and asking European members to press, the new Socialist government of Spain. The American Rep’s belonging to Moratino’s Caucus of Friends of Spain should be reminded its elections time too.
The Sepharad story is clearly over, but nobody expected it would be by accident. If you are thinking about visiting Spain, think it twice. You may not leave easily.
Socialists are vermin. It isn’t surprising they’re also anti-Semites.
Spain will be re-conquered by the Moors soon enough. Then these socialists will get what’s coming to them: Slavery – if they’re lucky…
Moratinos, just like Zapatero is a wimp and cowers at the Islamofascists threats. But He poses as a “man” when it comes to the destruction of Israel and the Jews.
Let’s see the Spanish army go face to face with the IDF. Wimps.
Now PMSH is a man with some backbone:
canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=c0ada2ed-6c3d-4690-9317-739c4d97fd16&k=49262
my bathroom rug is black and white herringbone design–does that make me an anti-semite?
On BBC the other night the father of Corporal Shalit was interviewed. He stated that his son’s capture(notice he did not say ‘kidnapping’) was a pretense on the part of Israel to draw Syria and Iran into the conflict and thus give ‘justification’ for those two countries to be attacked.
George:
“my bathroom rug is black and white herringbone design–does that make me an anti-Semite?”
No but the comment makes you look foolish.
For your information, there have been UK Government/BBC studies in which the BBC admitted it was anti-Israeli and pro-Arab. They admit to being biased. That they did so means the bias must have been so large as to be beyond deniability. They also said that they have no intention of changing. Does this tell you something about the reliability of BBC reports on any subject? If not, you’re a lefty.
Does this mean that Spain is failing to take a nuanced approach?
the palestinian headress is not herringbone. it is supposed to represent barbedwire – a symbol of imprisonment. they along with the Jordanian version in red, were derived from headdresses from British Regiments stationed in the Trans-Jordan.
just thought you would like to know the difference.
DrD.
Heh. Nuanced approach.
I suppose Zapatero is “costing [Spain its] credibility, and preventing it from playing its traditional role of neutral broker in any Middle East peace process.”
You know, this line doesn’t sound any better when in in this context than when the retard left used it against Harper…
I’m pro a Palestinian state and I’m also pro an Israeli state. I criticize both sides. What does that make me? And I’m most certainly not a socialist.
Because one wears a Palestinian scarf does not mean that one is anti-Israel. If one is against some of Israeli’s policies (and I certainly am) that doesn’t mean that one is anti-semitic.
Can you, however, link socialism and anti-Israel? In many cases, yes. I think the link is that Israel is economically capitalist, industrial, and democratic. Socialists doesn’t like that. They live off, like leeches, the downtrodden. They mix the downtrodden tears with their lattes as they talk, talk, talk, in the safety of their downtown cafes.
Again, being against some of Israel’s policies does not equate with anti-semitism. I think Israel itself used the equation often, and it prevents criticism of Israel.
In my view, Israel’s assumption in 1948 that the Palestinians would ‘dissolve into thin air’; their generation long occupation, and an occupation that accompanied massive settlements of those occupied lands, and denied Palestinians equal access to resources; and the Oslo suggestions – are all issues to be critiqued.
Equally, Arafat’s corrupt hold on the Palestinians, which actually meant no possibility of a Palestinian state, for he would lose power; and the Palestinian inability to modernize (whether due to lack of resources and/or leadership)their economy, and the rest of the Arab world’s indifference to the Palestinians – are issues to be critiqued. The arab world is against Israel, not because it gives a damn about the Palestinians (it doesn’t) but because it fears a modern democratic industrial system in its midst.
Being against some of Israel’s policies isn’t anti-semitic, but defending those who want to murder Jews, calling that opposition to Israel’s policies is.
Actually ET,
In 1948 the Jews accepted the two state solution and thus they have their state. In 1948 the Arabs rejected the two state solution, chose violence and murder instead and thus, the area’s Arabs have no state.
Once they decide that they would rather live in peace than die killing Jews they will have a state. Until then, they have a savage death cult.
The decision to live in peace must be made by both sides. We wait for the Arabs. The fault is entirely theirs.
Any actions by the Israeli government that are worthy of criticism would have been moot had the Arabs not rejected peace to begin with – everything else follows that. There would be no Israeli policies that would offend you in the “occupied territories” as the “territories” would not have been “occupied” to begin with. Had the Israelis not been attacked by Arafat’s PLO and its precursor terrorist organizations (as well as those since – like Hezbollah) in Lebanon, there would have been no Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon either – and there would have been no civil war there to boot.
Arabs are the authors of their own misery. It’s the reward they reap for their hatred and violence. They alone have the power to end it.
ET:
I’m pro a Palestinian state and I’m also pro an Israeli state. I criticize both sides. What does that make me?
That makes you totally irrelevant. Next question?
Because: were you not a hopeless idealist (in this issue) you would have understood long ago that the “Palestinians” have never wanted a side-by-side state and any “peace process” should have been interpreted as a “hudna” (tactical truce, a pause while gathering strength to effect the final solution). You need not take my word for this: you only needed to read translations of what, for example, Arathug said in Arabic.
The “Palestinians” wanted ONE state overlaying Israel and the “occupied territories”.
You seem like a smart and nice cat, but on this issue you’re quite simply hopeless. Sorry.
You cannot support a people who have elected a government that has publicly vowed the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel, without being anti-Semitic by default.
So long as that remains the case, criticism of Israeli policy is just peripheral yackity yack.
Warwick: Exactly right. That is the simple unvarnished truth. ET: I suggest you print it out and stick it on your fridge.
Sorry, warwick, I agree with some but not all of your points.
I certainly agree that IF the two state solution had been accepted….but I don’t think that the Palestinians were in a position to accept or reject it; they simply, as usual, did as they were told (by Turks, by Brits, by the Arab States).
And the fact that they were, as Muslim, unacceptable in the new Israeli state, meant that they had to leave. No-one would accept them. That’s a problem for both sides.
Furthermore, the Arab states didn’t want an industrial democracy in their midst; that was, I think, almost the major problem. It remains a major problem, because the refusal by the ME states to move themselves out of tribalism and into an industrial democracy is the direct cause of their current Islamic fascism.
But then, Israel shouldn’t have settled the land; that is yet another major problem. And the Oslo Accord was irrelevant.
And, the inability of the Palestinians to take charge of their situation and modernize their economy and perspective, to move out of a tribal mentality – all of which is due to Arafat, who kept them as illiterate peasants so he could be King – is another problem.
It isn’t as one-sided as you assert; I think it’s more complex and there are faults on both sides.
Wish I could get it down that right!
The Israelis want peace, the Palestinians do not. They never stop saying so.
The broad left defends those who wish to murder Jews by couching it as “opposition to Israel’s policies”, as if it about fine-tuning policy. This little piece of sophistry is the left’s toxic weapon.
Consider the recent reaction to Israeli actions in Lebanon: Hezbollah has 23 seats in the Lebanese parliament, which is the equivalent of 56 seats in the Canadian parliament. If we had a party with 56 seats who set up in, say, southern Manitoba, and started lobbing shells into cities in Michigan, would the world be outraged by any military reaction from the US? Would socialists around the world complain that Canada’s sovereignty was being “violated”?
Apparently yes, if the US was populated by Jews.
another Nation question.
wasnt Quebec upset that Stephen Harper wouldnt recognize them as a nation?
what have our fathers of deconfederation wrought?
I agree Kate. So much discussion around the ME conflict is smoke and mirrors.
In my admitedly simple mind, it’s quite binary. You support Israel’s right to exsist, or you don’t. There is no “compromise” – no “Canadian” position lying between these two poles.
If ne does not support Israel’s right to exist, then what consequences does one see for the Jewish people? Can militant Islam take down Israel without dire consequences for the Jewish people? After studying the Koran, listening to the rhetoric, reading the blogs, watching the TV clips, my surmisal is: NO.
Of those who do not support Israel’s right to exist, and there are many here in the west, on what basis do they reason that there will not be in incomprehensibly tragic outcome? This line of thought has never been broached by the terrorist’s apologists in the west.
It’s time to cut through the BS and get that very question right out on the table. Which is what this post is all about.
MSM apologists for those that call for the destruction of Israel, what say you? Explain to me how you see Israel disappearing without the concomitant human tragedy to which I allude?
The apologists will not touch the topic with a barge pole. They may get a surface scratch if they do.
Et,
“but I don’t think that the Palestinians were in a position to accept or reject it; they simply, as usual, did as they were told (by Turks, by Brits, by the Arab States).”
I’d say that the “Palestinians” were in no position to do anything in 1948 as the concept of a separate Palestinian identity was not present until after the 1967 war. Prior to this, the occupied territories were held by Transjordan and Egypt. There was, and has never been, a separate Palestinian state or people. Ever.
The Turks were irrelevant, their Ottoman empire crushed by WWI. The Brits were the ones with the mandate to create the two states to begin with (heard of the Balfour declaration?) and the Arab states were who started the war and whose populations now makes up the newly created “Palestinian” identity.
The objection to Israel has bugger all to do with democracies or industrial states. They had a problem with Jews then and now – just as they did in 1929 when they massacred the Jews in Hebron.
There is no equivalency between Arabs trying to kill Jews as their primary aim and Israel’s aim of defending their tiny sliver of land in the midst of a vast sea of hostile Arab territory. None. Any comparisons can only be the most juvenile sophistry – and that is being charitable.
ET,
I have often agreed with you in the past. When I don’t it’s usually because you parrot what you learned in school from some jackass sociologist profs. Never listen to sociologists. They’ve yet to endow humanity with a useful thought.
EBD: “If we had a party with 56 seats who set up in, say, southern Manitoba, and started lobbing shells into cities in Michigan”
That’s quite the range there. I’d suggest Ontario target Michigan and leave North Dakota or even Minnisota to the Manitobans. [geographic sarcasm for an ex-Manitoban]
BTW: Manitoba has already had it’s share of rebellions.
Hizbullah’s death traps: Bunker Buster’s delight.
Stand With Israel. …-
IDF: Hizbullah built mass bunker network
Senior Northern Command officer tells Ynet that soldiers killed in Lebanon Wednesday were part of mission aimed at uncovering 40-meter deep poured concrete bunkers along border. Despite challenges, army determined to complete operation
Hanan Greenberg
ynet
warwick – agreed – there was never a Palestinian state. Just as, at one time, there wasn’t a Canadian state. As for ‘people’ – that’s ambiguous. They aren’t a discrete ethnic group, but they certainly were governed as Palestinians, under the British mandate. And just because there wasn’t, previously, a Palestinian state, doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be one. All entities have Origins and validity isn’t based on Origin.
The Arab states are not also Palestinians, nor vice versa. We in the West might think that ‘all Arabs are Arabs are Arabs’ but they aren’t. There are ‘levels’ of acceptance, and Palestinians were and remain, low on the status level (compare with Yemenite Jews).
I disagree with you about the objection to Israel being based solely around the religion. It would have been the same if it were a Christian state. And it’s now the same with Iraq – moving into an industrial democracy. I think it’s about the infrastructure of the state – an industrial democracy.
I don’t know what you are talking about with regards to ‘equivalency’.
I totally agree with you about the majority of sociologists. However, I’m a professor (of anthropology) and my research field is artificial and natural (ie biological) information networks and systems – so, I view the conflict in the ME in a different ‘modus’ than you do.
I think that the conflicts aren’t based simply around cultural themes (eg religions)which are merely surface level expressions of structures, but around the deep structures of interaction.
What is a Palestinian? Aren’t they just descendants of Jordanians and Egyptians who weren’t allowed to return to their countries?
ET,
Not make light, but…
The levels of acceptance you refer to is simple really. If you are a Sunni you hate Shias but you hate Kurds more than Shias and you hate “crusaders” more than Kurds and you hate Jews more than crusaders… I would suppose you should change it to read “levels of unacceptance” though as it has more to do with sectarian hatred (one of the two reasons for war – the other being crass robbery.)
More to the point, there is no difference between a Jordanian citizen and a Palestinian “refugee” living in Jordan – except the passport and the political expediency of Arab state’s using the misery of the passportless as political fodder to bash Israel. The Jews of the ME (and they too come from different backgrounds) have been given full rights in Israel when expelled from all the Arab states. The “refugees” were a two-way phenomenon. The treatment of the refugees is illustrative of the problem of the Arab side.
As for Israel’s make-up, there are over 1.5 million Arabs in Israel with full citizenship rights including the vote and representation in their parliament. Israeli Arabs have more rights in Israel than Arabs have in Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia…
As for ‘equivalency,’ I’ll illustrate as such:
If you pull a knife on me and try to kill me and rob my corpse of my wallet and instead I pull out my gun and blow your head off, there is no equivalence. You were the attacker, you started the violence and you (and your supporters) would have no moral reason to complain and call it a “cycle of violence” cause there’s no cycle. Just one side saying “oh, hell no I won’t roll over and die” in response to savage behaviour shown be the other side. They are not equivalent. To suggest equal blame to both sides is not rational. If the robber did not attempt the violence, the robbie would not have blown the robber’s head off. There would be no violence. But if the robbie was unarmed, the violence would still occur and the robbie would be dead. I’m not sure how much easier I can make the analogy…
As an anthropologist you should understand Darwin. If you are a violent savage and you attack someone more powerful, Darwin inevitably will sort your ass out. That is what is happening in the ME. Fools are more interested in death for all than peace for any. So, Darwin is busy sorting out terrorists.
Not even Arab dictators support the Hezbollah fascists – but Jack Layton does, and so does Bill Graham.
Jack Layton and Bill Graham go easy on an organization that has ‘Kill the Jews’ as its founding principle – and these guys pretend that they care about human rights. Lying hypocrites.
maz2
Hizbullah’s death traps: Bunker Buster’s delight.
Remember the bunker busters the US sold to Israel that everyone assumed were for Iran?
Greenmamba,
Hopefully there’ll be enough bunker-busters for both jobs…
It would be nice to finish of the tyrants once and for all. Most Iranians don’t want the Mullocracy any more than most Lebanese want Hezbollah. Israel et al would be doing the entire world a favour by exterminating these vicious tyrants.
“Socialists are vermin…. Then these socialists will get what’s coming to them: Slavery – if they’re lucky…”
– Warwick
That’s exactly what Hitler said about both socialists and Jews. He also acted on it.
(And, yes, I know that Hitler’s party was called the National Socialist Party. There were historical reasons for that. The name was inherited. Hitler hated marxists. And Jews.)
My point is that if you are calling other people vermin you should ask yourself some hard questions.
Michael – what is a Canadian? Aren’t they just descendents of people who immigrated here and weren’t allowed to return to their old countries? Your point has no relevance.
The people living in that area, called, legally, in documents, Palestine owned farms and houses and stores. For centuries. So? What were they supposed to do in 1948? Disappear into the air? Leave their farms to rot? What should have been done? Just because you say that there never was a country called Palestine? They should just walk out of their house, off their farm – and go where? They’d lived there for centuries. So?
Compensation, just as a gov’t that takes land for building a highway, compensates the farmers whose land they take.
Warwick – I’m against neo-Darwinism and particularly, any concept of ‘survival of the fittest’. Neo-Darwinism is actually an enormous waste of energy; ie, it doesn’t work in biological actuality. I’ve written lots of papers on this. I’m sure you don’t want to read them, but, if you provide your email, I’ll send you my web site link where you’ll see my papers, as well as others written by biologists, bioengineers etc, arguing against this simplistic Darwinism.
And there’s absolutely no such thing as ‘social Darwinism’ – i.e., ‘survival of the fittest in the social realm’. No.
I’m not sure of your points about Arab hatreds and etc. So? Also, the Arabs don’t have as full rights as Jews in Israel (marriage rights).
I think your ‘equivalency’ example is valid only for ‘proximate cause’, i.e., the immediate cause. This cause is the most superficial of all four causes.
It doesn’t analyze the infrastructure that led to that proximate cause. Why did X-person attack Y-person? You reduce it to a linear format. X did something to Y, so X is the evil one. But – why did it happen? Just because X is a Savage and Evil Person?
Maybe there are other reasons – such as that Y-person took the farm away and hasn’t paid X-person’s salary and etc, etc. Who knows, but to focus only on proximate causes is superificial. Your argument would be demolished in a court.
Leftist:
The Nazi name wasn’t inherited. It was chosen. It’s only been since the war that the name socialism has narrowed and the (left-wing) media and academe has re-defined it to be right-wing. Ask yourself when was the last time a conservative candidate called for the government to be dramatically increased and wealth redistributed (i.e. taxed) to see the illogic of this historical fallacy.
Keep in mind that the socialist/communists in the west thought Hitler just peachy and a good way to counter the “capitalist & imperialists” prior to Hitler’s betrayal of Stalin. The socialists were openly sabotaging the war effort in Britain up until Hitler attacked the USSR. Hitler’s problem with the Bolsheviks was that he saw them as being controlled by the Jews. The Irony is that the Jews who followed Lenin wanted to break the Church without which they felt that society would be beyond hatred and anti-Semitism. Stalin fixed that foolish notion by persecuting both the Church and the Jews…
The media and academe doesn’t want to be labelled with the Nazis or have their precious socialist dream sullied by Hitler and the holocaust. But they are related. Ask Spain’s new socialist PM about anti-Semitism. The public sector unions are boycotting Israel but not Sudan or Angola. Why? Because the left was, is, and always will be full of oppressive tyrants who hate Jews. Trying to pin Hitler on the party of SMALL government has been an unfortunately effective slander. Orwell would be impressed.
The Nazis were an anti-Semitic, big-state, oppressive, totalitarian ideology which was in competition with the other anti-Semitic, big-state, oppressive totalitarian ideology which was communism. Both were forms of state socialism. The Jews fared a little less poorly under the Soviets but that would be cold comfort to the dead. Yes the anti-Semitism was more hidden (Lenin’s revolution was aided by several Jews – later purged) and it wasn’t inherent in the doctrine as it was in Hitler’s but it was stone-cast in the minds of their followers – today as well then.
The difference between insulting those followers of an ideology and insulting a people based on ethnic reasons are that the followers of an ideology chose to be what they and are criticized for their words and actions whereby the Jew’s only crime was to have names like Goldstein. I guess that cardinal difference is lost on you.
I’ll leave you to figure out any other questions you may have.
I happen to support ET’s view that there should be a Palestinian state and an Israeli state side by side. Israel has the right to defend itself unequivocally.
The difference between both sides is largely over the existence and the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza since the Oslo Peace Accords. For a few years after the Accords were signed – the region was relatively peaceful but little progress was made towards either disarming the Palestinian militias or stopping the settlements. Call it a lack of trust.
Hamas was elected in Palestine on the basis that the Palestinian Authority under Fatah was corrupt and that more concessions could be wrung out of Israel. In other words, they perceived Arafat as actually being too soft on the issue of the settlements because he signed the Wye and Oslo accords. Arafat had been drifting away from peace ever since about a couple years after Oslo was signed.
The bottom line is there is nothing the Israelis can do apart from defend themselves. Toppling Hamas likely won’t work (you’ll just get more radicals in power) and direct rule doesn’t really work(as evidenced in the 1980s). The Israelis should simply keep Hamas at bay and keep stalling until Hamas collapses due to existing worldwide economic and political sanctions or internal revolt.
At this point in time, Hezbollah thinks that Israel is in a quagmire in the West Bank and so they’ve decided to attack and are being backed by the Syrians.
The answer to this crisis is not to invade Lebanon b/c this could cause the mildly pro-Western government to collapse.
Instead, Israel should launch a full-scale war against Syria. This will cut off supplies to Hezbollah so that the Lebanese can finally get rid of the Syrians in the south.
ET,
Immediate cause?
So in the analogy above the guy being robbed is supposed to care about why the robber is robbing them? I think not. All you need to know is that you’re about to be robbed. After that, you act and the family of the now-deceased can care about why their relative’s a dead crook. Your example is absurd.
Look, both Jews and Arabs have lived in the “holy land” for a long time (although Jews far longer.) Both have a claim to some space there. The UN/League of Nation/Britain/France came up the two-state solution and the Arabs rejected it and decided to attack the Jews with the goal of finishing the holocaust. I’d say it’s pretty black and white. Now, almost 60 years later, you can’t say that the Arabs of various sorts are only doing what they are doing because they feel hard done by. The robber may feel life threw him a curve-ball but that gives you no right to rob and murder. If you do so, you’re the bad guy. Period.
As for “root causes” if you want a root cause why the Palestinians have no state all you have to do is look to the fact that they rejected it – violently. The Arabs who left their homes in Israel did so at the request of the Arab leadership who said it was temporary until the Jews were pushed into the sea. They lost. They can regain their land once they agree to behave themselves and act in a civilized manner. As yet this has not occurred. In history and international law, a country that sets out on a war of aggression and loses has no claim to regain lost territory. Start a war, pay the price. Israel seems to be lone exception in history. Gee, wonder why that is?
As for Darwin, that was tongue-in-cheek. I assume you still got the point. As for rejecting it, social Darwinism is exactly what the state was designed to curb. Without the rule of law you have anarchy – which can be very loosely described as social Darwinism in its effect. The law and the enforcement of it by the state is what stops the strong from crushing the weak.
“Root causes”? The “root cause” of the conflict is that Israel became a nation in ’48.
If we want to solve the ME problem by solving the “root cause”, then we undo ’48.
The “Palestinians” have had numerous chances to resolve this, to have their own state, and have blown them all. Those Arabs that can’t abide ’48 just have to get over it. But they won’t. They arm instead and attack instead.
Either these Arabs get with the ’48 program, or Israel disappears. Can’t say I can accept the latter.
warwick- immediate/proximate cause is a mechanical reaction. It’s valid only for the local space, local time, but doesn’t examine any infrastructural causes. So, if you want to for example, deal with escalating crime in A-Area, then, it’s useless to simply list mechanical interactions. And you certainly don’t use as your data base, the anecodotal interaction between the robber and the robbed.
As for Jews/Arabs having lived in the ME (I’m an atheist; it’s not ‘holy’ to me)..for whatever period of time – and who has lived there longer, that’s, as you also point out, not relevant.
No, the Arab States didn’t have a ‘goal of finishing the holocaust’. But they did have a goal of preventing a democratic industrial state inserted, via external agencies, in their midst.
I completely disagree with your version of the ‘exodus’ from Israel by the Palestinians. It wasn’t only at the behest of the Arab leaders; I’m sure you’ve read enough of the early Israeli leaders to know that they were absolutely adamant that this exodus take place.
I also disagree with your version of ‘lost territory’. Germany lost; it still retains its lands. So does Russia. And so on. No lands were lost.
‘Agree to behave themselves and act in a civilized manner’ – is rather school marmish and smug. It can’t happen only with the verbal. There has to be an infrastructure of civic democracy (and Arafat wouldn’t let that happen) and industrial economy (again, not allowed to develop).
I don’t think that the Arabs and/or Palestinians rejected the two-state solution. I think Arafat did, because he has only one interest; his own power.
I don’t think that your, and my, different versions of ‘who’se the good guy/ who’se the bad guy’ matter. What matters is getting a two state solution. Can it happen?
I think that Palestine has been sabotaged and taken over by the Islamic fascism group located in Iran, SA, Syria, and I maintain, strongly, that the basic Israel-Palestine situation has, in itself, absolutely nothing to do with Islamic fascism, but, it most certainly has now been taken over by that sect.
Agreed, without the rule of law, there is anarchy, but, what is interesting, is that anarchy is not due to the lack of a state. No non-state society lives in anarchy; it wouldn’t be a society if it were in such a mode. What is interesting is that a society that moves into anarchy (eg Islamic fascism) is a society that is ‘on the cusp’, is a ‘borderline state’, which is teetering with the loss of its old laws that are no longer functional, and hasn’t developed new laws for the new mode of life. That, to me, is the ME tribalism.
ET: you need to get your WWI and II history straight. Germany lost lots of territory in WWI: Alsace & Lorraine going to France and Danzig becoming a “Free City”, while Austria-Hungary was dismembered along with the Ottoman Empire. WWII saw further territorial losses, with Danzig going to Poland as Gdansk and Konigsberg becoming Kalinningrad and all of East Prussia being lost, partly to Poland and partly as the Kalinningrad Oblast to the USSR (which is now an exclave of Russia, separated by Lithuania and Latvia or Belarus).
USSR didn’t lose WWII and didn’t lose territory (rather it gained it, beyond the empire that it was ceded under the “Warsaw Pact” that the Poles and Czechs were none too happy about, especially after fighting in WWII only to be transferred to the tender mercies of Stalins death squads). It did lose the Cold War and broke up, losing vast territories and Russia is in danger of losing more (with Chechnya and Dagestan being contested at best). Post soviet conflicts between SSRs saw Azerbaijan and Armenia fight over Nagarno-Karrabakh, with a transfer of territory.
Any more ignorance about history that you would like to disclose ET? You’ll notice, that as always in international relations, there is one rule for the Jews, and one for everyone else. Wonder why that is?
Jews are a lot like farmers. They can say whatever they want but don’t criticize them. They are a sacred cow.
wow, these threads always bring ok4ua up from somewhere.
and what about ET? what is she on about?
she says “And the fact that they were, as Muslim, unacceptable in the new Israeli state, meant that they had to leave. No-one would accept them. That’s a problem for both sides.”
What?
There is evidence from contemporary Arab, Jewish, British, and American sources to prove that, far from seeking to drive the Arabs out of Haifa, the Jewish authorities went to considerable lengths to convince them to stay. During the fighting in the city in April 1948, The Hagana’s truce terms stipulated that Arabs were expected to “carry on their work as equal and free citizens of Haifa.”
then she says, ” Also, the Arabs don’t have as full rights as Jews in Israel (marriage rights).”
Again what is she talking about?
Arabs can vote, they have equal rights before the law, there are about 10 Arab members of the Knesset (parliament), they don’t have to serve in the army but many, especially Druze and Bedoin, choose to be in the army, they can worship as they choose, etc., etc. Marriage rights? oh I guess she is referring to Israel recently ending attempts of Israeli Arabs to marry people from the territories because many terrorists have entered Israel this way.
ooo, Israel is protecting themselves again, how dare they.
Madrid? Didn’t the Israelis attack Madrid recently with their Condor Legions? Of course, the IAFtwaffe pilots were just honing their skills, jawohl, dumpkoff. …-
Spaniards have demonstrated in Madrid to show their support for the citizens of Lebanon and to call for an end to Israeli attacks.
via euro news.
Honey, you need to admit your post makes no f*cking sense. At all.
Criticizing Israel does not EQUAL being an anti-semite. By that logic, criticizing Iran makes you an anti-muslim. That is absolutely preposterous and offensive.
I am not an anti-semite. I am married to a Jew and fully half of my family are jews. Yet I deplore these Israeli actions agains Lebanon.
I am personally tired of ad hominem attacks and stupid generalizations hurled at anyone who dares to criticize Israel. Don’t they ever do anything wrong?
ET – You beat me to it and whacked Warwicke very nicely about the Darwin crap (and as a biologist I’m mighty impressed that apparently anthropologists are actually starting to understand Darwin, too… otherwise decent, almost civil, exchange 🙂 If you please, you can send this crusty old speciationist your link – I’d be interested. And oh, yes, there is absolutely no salvation for sociologists, their befuddlement about reality is total, complete, and apparently irreversible. Now back to our regularly scheduled slagging…
ET, Skip,
Once again, the Darwin quip was not mentioned as biological fact. In common usage (heard of the Darwin awards?) it’s used a bit differently than bio texts…
Give him some credit though. He did publish his theory in 1859. If they’re still referring to anything you guys write 150 years from now (even subject to major revisions) you will have done well.
I’m fully aware that there are glaring holes in his theory (and I’m not referring to religious considerations which have no place in science.) Given that they didn’t even know about micro-organisms until much later and thought malaria was carried by bad air, it was still an amazing insight. It’s easy for people in 2006 to criticize the work that happened long ago using less perfect technology and without the benefit of all the discoveries learned in the proceeding century and a half (undoubtedly the most fruitful 150 years in scientific history.)
Still, if you read my original post on the matter it should have been clear what the statement was about. It should be more than obvious I wasn’t speaking literally.
As for ET, it is more pleasant and useful debating with someone who isn’t one of the trolls. Most of the people trolling on these things tend to the dull at best. ET even comes up with stuff I agree with on occasion and even when I disagree with the point, has points backed up with reasons instead of empty jargon.
Thinking of jargon, I think Orwell’s ‘Politics and the English Language’ should be required reading in grade 9, again in grade 12, and first year U regardless of area of study. It would undoubtedly improve the quality of the crap that comes out of our universities…
RE: “I am personally tired of ad hominem attacks and stupid generalizations hurled at anyone who dares to criticize Israel. Don’t they ever do anything wrong?”
The answer of course is yes, sometimes.
But the question for me is about the Arabs and the Muslim/Islamist countries.
Do they ever do anything right?
Over in Cuba, once the crown jewel of the late Spanish Empire, si, Fidelio is alive… but, slowly descending…. into oblivion.
Hasta la vista, Fidel. Here’s your beret. What’s your hurry, amigo?
Funny line: “well-wishers behind police cordons.” …-
“The communist leader, wearing his usual olive green military fatigues, slowly descended the airplane Thursday to cries of “Fidel! Fidel!” from well-wishers behind police cordons at the airport in the…”
free republic
Wow. Doesn’t take much to get labelled an “anti-Semite” these days, does it? Express support for the Palestinians, and have some juicy hearsay relayed by a political opponent (yeah, look up Vidal Quadras), and you too can be a razor-toothed, cape-wearing, anti-Semitic kitten-stomper. And, of course, denying that you’re anti-Semitic is just more proof that you are.
God, I’m sick of this dishonest crap smeared so liberally, excuse the expression, over anyone one happens to disagree with politically. It’s just the new McCarthyism, not that the old one won’t find his defenders here as well.
Feh.
Warwicke:
Very familiar with the Darwin awards. OTH, its not clear that you are (or many people, for that matter). Your example is not an example of having earned a Darwin award. Inter-personal confict is not in and of itself, Darwinian selection. Darwinian selection is a population phenomenon acting on an aggregate number of breeding members of a geno/phenotype. By way of a popular example: 15 members of a liberal party constituency walking up along a railway track, using the lights of the oncoming train to pick up discarded campaign buttons is Darwinian selection, and hence “earning a Darwin Award”. A conservative decking a liberal supporter for pinning a campaign button on the conservative shirt does not earn the Liberal a Darwin award. Trying it a second time might. 🙂
“Scratch a socialist and underneath you’ll find an anti-Semite;”
Well so much for the socialist character of the founders of Isreal and all those kibbutzniks. . . . . . . . .
Aw, don’t spoil their fun. They’ve got a new insult to use instead of reason.
Get a new brain.
Zapatero is no anti-semitic. He only want nobody die.
Israel is killing a lot of people (a lot of them are childs and women).
He is not attackin Hezbola, but he bombs civilians (not only muslims, but also christians: 42% of lebanoon people are christians).
He is trying to force Lebanoon to be a poor country. In this way, israel is more powerfull (meanwhile he is a powerfull country, and countries surrounding it are very poverty, they can impone his roules to others, and can use people of countries surround israel as semi slavery to work for almost nothing.
You talk here as tho there are no Social Democratic Jews in the world. You know that’s a crock. Right now tho Conservative Jews and America are calling the shots. Why were there so many American ships in the Area? Because they were forwarned what was coming. They never offered to get Canadians out of Lebanon. You dorks on this blog really think America’s our friend. When will you see the light???? Go give yourselves a pat on the back and keep telling each other that America is god’s country. Whatever that means.
Anti- american Zapatero (psoe) hates Israel