What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

How do you feel about your countries political and socio economical relations with the middle east as a whole? Let me know about what you feel your nation is doing right and wrong when it comes to the region.

Please post the nation that you live in in your response.

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

America

I am a ME studies major at GW and am currently posting from Cairo, Egypt.

As far as I am concerned America should stop all forms of support to Egypt. Egypt is a moderately oppressive pseudo-dictatorship which has the worst of both worlds: a failed socialist system and a militant government. Its amazing how a few weeks here can make you support isolationist policies.

As for the rest of the middle east i think America should just come out and say it;

you have oil, we need oil, sell it to us fo' cheap or we will take it. It would make things much more interesting.

Also America should stop the unquestioning support of israel and Saudi Arabia. this would solve a huge number of problems we face here literally over night.

I could go on for a while longer but I wont.

what you gonna about it?

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

Do you take into consideration any religious beliefs for Islam / Jews?

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

[ QUOTE ]
What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm no racist, I'd sex a girl from the Middle East.

All kidding aside, as an American, I think my country's involvement in the Middle East is about as complicated as the human circulatory system. Getting involved was a horrible idea, not getting involved would have been a horrible idea, staying over there is a horrible idea, leaving would be a horrible idea.

Honestly, I'm glad it's not up to me, because I'd hate to have to make some of the hard decisions that, either way, end up killing people.

Sometimes I just wish the whole world would wake up tomorrow a completely new, civilized place. But as we've seen in Iraq, that just doesn't happen.

I'm reminded of a post here recently from a guy in NY that got a rock thrown at him and his dad by some black kids, which made him wonder if black people were, in fact, the most angry, violent, inconsiderate, etc, people there are. I think the Middle East really shows what angry, violent, inconsiderate people can act like. I mean, I haven't read the entire history of that region, but I'm pretty sure they've all been trying to kill eachother since before America was founded.

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the Middle East really shows what angry, violent, inconsiderate people can act like. I mean, I haven't read the entire history of that region, but I'm pretty sure they've all been trying to kill eachother since before America was founded.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems you are saying the Middle East has more violence than the rest of the planet.

20th century death tolls:

WW1: 15 million
Russian Revolution: 9 million
Stalin: 20 million
WW2: 55 million
Mao: 40 million

.. and it's the middle eastern people that are inherently violent by nature?

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the Middle East really shows what angry, violent, inconsiderate people can act like. I mean, I haven't read the entire history of that region, but I'm pretty sure they've all been trying to kill eachother since before America was founded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since before America was founded? They've been killing each other for like 1500 years.

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the Middle East really shows what angry, violent, inconsiderate people can act like. I mean, I haven't read the entire history of that region, but I'm pretty sure they've all been trying to kill eachother since before America was founded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since before America was founded? They've been killing each other for like 1500 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Last I checked..so has the rest of the world. How many millions were killed during the crusades? And prior?

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the Middle East really shows what angry, violent, inconsiderate people can act like. I mean, I haven't read the entire history of that region, but I'm pretty sure they've all been trying to kill eachother since before America was founded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since before America was founded? They've been killing each other for like 1500 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Last I checked..so has the rest of the world. How many millions were killed during the crusades? And prior?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said Muslims had a monopoly on violence did I? And, you do realize that the Crusades were a response to years and years of the Christians being murdered, raped, pillaged and enslaved by Muslim armies, right? The Christian Crusaders did bad things, but what they did pales in comparison to what the Muslim armies did. But, of course, all of this is well documented, so you certainly don't have to take my word for it.

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

American ME studies grad from University of Massachusetts posting from Damascus, Syria.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as I am concerned America should stop all forms of support to Egypt. Egypt is a moderately oppressive pseudo-dictatorship which has the worst of both worlds: a failed socialist system and a militant government. Its amazing how a few weeks here can make you support isolationist policies.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you that Mubarak is a complete reprobate. I'd qualify him as pretty much a full on dictator, nothing psuedo about it. I think an interesting track for America to take vis a vis Egypt would be to strongly encourage a democratic transition when that frail [censored] finally dies. I don't mean "encourage" democracy like we did in Iraq, but withold our massive aid package until they hold quasi legitimate parliamentary elections. Allow the Ikhwan to run freely and openly. I'd assume that they would make fairly large gains, possibly even winning a plurality. Let them form a government and continue with our aid package, only witholding if they reneged on Sadats agreeemnt with Israel. The reason the Ikhwan are so popular now is that by and large the secular governments of the last 100 years have been a complete failure in terms of widely raising standards of living/providing services to the general populace. One of two things would happen under an Ikhwan formed government, either they would build on there existing social welfare institutions successfully converting them to a statewide level,or they would fail. Should the latter happen hopefully a moderate secular candidate would emerge, and at worst another military man would emerge and we'd be back where we started only now the Ikhwan would have had a crack at it and failed.

Most of the crazies who have split from the Ikhwan (Islamic Jihad etc...) have done so because of the failed policy of gradualism that have hisotrically been employed in Egypt, Jordan etc...Despite token seats in the Egyptian "parliament" they've never held any real power. Give the mainstream Brothers a chance in the name of democracy. The worst (best) that can happen is that they'll fail.

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

It is a proven fact that "Christians" have killed more people over the past few thousand years in the name of "God" than any other religion.

All that aside, do you guys believe the tension that has built up over the past sixty years over the recreation of Israel thanks to England and the USA will climax shortly, or that after the Iraq war alot of this tension will fade away for a few years? Personally I think after the war is over that the radical Muslim factions in Syria and Egypt will begin to attack more as they have probably been dumping money into fighting in Iraq at the moment.

What do you say?

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

[ QUOTE ]
American ME studies grad from University of Massachusetts posting from Damascus, Syria.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as I am concerned America should stop all forms of support to Egypt. Egypt is a moderately oppressive pseudo-dictatorship which has the worst of both worlds: a failed socialist system and a militant government. Its amazing how a few weeks here can make you support isolationist policies.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you that Mubarak is a complete reprobate. I'd qualify him as pretty much a full on dictator, nothing psuedo about it. I think an interesting track for America to take vis a vis Egypt would be to strongly encourage a democratic transition when that frail [censored] finally dies. I don't mean "encourage" democracy like we did in Iraq, but withold our massive aid package until they hold quasi legitimate parliamentary elections. Allow the Ikhwan to run freely and openly. I'd assume that they would make fairly large gains, possibly even winning a plurality. Let them form a government and continue with our aid package, only witholding if they reneged on Sadats agreeemnt with Israel. The reason the Ikhwan are so popular now is that by and large the secular governments of the last 100 years have been a complete failure in terms of widely raising standards of living/providing services to the general populace. One of two things would happen under an Ikhwan formed government, either they would build on there existing social welfare institutions successfully converting them to a statewide level,or they would fail. Should the latter happen hopefully a moderate secular candidate would emerge, and at worst another military man would emerge and we'd be back where we started only now the Ikhwan would have had a crack at it and failed.

Most of the crazies who have split from the Ikhwan (Islamic Jihad etc...) have done so because of the failed policy of gradualism that have hisotrically been employed in Egypt, Jordan etc...Despite token seats in the Egyptian "parliament" they've never held any real power. Give the mainstream Brothers a chance in the name of democracy. The worst (best) that can happen is that they'll fail.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not believe this is the way to go. This will help radical Muslims to further their thought process on "OMG USA gives more aid to Israel than anyone else in the world but hates Arab nations."

I think the US should try to reach more diplomatic means with nations such as this instead of shunning them or turning the shoulder. Look how much we are trying with Iran, do you see that same effort in Africa?

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

Good points, and it would probably work.

Personally I dont like the religious nature of the MB. I dont think that it (or any religion based movement) should be any where near controlling a government. But really Egypt doesnt have too far to fall to be at the bottom. But hell, at least most of their buildings are intact (more than many can say in the ME)

As an aside, are you in Syria for school or work? Also, iyo how are job prospects for ME studies majors?

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

Its not a question of the difference in aid between Israel and the arab states that causes islamic militants to hate the US. It is complicated, but a big part is that aid to Israel exists in the first place.

What are osama'a big complaints? US troops in ME/SA and Israel existing.

Most of ME diplomacy (or any diplomacy really) is $$. Aid packages are paramount because these nations are very, very poor. Iran is special because they have a ton of oil. Africa is not because it has, um, Africans.

if us cuts off aid to egypt then egypt will certainly take major notice. If mubarak didnt change things voluntarily he would certainly lose his means of keeping power fairly quickly.

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I'm no racist, I'd sex a girl from the Middle East.

[/ QUOTE ]

good luck, just dont come to egypt.

[ QUOTE ]

Sometimes I just wish the whole world would wake up tomorrow a completely new, civilized place. But as we've seen in Iraq, that just doesn't happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Civilized to what standards? In egypt I have no fear of being mugged and killed like I do when Im in washington DC. A dark alley in cairo means that it will be harder to see where your going, not a death sentence.

Iraq is not a functioning state. It is in a civil war. If you remember history class a lot of uncivilized things happened in the "civilized" USA during our own civil war.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm reminded of a post here recently from a guy in NY that got a rock thrown at him and his dad by some black kids, which made him wonder if black people were, in fact, the most angry, violent, inconsiderate, etc, people there are. I think the Middle East really shows what angry, violent, inconsiderate people can act like. I mean, I haven't read the entire history of that region, but I'm pretty sure they've all been trying to kill each other since before America was founded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems to me that humanity as a whole has been trying to kill each other since day one. The only difference between a sunni killing someone in Iraq and a US soldier doing the same is that all of our civilized technology has been put into the latter. I guess you need to have a certain level of civilization before you can flatten entire city blocks with an airstrike. Those poor uncivilized bastards, they have to do it the old fashioned way.

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

U.S.

Dominating the oil reserves is how the US gains leverage over its rivals in East Asia and Europe.

The "great game" of empire benefits special interests far, far, more than the lower classes that do the bleeding.

Out now!

And this business about how "they" have been killing each other for 1500 years is absolute crap. Like Europe, or the Americas, there are plenty of wars and conflicts, but there's also plenty of time when people get along just fine. Wars arise out of history, not some essential trait of Muslims.

[ QUOTE ]
a big part is that aid to Israel exists in the first place.

What are osama'a big complaints? US troops in ME/SA and Israel existing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say this as if it is all ancient history that people just will not get over.

Plenty of people are resigned to Israel existing, and plenty more would get used to it, if Israel would stop expanding, declare its borders, and respect the property rights of deed holders. The occupation is an endless, current atrocity, not a fait accompli of 1948.

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Plenty of people are resigned to Israel existing, and plenty more would get used to it, if Israel would stop expanding, declare its borders, and respect the property rights of deed holders. The occupation is an endless, current atrocity, not a fait accompli of 1948.

[/ QUOTE ]


And you are not fuly resigned to the existence of Israel? You believe that the State of Israel could be undone?

What "expanding" are you talking about exactly? The pullout from Gaza? The Oslo era withdrawal from over 90% of the polulation centers in the West Bank? The countless offers of a specific final peace deal? I assure you that Israelis' would vote tomorrow for a full or almost full pullout from the West Bank if they really believed that they would receive genuine peace in return. Unfortunately, as Hamas (and probably) Fatah dont believe in a 2 state solution and refuse to relinquish such basic deal breakers like the "right of return" and, in the case of Hamas, do not even recognise Israels' right to exist, I believe that Israelis' will not have the opportunity to facilitate the creation of a Palestinian state in the near future.

And the occupation you are presumably talking about was that of 1967 surely? Or do you mean the State of Israel itself? In which case, are you hoping for a one state solution - the entire land being Palestinian?

If you seriously believe that Israel is the fundamental problem in the middle east, rather than brutal unpopular dictatorships that use and perpetuate the state of war with Israel as a way of never having to tend to their populations' wellbeing and eventually relinquish power, you are continuing a long tradition of ME thinking that will condemn Palestinians and other Arabs to endless suffering.

Nice of you to quote Bin Laden too - yep, thats why he attacks the US, lol. Or is he simply a lunatic who wants to Islamise the world and is using Israel as an excuse to attack the west exactly as I mentioned above?

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

[ QUOTE ]
What "expanding" are you talking about exactly?

[/ QUOTE ]

The folks recently pulled out of Gaza are being built apartments at government expense in the West Bank. The settler population in the West Bank has been going up every year since 1967. Ground is still being broken on new settlements.

B'Tselem, Israeli Information Center on Human Rights

The Oslo 90% was far less than meets the eye. It did not include the roads.

Sure, the radicals will not accept Israel. But why is that a reason to CONTINUE seizing land?

[ QUOTE ]

And you are not fuly resigned to the existence of Israel? You believe that the State of Israel could be undone?

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt it can be undone, and it certainly should not be undone violently. But people who believe in freedom should not resign themselves to the existence of a state based on ethnic supremacism. It is an apartheid regime. Not even South Africa had white-only roads.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/image...ents_chart.gif

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

[ QUOTE ]


Also America should stop the unquestioning support of israel and Saudi Arabia. this would solve a huge number of problems we face here literally over night.


[/ QUOTE ]

US Foreign aid 2006

US to ME ($5,624,000,000): <ul type="square"> [*]Israel 2,520,000,000[*]Egypt 1,795,000,000[*]Pakistan 698,000,000[*]Palistinians 150,000,000[*]Jordan 461,000,000[/list]
The US interests would be better served cutting them all off at once, and not selling any weapons there either.

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

A great book to read for everyone interested in this thread would be Blood and Oil. It's a great look at how President Bush (who I actually voted for and try to support) led by Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz have basically changed the world.

Also look into the PNAC (Project for a New American Century).

Also check this out:
http://pastebin.org/3374

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

The vast majority of people that were forced out of their homes in Gaza by the Israeli government are being resettled inside Israel proper. The few that have moved to the West Bank have mainly settled into already established settlements. I am sure a few have also set up new "illegal" settlements but this would be no more than a few caravans, etc... There is no organised official resettlement of Gaza Jews into new West Bank settlements.

I personally agree that there should be no more settlement in the West Bank but the status of what is there already can only be determined by a bilateral peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians.

The settlement population of course has been increasing - it was official governement policy for decades under both labour and likud. The rate of increase has significantly slowed now. Anyway, i dont want to derail this thread with an in depth discussion of this.

For me it comes down to this - all the Palestinians have to do is recognise Israel, renounce the right of return and sit down to talk in good faith. With the current government im sure they would get a very good deal.

As for the "apartheid" nonesense, not sure what to say. Inside Israel proper, im sure you are well aware that arabs have full rights. Have you ever been to a hospital in Israel? Its the best way to see how dishonest the apartheid statements are. As for the occupied territitories, well thats a different story. Its effectively a war situation and comparisons to apartheid are inapplicable.

In any case, I agree with you that any expansion should stop and im all for a 2 state solution. However, i dont think this is a possibility due to the choices of the Palestinians and the negative interference of Egypt, Syria, Iran and others. In my opinion, as soon as the surrounding countries want peace with Israel and the creation of a Palestinian state, this would happen very quickly. Unfortunately, it is not in the interests of many arab countries to end the conflict with Israel. This is the sad reality of middle east relations that prevents a resoultion - not a handful of fanatic jews (a small proportion of West Bank settlers) who believe in "greater israel".

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What "expanding" are you talking about exactly?

[/ QUOTE ]

The folks recently pulled out of Gaza are being built apartments at government expense in the West Bank. The settler population in the West Bank has been going up every year since 1967. Ground is still being broken on new settlements.

B'Tselem, Israeli Information Center on Human Rights

The Oslo 90% was far less than meets the eye. It did not include the roads.

Sure, the radicals will not accept Israel. But why is that a reason to CONTINUE seizing land?

[ QUOTE ]

And you are not fuly resigned to the existence of Israel? You believe that the State of Israel could be undone?

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt it can be undone, and it certainly should not be undone violently. But people who believe in freedom should not resign themselves to the existence of a state based on ethnic supremacism. It is an apartheid regime. Not even South Africa had white-only roads.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/image...ents_chart.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that when Palestine was partitioned that the Arabs got 90% of the land since Jordan makes up the majority of what Palestine was right? You do also realize that the Jews were there 2000 years before the Arabs were right? I'm sure you also understand that there is no such thing as a "Palestinian" since there's never been a country called Palestine and that they are Arabs most likely from the south of Syria. According to Syria, the "Palestinians" are Syrians.

So, the Jews are left with 10% of Palestine, the Arabs have 90% of Palestine and now we're supposed to be concerned that there are some settlements here and there that maybe aren't supposed to be there, even though that's debatable since the international law is not clear. Give me a break.

Who cares if the Gaza settlers got apartments? They were forced to leave their homes in Gaza so that Gaza could be turned into a giant staging ground for anti-Israeli terrorist attacks. Talk about adding insult to injury. You are forced to leave your home, and then the people who it was given to then use it to launch rockets into Israel to try and kill you.

As long as the Arabs keep blowing up pizzerias, buses, cafes etc. and murdering women and children, they'll be fenced off so that they can do the minimum amount of damage. Their fate is completely in their own hands. When an Arab leader finally stands up and says enough is enough, this must stop, an Arab leader who fights to stop the radicalization of his people in the schools, and in the mosques and in the official PA media, then the violence can stop, and the lives of the Arabs will be dramatically improved.

The PA used to have one of the fastest growing economies in the world, back before the first and second Intifada. They screwed themselves, and there's nothing for the rest of the world to feel sorry for. They did it all to themselves.

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm no racist, I'd sex a girl from the Middle East.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



good luck, just dont come to egypt.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can imagine Egyptian girls are a tough nut to crack.

At this risk of shameless self propotion...I've sexed two Arab girls while in Lebanon. One Shi'a and one Sunni Palestinian. To be fair, the Shi'a was only of the oral variety because we weren't married and she was holding onto the V-card. The Palestinian girl was freaking awesome though.

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

I don't want to hijack this thread and turn it into a senselss debate on the history of the geography of the Levant, so I won't go into detal/address your position point by point, but
Mr.Crab, your argument is a ridiculous concontion of Zionist propaganda talking points. Also, I'm Jewish and not opposed to an Israeli state, so don't take this as someone diametrically opposed to your beliefs attacking you. If you would like an explaination of why, feel free to PM me.

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

[ QUOTE ]
As for the "apartheid" nonesense, not sure what to say. Inside Israel proper, im sure you are well aware that arabs have full rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apartheid exists in Israel proper, not just the West Bank. There are endless examples, both in formal law, and in daily practice. For example, Jews and non-Jews are separate classes of citizenship. Uri Davis writes:

[ QUOTE ]
such citizens of the state of Israel as are classified in law as "non-Jews" (namely, "Arabs") are denied to date access to some 93 per cent of the territory of pre-1967 Israel administered by the Israel Lands Administration (ILA).

[/ QUOTE ]

Uri Davis on apartheid in Israel proper -- short article

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

Unfortunately, I cant open the link you provided, so sorry if i dont address the points the article made.

The lands administration is a hot topic at the moment and there may well be changes soon. However, it was originally founded (pre state) to administer land that was legally purchased by Jews for Jews. Im not sure what the quote means by "denied access" - any Israeli has access to any public land. It is an extremely complex matter and, again, I totally reject your use of the word "apartheid". The courts constantly uphold the rights of Israeli Arabs and do so regarding the land issue as well:

see this article

There are no separate classes of citizenship enshrined in law. The lands issue is a distinct issue - but not an issue regarding the legal status of Arabs in Israel, rather an issue of how the ILA/JNF administer private/state lands.

I would be interested in hearing more re the "endless examples, both in formal law, and in daily practice".

Its my opinion that the misuse of language - in this case the word "apartheid" - seriously hinders a reasonable discussion of real issues and problems that do need addressing. It helps neither Israelis or Arabs (or Israeli Arabs) to mislabel the situation and reveals an individuals' lack of objectivity.

As someone who supports the principle of an independent Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel, it saddens me that real issues are obfuscated by such language. Again, its just my opinion, but anyone who genuinely wishes to see a resolution to the conflict (which will benefit the average Palestinian much more than the average Israeli) should avoid such deliberate or accidental propaganda that attempts to deligitimise one side unfairly.

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

Apartheid in the West Bank is clear cut. I do not use the term in the rhetorical sense, but as a formal description. Goater has dodged this by saying, oh, it's all about the war so it does not count. But the land seizures are about land, not security. The settlements stretch like fingers further into the WB, where if the segregation were about security, they would be clean lines. The squiggly wall through the WB vastly increases the interface, rather than being a clean, efficient defensive line. Now the Israeli settlements are being linked by Jewish-only roads, made possible because Arabs are required to use distinctive license plates.

It is clearly apartheid on the WB, so the real dispute is over whether it is also true of pre-67 borders Israel.

To take one of many examples, there is the law of return, in which a kid from Long Island has more right to be in Israel than a family who has lived there for generations and has deeds to olive fields. Non-Jews are a separate category of citzenship

Goater states that the vast lands within Israel that are denied to non-Jews is "not an issue regarding the legal status of Arabs in Israel, rather an issue of how the ILA/JNF administer private/state lands."

So if it's a generations old administrative practice, but not written into the constitution, or a formal law, you are going to say it's not really apartheid? So would you accept neo-apartheid as accurate? The same practices, just not legislated? Actually, it is law, as described below by Davis.

I'm not sure why the link did not work for you, but the Uri Davis article has been reprinted endlessly on the net. Here is a chunk of it, which goes into much better detail than I could. (I is a response to a letter in the London Guardian.) The crucial distinction Davis makes is this:
yes, Arab-Israelis are citizens, have full rights to vote, run for office, seek redress in the courts, etc. The huge BUT, however, is that they do not receive anywhere near equal access to national resources.

[ QUOTE ]
Dr. Uri Davis

WHY ISRAEL OUGHT TO BE TREATED LIKE APARTHEID SOUTH AFRICA, July 24, 2002

Ian Buruma claims... that the comparison of Israel with South Africa is intellectually lazy, morally questionable, and possibly even mendacious, and that the call to boycott Israeli academic institutions tell us more about the boycotters than the subject of their rage.

I am afraid, however, that the facts of the case do not corroborate Ian Buruma's misguided argument. It is exactly the case that inside the State of Israel there IS apartheid.

I hope Ian Buruma can accept the distinction between racism and racial discrimination versus apartheid. I refer here to the term "racial discrimination" (or "racism") as defined in Article 1(1) of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 1966 (any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms on the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.)

Apartheid, however, is not racism. Apartheid is an exceptional form of racial discrimination predicated upon the enforcement of racism in law through Acts of Parliament.

There is indeed no justification for singling out Israel as a state where racism is rife. Racism is rife in most or in all member states of the United Nations Organization, including the UK, let alone the US. There is, however, every reason to single out the Jewish state, not because it is a Jewish state, but because it is an apartheid state, namely a state that legislates racism through Acts of Parliament and enforces racialist behaviour upon its citizens by exercising the might of the law. In apartheid South Africa the apartheid divide was between people classified as 'whites' versus people classified as 'non-whites'. In apartheid Israel the apartheid divide is between people classified as 'Jews' versus people classified as 'non-Jews', first and foremost the indigenous people of the country of Palestine, the Palestinian Arab people.

The Israeli Supreme Court ruling of March 2000 in the case of Adil and Iman Qaadan versus the cooperative settlement of Qatzir notwithstanding, it remains the case to date that some 93 per cent of the entire territory of the State of Israel are earmarked IN LAW for cultivation, development and settlement for 'Jews only' and only some 7 per cent are accessible to 'non-Jews', first and foremost Palestinian Arab citizens of the State of Israel and the 1948 Palestine refugees. By comparison, in apartheid South Africa some 87 per cent of the territory of the Republic of apartheid South Africa was designated in law for 'whites' only and some 13 per cent was accessible to 'non-whites'. In other words, the terms of apartheid legislation with regard to land tenure in apartheid Israel are not only comparable to, but are WORSE in this regard than the terms of South African apartheid, now happily dismantle since 1994.

Ian Buruma refers to the indigenous Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel, a national minority representing some 20 per cent of the total population of the State of Israel, and alleges that 'they enjoy full citizen's rights'.

I am afraid, however that this argument, like his argument above, is not borne by the facts of the case and is equally misguided.
.....

Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates that (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality and (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Unlike the US legislature, which recognizes, under a democratic Constitution, one universal citizenship for all US citizens without distinction of nationality, religion, language, tribe, sex, sexual orientation or any other social status - the State of Israel does not have one single universal citizenship for all of its citizens, Jews and non-Jews alike. Rather, informed by the dominant ideology of political Zionism, the Israeli legislator (the Knesset) legislated a schedule of FOUR classes of citizenship based on racial discrimination and representing blatant inequality in law, in other words, representing a new form of Apartheid.

In the State of Israel the right of a citizen classified in law as a "non-Jew" (namely, an "Arab") to partake in the political process is formally equal to the right of a citizen classified in law as a "Jew". Likewise the standing of a citizen classified in law as a "non-Jew" before the courts of law is formally equal to the standing of citizen classified in law as a "Jew".

On the other hand the right of a citizen classified in law as a "non-Jew" to the social and welfare services and the material resources of the State are NOT equal to those of a citizen classified in law as a "Jew". The ruling by the Israeli Supreme Court sitting as High Court of Justice on the case of Adil and Iman Qaadan versus Qatzir in March 2000 notwithstanding, such citizens of the state of Israel as are classified in law as "non-Jews" (namely, "Arabs") are denied to date access to some 93 per cent of the territory of pre-1967 Israel administered by the Israel Lands Administration (ILA).

In other words, the Israeli legal system is based fundamentally on the determination of at least two classes of citizenship: Class "A" citizenship for such citizens as are classified in law as "Jews", and, as such are allocated in law a privileged access to the material resources of the State as well as the welfare services of the State only because they are classified in law as "Jews" versus Class "B" citizenship for such citizens as are classified in law as "non-Jews", namely, as "Arabs", and, as such, are discriminated against in law with regard to their right to equal access to the material resources of the State as well as the social and welfare services of the State, first and foremost their right to equal access to land and water only because they are classified in law as "non-Jews".

But subject to Class "B" citizenship above, there exists in the State of Israel by force of the Absentees Property Law of 1950 also Class "C" citizenship for such Arab citizens of the State of Israel as are present inside the state, yet classified in law as "absent". These Arab citizens are indeed present inside Israel as taxpayers and voters who cast (or refrain from casting) their vote in the election ballot - but, being classified under the said obscene law as "absentees" - they have been denied all their rights to their properties (e.g., lands, houses, corporations, shares, bank accounts, bank safes, etc.) such as were valid until 1948. Some 20 per cent of the constituency of the Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel, approximately 200,000 persons, are classified in Israeli law as Class "C" citizens, namely, as "present-absentees".

Also, subject to the said Absentees Property law of 1950, the Israeli legislator (the Knesset) determined in law a Class "D" citizenship, namely, the denied citizenship of some 750,000 1948 Palestine refugees and their descendants currently numbering according to UNRWA figures approximately 4 million persons. Under the terms of UN Resolutions 181(ii) (Plan for Partition with Economic Union) of November 1947, the constitutive document of the State of Israel and the State of Palestine recommending the partition of the territory of British Mandate Palestine into a "Jewish State" and an "Arab State", with the City of Jerusalem as a CORPUS SEPARATUM under a special international regime to be administered by the United Nations - the currently approximately 4 million 1948 Palestine refugees are entitled to the citizenship of the "Jewish State". Yet, the Israeli legislator (the Knesset), by force of the said Absentees Property Law of 1950, and in violation of the norms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the standards of international law, denationalized the mass of the 1948 Palestine refugees, denying their right to Israeli citizenship, thereby rendering them stateless.

....

Let all those committed to the values of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to the consistent application of the standards of international law worldwide coordinate their efforts with the view to motivate the UN to insist that the State of Israel comply with the terms of all UN resolutions relevant to the question of Palestine, including UN Resolution 181 of November 1947, determining that the State of Israel establish itself as a "Jewish State" - NOT as a "Jewish State" in the political Zionist sense of the term, namely, an apartheid state; NOT as a "Jewish state" with war criminal Governments guilty of the mass "ethnic cleansing" of the 1948 Palestine refugees from their now mostly destroyed hundreds of villages and many towns - but a "Jewish State" that is essentially democratic (with some "Jewish" trappings), namely, a democratic state for all of its citizens and 1948 Palestine refugee.

.....

--------------------

Dr Uri Davis is a citizen of Israel and the UK and author, inter alia, of ISRAEL: AN APARTHEID STATE (Zed Books, London, 1987 &amp; 1990, revised edition forthcoming 2003); Senior Research Fellow at Institute for Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies (IMEIS), University of Durham and Honorary Research Fellow at the Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies (IAIS), University of Exeter; Observer-Member of the Palestine National Council (PNC); Chair of AL-BEIT: Association for the Defence of Human Rights in Israel and Movement Against Israeli Apartheid in Palestine (MAIAP).

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

America and we just had the President of an important country over here and we basically called him Satan and sent him on his way. Yup, insulted a foreign dignitary in the absolute worst way possible and a lot of people felt great about it.

So, we're not doing so hot at the moment.

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

Thanks for printing the article. The author, a self declared "anti zionist Palestinian Jew" represents a radical fringe that does not believe in the existence State of Israel whatsoever and overtly supports its (i assume non-violent) destruction. He confuses the motivations and historical reasons for such laws and incorrectly labels them "apartheid" It is not difficult for such an individual to reject such policies when he is not at all concerned with the existence of the State of Israel.

Firstly, whatever semantic acrobatics you use to try and make the evocative word "apartheid" fit, I still believe it does not. It was a word specific to the South African situation and to strip the word of its historical, societal and philosophical baggage removes its original significance in order to pimp it out in the service of anti zionism.

So many of the features of apartheid are not present in the Israeli/Palestinian case. The main tactic of those who use this term is to focus on the status of various groups regarding land and land law. This, of course, is a very specific issue and due to the history and geographical reality of the State of Israel it is in no way comparable to the South African situation. To divorce Israeli policy from the context of intense existential conflict and legitimate security needs is to make meaningless arguaments with the intention of delegitimising the existence of the State of Israel.

The Israeli/Palestinian issue is an arguament over which national collective's self-determination should have precedence in a particular disputed territory. This is not even close to the South African case.

Re the West Bank, yes, Israeli policy is obviously more severe towards Palestinians. It is simply impossible to explain why this is the case without a discussion of the historical reasons for the occupation - of which im sure we disagree. In any case Israel has shown serious commitment to relinquishing territory for peace and this is a huge majority position for the voting public in Israel and will not change for a long time. Again, the few extreme settlers you seem to believe are running Israeli policy re the West Bank are not a fundamental barrier to withdrawal. The fundamental barrier is the murderous hostility of the Palestinians and their refusal to accept a 2 state solution and the very existance of the State of Israel. I suppose in a roundabout way, what I am saying is that the policies you consider "apartheid" in the West Bank are mostly security necessities and also do include an understandable reluctance (not so much now) to clamp down on minor expansion (I personally oppose all expansion). Your example of Israeli only roads is a clear cut security measure not based on any "racist" principle but on the need for Israelis to travel without the very real threat of murder/kidnap. The general Israeli acceptance of withdrawal in the framework of peace shows that such issues could be totally removed by a Palestinian acceptance of a true 2 state solution.

Re Israel proper, the examples you cite relate to the fundamental basis of the conflict - an arguament over which national collective's self-determination should have precedence in a particular disputed territory. To maintain Israel as a Jewish State, Israel has a right to enact policies (according to majority democratic principles) such as the law of return and certain land laws.

"So if it's a generations old administrative practice, but not written into the constitution, or a formal law, you are going to say it's not really apartheid?"

Yes, I will say that it is not apartheid. It is not based on racism, but preservation of the State of Israel itself. As my link showed, the courts are questioning the status of the specific law you mention and it seems that changes will occur. Of course, if you believe that the State of Israel is fundamentally a racist enterprise, your view will not be changed. For those who accept the existence of the State of Israel as a homeland for Jews, in a tiny strip of land surrounded by hostile Arab states, such policies are simply self preservation and a rejection of national suicide. Once a 2 state solution is in place, there will be no significant conflict concerning 2 peoples right to self determination. Israelis have basically accepted this premise - Palestinians have not.

Sorry for the length of this post - maybe we should move this discussion elsewhere?

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

Goater,

I think our conversation would go fairly predictably from here on. We will keep interpreting things differently because of a fundamental disagreement over the source of Arab anger.

You attribute Israel expanding to Arab hostility.

I attribute Arab hostility to Israel expanding.

You see it as exploding in 1948 out of some senseless Arab refusal to accept Jews in the neighborhood. You believe Israel expands mainly as ad hoc security measures against annihilation. I see Arab hostility developing since 1890 because of constant loss of land to the Yishuv, with dramatic losses in 1948, and ever since 1967.

To me, it's a simple, ancient story of cowboys vs. Indians.

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

Well, I think you are probably right about the progress of our conversation Bill - although I tend to see things less black and white. Israel has absolutely made some huge mistakes over the years and I do certainly understand certain aspects of arab anger. I just believe that in the here and now, the reality is that the only way people on either side will ever live in peace is if the palestinians somehow come to genuinely accept a 2 state solution. I know the majority in Israel accepts this. Im not hopeful, but I really think that the obstacles on the Israeli side can be overcome, but those on the Palestinian side (regardless of how understandable they may be) currently can not.

Which ever side you are on, its a sad situation.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this - I've appreciated your comments.

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

[ QUOTE ]
the only way people on either side will ever live in peace is if the palestinians somehow come to genuinely accept a 2 state solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree two states is the only realistic way forward, provided it's a genuine Palestinian state. We are in alternative universes -- there's been no settlement because Israel sabotages the negotiations with offers designed to be rejected. The "90%" being just the most recent. The turn toward Hamas was because the PLO could not deliver because Israel wasn't giving. I believe a strong majority of Palestinians would accept a two state solution. In fact, most would be happy to become Israeli citizens it it would just make the war stop. Even Hamas knows Israel is not going away. Clayton Swisher's book _The Truth About Camp David_ gives a 180 degree different interpretation of the negotiations than you are used to. I wish the Israeli majority who wants two states had influence over the people calling the shots.

[ QUOTE ]
I tend to see things less black and white.

[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon man, this is a paragraph medium and you're asking for chapters.

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

Predictably, I disagree.

I have read a few things espousing this point of view, but it is generally accepted that the offers that Israel has made have been genuine and workable. I have not read the book you cite, but a quick google shows that the author is at odds with the bulk of literature regarding this subject, including that written by those who were there. Also, he propagates a variety of Palestinian propaganda myths: the "murder" of Rachel Corrie, Jenin "massacre", the Al-Dura "murder", including misrepresenting a number of UN resolutions.

In any case, I dont want to get into a detailed discussion of the minutiae of the various offers, but on a very general level, if I was a Palestinian and the conditions i lived in were as bad as claimed and all I wanted was a state of my own so that my children could grow up without "repression" by the Israeli Army, etc... the offers made would have been snapped up by me.

But the average Palestinian does not get a say in what to accept or reject. A small bunch of corrupt, brutal, power hungry extremists decide everything and control what the average person knows about "negotiations". Even if the average Palestinian wanted a 2 state solution (and I see absolutely no evidence of this) they have no way of pressuring their leaders. And your analysis of why Hamas took power is certainly novel. I have actually never heard that opinion before. The overwhelming majority of credible commentators agree that Palestinians were sick and tired of the corruption and crookedness of the Fatah regime and rejected them by voting Hamas. Combined with a growing agreement with Hamas' aims, methods and beliefs, and a belief that Hamas had "defeated" Israel in Gaza, Fatah were trounced. I must say I am shocked that you believe that Palestinians rejected Fatah due to their inability to deliver a 2 state solution, something which is never promoted or considered when Fatah leaders speak to their people in arabic. There are countless examples of Arafat returning from negotiations and telling Palestinians in Arabic that they will not accept anything less than full return of land, sovereignty over Jerusalem and the right of return and even then only as a stage in the eventual destruction of the state of Israel. Fatah were never supported on the basis that the would deliver a 2 state solution - that is laughable. It was almost the opposite - Fatah were the historical spearhead of the struggle against the existance of Israel and were always seen as such by Palestinians.

Israelis on the other hand have specifically elected a number of governments on the specific platform of delivering a peace deal with the Palestinians - and are able to change their governments regularly, putting more pressure on politicians to actually deliver. Peres even went behind the countries back to kick start the Oslo process and Rabin was murdered because of it. Barak was elected on this premise too, Netanyahu and Sharon were only elected when the violence was so great that the people needed a "strong" leader to confront the violence and protect the lives of Israelis. Real concessions (such as the pullout from Gaza) have been made. Have you ever been to Palestine or Israel? I can assure you that in Israel, the majority of people support a 2 state solution if genuine security is gained in return. And im not talking about a narrow view of 2 states - I mean a comprehensive and reasonable solution. Why on earth would it be in Israels' interests to negotiate, raise the bar of expectation each time and deliberately cause negotiations to fail? What would this gain for a democratically elected government other than to dispirit the electorate and probably ruin their chances of reelection?

I have no doubt that many Palestinians wouldnt mind becoming Israeli citizens - for the standard of care that the government provides as compared with that of the Palestinian leadership or as a step in the eventual destruction of Israel.

Please explain this statement: "I wish the Israeli majority who wants two states had influence over the people calling the shots." Im not sure what you mean or who you are talking about?

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

Alot of great points made in this thread from all sides.

What do you guys think about the Iranian president coming to an American university? Personally I do not object. The reason being that although he is on a much larger scale, there have been people here at home in the USA with very radical and somewhat crazy and anti-American ideals who try to project their ideals on others. This is no different from the case in question IMO. What do you guys think?

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Alot of great points made in this thread from all sides.

What do you guys think about the Iranian president coming to an American university? Personally I do not object. The reason being that although he is on a much larger scale, there have been people here at home in the USA with very radical and somewhat crazy and anti-American ideals who try to project their ideals on others. This is no different from the case in question IMO. What do you guys think?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's good, because the more Ahmadinejad opens his mouth, the more Westerners get a glimpse of what the Iranian regime is all about and of the kind of mentality we are up against.

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

I find Ahmedinijad and much of the leadership of Hizballah to be disturbing, because unlike many of their contemporaries, they acutally believe alot of the religious rhetoric they spew. I'm pretty sure Ahmedinijad actually believes the Mahdi will come down and shoot lighting bolts out of his ass at all the nonbelievers. Likewise the leadershgip of Hizballah is loyal to Iran because they genuinely believe in the pricipal of Wilayat al Faqih. There's something to be said for this type of belief because it leads to relative incorruptability, but at the same time they can't be engaged with the same language that those who pretend to be religious and actually just want money and power can. I/the west understand the latter, but the former is a very foriegn entity,a nd one that does not speak the same language as us. They are very much concerned with what will happen in the next life. To the point that it strongly influences their behavior in this life. I was recently talking with am Iraqi Shi'a academic. he was telling me how he has personally met many of the Shi'a figures of influence. Al Hakim, the currnet leader of the Badr (not to be confused with Sadr) group is, according to my Iraqi source, not religious at all. However he derives his legitimacy from being the brother of the now deceased Iraqi Shia spiritual leader. Guys like him speak the language of money and power. Guys like Ahmedinijad and Nasrallah don't. Thats not to say the aformetioned are incapable of logic, they just are moivated by a different agenda then the vast majority of the worlds politicians.

Oh, and I have no problem having people like Ahmedinijad speak at institutes of higher learning in the U.S. Lets us play the freedom of speech high ground and all that...

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

[ QUOTE ]
if I was a Palestinian and the conditions i lived in were as bad as claimed and all I wanted was a state of my own so that my children could grow up without "repression" by the Israeli Army, etc... the offers made would have been snapped up by me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that the 90% offer would not have provided those baseline conditions. Palestine would have been broken up into cantons, with Israeli land in between. Israel would control movement within Palestine. It's like Israel would give back the shelves of a supermarket, but not the aisles.

[ QUOTE ]
Please explain this statement: "I wish the Israeli majority who wants two states had influence over the people calling the shots." Im not sure what you mean or who you are talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

The government has continued swallowing Palestine, and making offers designed to be rejected. The process is pretty much complete -- there is no Palestine left to become a genuine state -- only atomized corrals.

Yes, people were sick of Fatah. But if Fatah could have delivered a state, that would have transformed the situation. Extermination of Israel is not on the table. It remains in the rhetoric of the most extreme, but most people are like your sentence, "if I were a Palestinian...." Most are desperate for a two state solution, and know that even that possibility is slipping away. The wall is still snaking through the olive orchards, the settlements are still expanding...

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

I think you managed to somehow respond to the wrong poster.

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

The settlements have not significantly expanded since Oslo and the government is actively preventing growth outside of already existing settlements.

recent article

Israel has also shown that it can and will enforce withdrawals if it believes that it is in its interest to do so.

However, it will take a lot to convince Israelis living close to any future borders to support the withdrawal of settlement blocks that represent a physical barrier between them and the Palestinians. Remember that the distance between the border of the West Bank and the sea (ie: the width of Israel) is only 9 miles (15km) at its narrowest point in the center of the country. You think that these people want to be the new Sderot? (for those that dont know, Sderot is a border town inside Israel proper that has been bombarded almost daily since the withdrawal. 2053 rockets have been fired at southern Israel since the full withdrawal of Gaza).

There is plenty of Palestine to become a state and Israel has shown itself willing to make sacrifices and withdraw large numbers of people should a genuine deal be possible. The geography and topology of the West Bank and Jerusalem make a clean separation impossible and it will take compromise on both sides, but i believe it could be done if the will was there. I mean, whats the choice? Its either a deal or the Palestinians go on living like they do for another 40 years and on and on...

If you think that a deal that includes 90% of territory and a larger percentage of the population living in an independent Palestinian state is not a serious offer, Im not sure what would convince you.

And again, Fatah were never - NEVER - going to agree to a peace deal with Israel. To believe that they would or could you have to ignore the increasing Palestinian terrorism since the start of the Oslo peace process, the countless and totally consistent statements made to the public in arabic stating that they would never accept Israel, the most blatant incitement in official media, mosques, etc... the teaching of Palestinian children that the whole of Israel is Palestine and would be again through the blood of Palestinian "martyrs", the statements of Clinton and others regarding Arafats insincerity and what he described as Barak's "courageous" offers, etc...

Fatah and Arafat knew that they could never hope to survive in a (possibly democratic) independent Palestinian state. They would suddenly have had responsibility for health care, the economy, and general well being. Their corruption would have been sharply exposed and they would not have the old enemy, Israel, to blame Palestinians woes on. They would have been the address every poor Palestinian turned to to complain. You really think that egyptian Arafat cared one bit for the Palestinian people!? I suppose you have an answer for the billions of dollars in aid that they stole from their own people? The more the Palestinian people could be shown in the world media as poor, downtrodden, brutalised by Israel, etc... the more aid came flowing in and the more they could steal - all the while being on the international stage and creating a great anti Israel propaganda show. It was a win win situation for them/him.

And I see no reason to believe that "most [palestinian] people" just want a 2 state solution. Strange that they would overwhelmingly vote in Hamas (who wont even accept the existance of Israel and are fully dedicated to the destruction of Israel) if they really wanted a 2 state solution, isnt it? They have to take responsibility for their choices and they voted Hamas. Dosnt sound like a people "desperate" for the 2 state solution to me.

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

I was initially opposed to him speaking at the University - now im really not sure. Yes, he did make a fool out of himself, but he also got to spout his ridiculous propaganda, especially regarding the holocaust. His disgusting comments regarding such an issue - especially as he openly preaches his intention to commit another one - should bar him from such a stage. (actually, he degrades the significance of the holocaust BECAUSE he wishes another one, but anyway...)

Anyone who is surprised by his comments regarding homosexuals, for example, is simply not fully educated re him and his regime. If it takes such a stage to expose this aspect of his regime to many people, i suppose its a good thing, but i would be happier if people knew these things anyway.

It is clear that he sees such opportunities (including his request to visit ground zero) as a chance to ridicule the US and get his propaganda out and im not sure the US should assist him.

For the record, I dont believe this is a free speach issue at all.

Re: What do you think about Middle Eastern relations?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The settlements have not significantly expanded since Oslo and the government is actively preventing growth outside of already existing settlements.

[/ QUOTE ]

The settlements have approximately doubled in population size since Oslo.

[ QUOTE ]
And I see no reason to believe that "most [palestinian] people" just want a 2 state solution. Strange that they would overwhelmingly vote in Hamas (who wont even accept the existance of Israel and are fully dedicated to the destruction of Israel) if they really wanted a 2 state solution, isnt it? They have to take responsibility for their choices and they voted Hamas. Dosnt sound like a people "desperate" for the 2 state solution to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

13 years of representation by the party that rcognised Israel and supported a two state solution got them nowhwere. Even when Arafat, whom Israel blamed for everything, was replaced by the ultra-compliant Abbas, there was no movement - not even basic negotiations. Not to mention terrible Fatah misgovernment. Hardly surprising that Palestinains opted for change of tack - what would be the point in voting for Fatah whe it had a terrible track record on both gaining them a state and was absurdly corrupt and falling apart?

Even then, I remember polls showing that a third or so of people voting for Hamas still favoured a two state soltution (and Hamas actually won the popular vote by a very small margin, while most voter of Fatah can be presumed to have supported a 2-state solution). Futhermore, support for a two state soltution was much higher when it actually looked like a realistic prospect.