Conference taveng::bagels

    When you talk about a Palestinian state you have a very loose
    terminology, that's interperated according ones political viewpoint.
    
    The British mandate of Palestine was the area now occupied by 
    Jordan and Israel. You therefore could say that there are already
    2 Palestinian states! As the majority of people living within the present
    day borders of Jordan are 'Palestinians' some would argue that 
    'The Palestianians' already have their own state. 
    
    Since 1967, after the 6 day war, Israel, in a war of defence, captured
    what are today known as 'the occupied territories' or by others using
    their biblical names as 'Judeah', 'Samarea' and the Gaza strip.
    
    The ownership of this land is currently disputed, as they only ever
    belonged to Jordan through an act of war, and Israel (the present
    occupier) hasn't been given recognition for ownership either.
    Ownership of this land is therefore not clear. 
           
>    I'd like to ask you, is a Palestinian state objectionable? Why is
>    it objectionable or why is it not objectionable.

    When a 'new' Palestian state is called for, one of three things could
    be meant (and it's usuall all three by use of ambiguous terminology):
    
    1) a state in the land that's not the current recognised boundaries
    of Israel and Jordan
    
    2) A state in the land that's not Jordan
    
    3) A state in the total land of the old British mandated area of Palestine

    The reasons why the idea of a Palestian state in land presently
    occupied by Israel (which is the only solution for a Palestian state
    that is ever proposed) is often viewed as objectionable are:
    
    1) the state would be a security threat to Israel (which has much
    experience of attacks on its existance by its neighbours). 
    
    2) There already is a state in Palestine occupied by 'Palestinians'
    
    3) The land  of 'Judea and 'Samarea' is the historical land of Israel
    and has special significance to many

    4) The PLO who would like a Palestian state, and would like to rule
    one, would also like to destroy Israel (and Jordan as well)

    5) There would still be a conflict, as it's impossible to reconcile
    the national aspirations and security considerations of all those
    involved.
    
    The reasons why the idea of a Palestian state in land presently
    occupied by Israel is often viewed as favourable are:

    1) It would solve the 'Middle East conflict' 
    
    2) It would provide a means for those who identify themselves as
    'Palestians' and who are not citizans of and existing Palestian
    state to fulfil their national aspirations
    
    3) For Israel is would solve her demographic potential problem
    where she might in time cease to be a Jewish state

>    it is difficult
>    for me to understand why it is anti-Israel to be for the existence of a
>    Palestinian state while at the same time recognizing Israel?
 
    People who call for a 'Palestian State' often do this as an euphamism
    for their call for the destruction of Israel. 
    

    
    
    
    	What .1 said.
    
    
    

    For a Palestinian view of the situation, see Edward Said's "The
    Question of Palestine" which is now out in paperback.  Rather than
    reiterate discussions which have gone on many times before, I will
    point out the most crucial point, which is that the PLO has offered
    mutual recognition between Israel and a Palestinian state.  For
    a discussion of possible solutions and their viability, including
    security aspects for Israel, see Mark Heller's "A Palestinian State:
    The Implications for Israel."
    
    In terms of current news and opinion, Antony Lewis, who writes a
    column for the New York Times and is (I think) a Jewish-American,
    generally presents a viewpoint that coincides with that of the current
    PLO stance.  If you're really extremely interested in this, you
    might subscribe to the weekly British newspaper the Manchester Guardian.
                                  

	For another point of view and more background, see 406.135.

.3>    the PLO has offered mutual recognition between Israel and a Palestinian
.3>    state. 

    	Yes, but the PLO has also made it clear in its covenant that
    recognition of Israel and establishment of a state is an interim
    strategy that would be used for the next step, the eradication of
    Israel. 

    			David

I posted this response to the BLACKNOTES file, where Karen (re .0) asked the
very same question.  I would hope that you could correct any historical
misinformation.  I do not wish to offend anyone with this, but I still maintain
that Ed Koch is a putz!  8^)  
                                                .steve.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

               <<< WSL::DUA0:[NOTES$LIBRARY]BLACKNOTES.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Topics of interest to black DEC employees >-
================================================================================
Note 215.2                    A Palestinian State?                        2 of 2
ESD66::BERNSTEIN "Don't talk to me-I'm a criminal!" 113 lines  14-APR-1988 00:57
                         -< Preserve LIFE above all!! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  I am not in the habit of discussing this openly, but I feel this warrants a 
response.  Feeling some solidarity with the Palestinians sometimes earns me the
wrath of my closest family, but we all have our opinions.  Nonetheless, I think
we should try to understand the history of this situation, since it is the 
HISTORY that figures so much into this terrible mess.  As much as I would
prefer to deal solely between the children, on both sides, that don't have 40
years of HATRED built up inside themselves, I have to admit the history here
is significant.

  There are many Jews in Israel who would like to settle NOW with "land for
peace".  This seems like the ultimate outcome.  However, I would not be 
surprised if Israel later decided to exert its force, in the interests of 
"national security" and take over the land once again, if their worst fears ever
came true and the West Bank was used as a launching ground for attacks aimed 
at destroying Israel.  Could I hardly blame them then?  It wouldn't be a 
"first" that they had to protect themselves that way.  Although I have not yet 
travelled to Israel, I understand the strategic value of the West Bank is akin 
to sitting in a tree while people are walking around under you.

  A point of history is that Israel has, since 1948, built a beautiful country 
within the small confines of a "state" that consists of much desert.  The city 
of Jerusalem, which is open to all peoples of the world was not as open when it 
was occupied by other countries in the Middle East.  The Drip Irrigation systems
that they have developed have turned desert land into amazing farms, that can 
only be seen to be believed.  They have made Tel Aviv a truly international 
city.  All this was done without disrupting the religious freedom of the area.
The temples, mosques, and churches remain open and free - this is something 
that a high-tech society might usually be criticized for adversely affecting.

  Another point of history is that the initial attempts to set up a state that
would include the Jews and Arabs in 1948 was rejected by the Palestinian
leadership.  I am told that the Palestinians were told to leave, since after
the 1948 war, they could return to claim both their own house, and the house
of their Jewish neighbor.  This arrogance is still displayed today, when the
radical Palestinians call for the destruction of Israel.  I am certain that
many innocent Palestinians merely followed what they were told, seeing no
alternatives at that time.  However, I am also certain that THEY are not the
ones that are throwing the stones and Molotov cocktails at the Army, either.

  As much as I am embarrassed by the actions of the Israeli army over the past
few months, I am offended by the often used comparison to South Africa.  The
Jewish state has always prided itself on valuing democracy - and this is why
the internal strife is so threatening.  Everything about the Israeli Army's
response to the riots goes against the basic threads of Judaism.  This is why 
the country is being torn apart.  It's not a case where 2% of the Jews "object",
so it is easy for the government to shut them up, like in South Africa.  The 
country is divided by the deep philosophical matter at hand.

  Let us not forget that the Palestinians HATE the Jordanians, and don't want
to live in a "state" controlled by them either.  When the Palestinians went
through the exodus, the Jordanians were brutal to them while they occupied
part of Jordan.  It was easy enough for the Jordanian government to wipe
out a city of 20000 men, women, and children, and make sure no one found out
about it so that they could escape guilt.  How does THAT compare to the 
government of South Africa?  That is the fatal flaw in George Schultz's plan -
to involve the Jordanians in the settlement.

  One point often cited about the press' sensationalism, that is most often
pointed out to me by friends and relatives who live, work, and travel to
Israel and Egypt, is that we only see the Israeli army's counterattacks against
the "teenagers".  My cousin showed me the local press' reports as they 
compared with the USA media coverage.  A bus with Israeli schoolchildren
had been attacked.  The Army went into the village to find the attackers - 
the pictures of that "exchange" were on our evening news.  Not a word about
the school bus - not here, anyway.  This doesn't validate the Army's actions 
of extreme brutality but it does remind us that Israel has the right to defend 
itself. 

  Fanatics on both sides consider anything less than THEIR end goals to be 
treason - unfortunately, this is all we see on television.  The middle-of-
the-road Palestinian leaders are often gunned down by their extremists.
This is the reason the Israeli government is so rightfully paranoid about 
dealing with these people - it is hard to give in to someone who you think is 
trying to harm you, if not openly destroy you - that is a basic concept in 
interpersonal relations that can't be ignored.

  Considering 40 years have gone by, do the current "teenagers" that are 
throwing rocks really represent the Palestinians?  Or are they simple the 
pawns of the Big Players, as the Palestinian people have been for the past 40 
years?  Greg, how can you call them "protests"??  Try "murder and annihilation".
That is the way it appears to me - the people lose - the Palestinians
AND the Israelis.  This is the sad truth.

  So, in answer to your question, Karen, yes, I believe, as do many Israelis,
that the Palestinians are entitled to a homeland in Gaza and on the West Bank, 
AND you can't expect Israel to deal with lunatics that want to destroy them.
Have you heard of the recent statement by Syria, I believe, to Iraq and Iran, 
to "end their war so that they can concentrate on the TRUE enemy..."??  As much
as I dislike Shamir, I have to admit that they should not be expected to deal 
with people that want to annihilate them.  [By the way, Karen, your extreme 
tact in your note earns you the Ms. Tactful of the Week Award 8^)  - 
seriously!]

  And, in answer to Greg's mention of Jesse, I see Jackson as the ONLY hope to
a Mideast settlement.  What was the most important aspect of the Camp David 
Accord? - that Jimmy Carter was able to deal directly with both sides, and had
the TRUST of both Sadat and Begin.  With Jesse being the only one to deal with
the Arabs (could you see Dukakisn't trying to figure out which Arabs to talk
to?? - HA!!), and perhaps Carter as his Secretary of State (which he has 
mentioned before), there will finally be people on BOTH sides who'll trust
the US.  I must admit, I think Jesse will initially make some bad mistakes
that will hurt Israel, but the American Jewish lobby is strong enough and 
Israel is resilient enough that they will pull through Jesse's initial
growing pains and establish meaningful relations and work toward peace, and
not give lip-service like we've had for the past 8 years.

                                                 .steve.

p.s.  correct me if I'm wrong, but the numbers I think I heard recently are:
                           1.5 million Jews (this might only be 1.0 mil)
                           800000 Arabs
                           200000 Christians

    Re: .4
    
    Yes, the PLO does hope that eventually a democratic state will exist
    throughout the area.  However, the current PLO position as I understand
    it is to fight by military means if necessary for an independent state
    in the occupied territories and then use only peaceful, political
    means to further the goal of one state.  Many Palestinians, of course,
    do not believe that the ultimate goal of one state will ever come
    about.
    

    re: Karen Kolling
    
    I sure would like to see the PLO state the objectives you believe
    to be their policy by stating them in unequivocal words.
    
    I can't see they will ever be taken seriously while they still uphold
    their covenant and conduct the sort of activities you describe as
    'military means'.
    
    If as a council they are unprepared to define a new charter I wouldn't
    feel happy putting words in their mouths (and deluding myself).
    
    Malcolm

    Is it your opinion that the PLO  wants to destroy Israel because it
    would like to regain the land? Or does the organization want to destroy
    what Israel represents a la Hitler? Or is there a thin line which
    separates the two?
    
    _karen    

    .5>                                        
    there is no need to feel guilty about the i.d.f. response to the
    rioters in the administrated areas, nor is there response contrary
    to judaism. are not jews allowed to defend themselves.
    
    can you imagine after wwii, american troops in germany facing a
    rioting german population. a situation where american troops were
    being assaulted with rocks, iron bars, and molotov coctails.
    what do you suppose their reaction would have been. of course like
    any normal countrys' reaction would be, put the rioting down. in
    a world without double standards israel would stand tall in the
    amount of restraint they have shown. 
    
    as i mentioned earlier in so many of my notes.
    one has only to look how democracies such as the u.s and france
    have put down rioting. not to mention the ruthlessness of arab gov'ts
    treatment of their own people especially jews. they sure know how to
    put down a  riot, in fact, maybey thats why we never hear of any.
    or is it because they are so happy with their feudal gov'ts.
    
    while we are so concerned about the plight of the arabs in the
    administered areas, let's not forget that there are still many jews
    left in arab lands that truly are oppressed. why is there no publicity
    for them. and what of the ethiopian jews who have been discriminated
    and oppressed simply because they are jews.
    
    as far as the arabs are concerned if they want peace then let them
    talk peace. if the support the plo a terrorist organization, then
    i say let them eat crow. who are they to dictate terms. did germany
    or japan dicate terms after they lost in wwii, of course not.
    they are not part of the double standard.
    
    if the arabs had a reputation as neighbors like the canadians are
    to the u.s. there would be no problem. i'm sure they'd give the
    land back tomorrow.
                                             
    as far as jackson is concerned i like koch, good for him,  also
    think that any jew who supports an anti-semite (who is going through
    growin pains) is crazy. what else does this man have to do to convince
    you he doesn't have jewish concerns at the top of his list or for
    that matter at the bottom of his list.
    
    if gary hart would have done and said what jackson has said, i wonder
    if you would have changed your tune.
                                                          
    re>.8
    what was that all about?
    
    
    
                                          

    re .9
    In reference to my .8, it was just more questions which evolved
    as I read the responses .0.
    
    _karen

    RE: .10 (as a clarification of your .8)
    
    >                      Or does the organization want to destroy
    >  what Israel represents a la Hitler? Or is there a thin line which
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >  separates the two?
                                         
    Karen, I'm still not exactly sure what you're getting at here, vis-
    a-vis, referencing Israel with Hitler?
    
      Alan
    

    Re: .10
    
    I think that .8's reference to Hitler was a question about PLO goals.
    Assuming that they want to destroy Israel, is that Israel the land
    or Israel the people.  Israel the people was refered to as a la
    Hitler.

                                   Paul

    re .12
    Thanks Paul.  You were right on the button.
    
    _karen

    Hi _karen,
    
    I don't know what the PLOs goals are as the don't go out their
    way to be that explicit when they communicate them.
    
    I have seen some of their actions, and no matter how you like to
    define them it is Jews that they seek to kill (not Israel the State
    as embodied by the Army). To me I find it very threatining when
    an organisation considered any Jew, of any age, physical ability,
    or residence of any country as a just and fair target.
    
    Malcolm

	Edward Said was on Brinkley's TV program this week, along
	with George Will. (Unfortunately, I have no transcript, so
	I cannot quote the exchange exactly.)

	Said talked about peace. Will asked Said directly if, in
	moving towards peace, Palestinians were willing to give up the 
	parts of the PLO charter, and other documents which call for
	and reinforce the policy calling for the destruction of Israel. 

	Said did not answer the question.

	Will pointed out to Said that he had not answered his question, and
	asked the same question again.

	Said again would not answer the question.

	Will pointed out again that Said again did not answer the question.
	He also pointed out that the Israelis might be much more
	affable to negotiation if Palestinians were willing to make some 
	direct public statements around their plans for the ultimate 
	destruction of Israel.

/don feinberg

    I saw the Brinkley program too.  Said was on for a very small amount of
    time, like 2 or 3 minutes, and was talking a mile a minute trying
    to fit things in, while George Will did his Sam Donaldson impression,
    so Said hardly was able to complete a sentence.  Said has in the
    past explicitly stated acceptance of two states.  I think the
    PLO is not planning to unilaterally recognize Israel, which is
    essentially what amending their covenant would do, as opposed to
    engaging in mutual recognition, which they have already offered
    to Israel.  Considering that they are in a very weak position, I
    don't find it strange that they are reluctant to give up even more
    ground without getting something in return.  I also haven't heard
    any calls for the amending of the platform of the Likud, by the
    way, which calls for Israel to hold all of the West Bank and Gaza
    forever, i.e., the destruction of Palestine.
    
    On William Buckley's program awhile back, James Zogby, who is head
    of an American-Arab organization whose name escapes me at the moment
    and also an advisor to Jesse Jackson, was engaged in a debate and
    answered in terms similar to my reply of a few numbers ago.  Something
    like (apply cold facecloth to face) "Arab boys and Jewish girls walking
    hand in hand in the hills".
    
    
    

    I forgot to say, one of the reasons I think getting people to a
    peace conference is important is that then things can be put down
    in black and white, rather than everyone spending lots of time arguing
    about semi-invisible nuances in what various people have said from
    time to time.
    

re: 450.16

	�                                         Said has in the
	�    past explicitly stated acceptance of two states.

    I have heard/watched him on several occasions.  He is always very
    careful to avoid acknowledging Israel's legitimacy; the problem
    was not the amount of time he was on the air.  On the Israeli
    side, one of the objections to a Palestinian state is that the PLO
    wants a two-state solution simply as an interim objective; the long
    range goal is the destruction of Israel.  Said's words lend credence
    to this interpretation.
    
    A number of well-known Israelis have publicly supported the idea
    of a Palestinian state *provided* that the Arab states and Palestinians
    are willing to accept the permanence of the Jewish State of Israel.
    Given the history of the conflict, I know of no Israelis and few
    of Israel's supporters that would be willing to accept anything
    less.
    
    The key problem, I think, is not Israel's failure to recognize the
    rights of the Palestinians, but the failure of the Palestinians
    and the Arab states (with the exception of Egypt) to recognize the
    legitimacy of Israel.  As Anwar Sadat demonstrated, a positive approach
    is very difficult to resist.

    Sigh.  I'm going to make up individual files so I don't have to
    cnstantly retype stuff.  Distinguish between unilateral acceptance
    of Israel vs.  mutual simultaneous recognition.  Distinguish between
    "the destruction of israel" meaning "kill the jews" vs. a democratic
    state.  Distinguish between people who view the democratic state
    as a goal to be achieved even by force, those who would achieve
    it only by peaceful means, and those who have given up all hope
    of it.
    
    I am still waiting for a reason why Israel should hold the
    Palestinians hostage against what the other Arab states do.  What
    responsibility have the Palestinians for what, say, Morocco does
    and any more than the U.S. has for what Britian does, for example?
                                                   
    

    How about holding the Palestinians that they have hostage against
    what their official spokesmen do?

    No dialog can start if either side has strong reason to believe that
    the other will not bargain in good faith.  Israel is in a position of
    strength and could annex the territories (claiming that Jordan is the
    Palestinian state).  An advance concession is made that Israel is
    willing to negotiate the state of those territories for a commitment
    of non-aggression (usually described as "the right to exist").  It
    is very reasonable to hold back until such a commitment is given.

    As to what happens inside of Israel, I question whether giving
    non-Jews citizenship is necessary for a democratic state.  A
    democratic state follows the will of the majority.  If the majority
    insists that conversion to Judaism (similar to studying and taking
    the oath in the US  8^{) is a prerequisit to citizenship that does
    not make the governmaent any less democratic.

    Just 'cause you don't like the law doesn't make it illegal 8^{).

    Gavriel

    re .20
    
    Only foreigners have to take the oath.  People who were born here,
    even though their parents may have been _aliens_, are automatically
    US citizens.
    
    _karen

    Karen,

    The point is, that that is our rule.  It is not the rule of some
    other countries which are referred to as "democratic".  As long
    as the rules are approved by a majority of the citizens then they
    are democratic.  It is nice if the rules are consistent.  It is
    even nicer for foreigners visiting if the rules are consistent
    world wide.  That still does not make the US system the be-all
    and end-all of governmental systems (even though it works well
    for me  8^{).

    Gavriel

    Re: .20
    
    So what you are saying is that if the Arabs ever become a majority
    in Israel, as a democracy they should be able to revoke the citizenship
    of the Jews and only give them give it back if they renounce their
    religion.
    
    So what Spain did in the 15th century was democratic, since the
    Christians were the majority?
    
    And since the majority of people in the U.S. are Christians they
    should have the right to require Christian prayers in public schools?
    
    I'm HORRIFIED!!!
    
    Just 'cause I don't like the law doesn't make it illegal.  But laws
    like that don't make a successful democracy.  Be careful how you
    balance the will of the majority against the rights of the minority.
    
    You too were a stranger (and a minority) in the land of Egypt.
    
                                 Paul

    Gavriel,
    
    Democratic governments practice social equality.  The people choose the
    government, not just a select group within the society. Those countries
    which are referred to as "democratic" but do not practice this simple
    rule do not have democratic governments. 
    
    Israel does not have to be a melting pot. But if it wants to be
    a democracy it has to move in the direction of a melting pot.
    
    _karen

    RE: -.1

    First off, consider most of this to be "Devil's Advocacy".  I am
    trying to understand a philosophy which most people will stop
    listening to in the first 30 seconds.  You can not successfully
    refute an idea unless you understand it and it is possible that
    after thinking about it for a while you will agree.  Either way
    (refutation or acceptance) progress is made.

    The previous postings made some assumptions.  You can't be a
    citizen unless you are Jewish.  Many states have many different
    values for deciding citizenship.  It can be oath of allegience,
    born of citizen parents, born in the country, etc.  Joining
    Judaism is analogous to the first.  Being born Jewish is
    analogous to the second.  Many countries do not allow the third
    and this system wouldn't either.  The Law of Return essentially
    allows all Jews to be citizens of Israel.  Either this law is
    religionist/nationalist (I don't like racist here since there
    are Jews of many races) or it is the privilege of a national
    group to decide who is a member of the nation.  If you don't
    like nationalism then you aren't going to go in much for this
    idea  8^{).

    Resident aliens can become citizens by the above means.  If they
    do not become citizens then they do not have the right to determine
    the destiny of the state.  They should, however, be accord the full
    rights to do-process and freedoms under the law.  Limiting of
    the capabilities of the citizens as concerns resident aliens is
    critical (it probably requires a consitution  8^{).

    In order to avoid the "demographics" problem of the non-citizens out
    numbering the citizens, you can either give up Judea, Samaria and Gaza
    or you can insist on join or leave a la Kahane.  A 2 state solution
    would be the most likely to work.  The join or leave solution is
    would not work, is distasteful and would alienate Israels allies.

    Gavriel

    The above is not the opinion of my boss or DEC.  It may not even
    be my opinion 8^{).

    RE .25 
    
    Okay, I see your point. 
    
    On the other hand, would you tell me of three democratic governments
    wherein people who are born within the confines of the borders are not
    necessarily citizens?  Usually an allegiance is pledged to defend one's
    country in times of war. One should be able to pledge to defend Israel
    and defend the country willingly without converting to Judaism. 
    
    _karen

    Actually, I don't know of any real democracies at all, let alone ones
    which fit the description you gave  8^{).

    Gavriel

    On the other hand, would you tell me of three democratic governments
    wherein people who are born within the confines of the borders are not
    necessarily citizens?

I believe that many Western European countries do not automatically extend
citizenship to the children of resident (or transitory) aliens.

The laws vary all over the place.

Martin.

    
    Re: .26
    
    Karen, you've hit on a very interesting point here.  You mention
    that part of the deal involves an allegiance pledged to defend the
    country.  One of the interesting things about the current situation
    in Israel is that, even among Arab Israelis, that is, the
    Arabs living within the "green lines," only a handful have volunteered
    for the Israeli army.  Those who volunteer are enlisted--the numbers
    of non-Jewish enrollees are very high, for example, among the Druse
    community--but unlike Jewish Israelis, non-Jews are only invited,
    not obligated, to do military duty.   Should the principles of
    democratic government apply to all citizens of a country--even those
    citizens who do not accept civil responsibilities such as military duty?
                 

    	In reply to Karen's request for 3 democracies that do not
    automatically give citizenship to aliens, the U.S. does not!
    	Under current U.S. immagration law, (I called a lawer friend
    who deals withs aliens), "A person born in the U.S.whose parents are
    not citizen's of the U.S. or territories becomes a citizen
    automatically if his (or her) parrent(s) become U.S. citizen(s) before 
    their 18th birthday. If the parents do not become citizens by their
    18th birthday then they must apply on their own.
    
    						Mordecai Ben_zeef
    
    

    Webster's on democracy includes:
    
        rule of the majority
        political, social, or economic equality;  the absence of disavowal
            of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
        a state of society characterized by tolerance towards minorities,
            freedom of expression, and respect for the essential dignity and
            worth of the human individual with equal opportunity for
            each to develop freely to his fullest capacity in a cooperative
            community.
    
    Israel seems to think it is a democracy because it satisfies the
    first criterion, while it's critics are thinking in terms of the
    other two criteria as well.
                    

    Re: .30
    
    They have to apply, but they are granted citizenship.
    So it's a question of the significance of having to fill out papers.
                      

    RE .32
    KAREN
    	You missed the key word, "automatic".
    	Under current law you are granted "automatic" citizenship only
    if "one" of your parents were citizens before you were 18. Otherwise
    you have to go through the same routine they would have to.
    
    	Please also note I have added the word "one". Only one of your
    parents have to be a citizen.
    
    

Re:                           -< The word is AUTOMATIC >-

As I understand the law, if you were born in this country, irrespective of
your parents' nationality, you ARE a citizen. In fact, even if your parents
came to this country and are still illegal aliens at the time of birth, you
are a citizen.

The form being filled when you become 18 years old, as I understand the law,
is your statement accepting the citizenship. Until then, you are allowed to
retain dual citiznship - US and that of your parents'!

The word 'automatic' is immaterial; the relevant point is whether you can be
denied citizenship when you fill out that form. You can't be! Hence this
argument is moot!

Now, I am not a lawyer, so I may be wrong. But i would wager a bag of SaraLee
bagels on this!	8*)

-parthi

RE: 450.19

�                                                     Distinguish between
�    "the destruction of israel" meaning "kill the jews" vs. a democratic
�    state.                                                          

This is an example of exactly what I cited.  The clear implication of this
statement is that a Jewish state is not a legitimate long-term goal.  As
far as I can tell, no official of the PLO has ever said, even indirectly,
that the PLO would be willing (per-whatever-conditions) to acknowledge the
legitimacy of a permanent Jewish state.  It is always framed in terms of
a "two-state solution" that very carefully avoids that notion of true
acceptance of Israel as a permanent part of the Middle East.

It is a non-answer to the problem and a non-starter to real peace in the
region.

>a "two-state solution" that very carefully avoids that notion of true
>acceptance of Israel as a permanent part of the Middle East.
Aaron,
	I understand your view vis-a-vis the necessity for the Arabs and the
Palestinians to explicitly state their acceptance of the State of Israel;
but by the same token has any single Israeli leader ever acknowledged the
right of the Palestinians to self-determination?

Autonomy and Jordan are not the answer; Palestinians cannot accept autonomy
in a Jewish state, Israel, just as Israelites cannot accept autonomy in a
Palestine. Jordan, while it may (in my opinion, it should!) be the logical
place for a Palestinian nation, is now a Hashemite kingdom and we all know
how Hussien deals with any Palestinian nationalism.

I would like to have your opinion about this aspect; frankly, for many,
this demand on the Palestinians without any reciprocal statement forthcoming 
seems one-sided.

regards
-parthi

    RE:-1
    
    Parthi,
    
    You raise an excellent point in that Jordan should be the Palestianian
    State.  Then why should Israel be made to pay for the price by giving
    up land?
    
    Send Hussian back to where he came from and let the Palestianians
    have what is now Jordan.  But we know that the other Arab countries
    won't allow that they want it all.
    
    WS

    The real issue here is what you mean by autonomy. Israel will not
    accept a state on the west bank, because it believes (rightly so,
    I think) that it would be a first step to the ascension of radicals
    opposed to ever living in peace with Israel. Israelis view the needs
    of autonomy for the Palestinians of the west bank, as tied to some
     other nation, such as Jordan, than can provide an environment that
    could establish stability in the region, and would prevent the kind
    of violence that has been prevalent for the last 40 years. Israelis
    in general, are not opposed to autonomy for the Palestinians. They
    are opposed to an independent state; one that would surely present
    very grave threats of further violence and bloodshed. This is the
    crux of the problem. How does one provide Palestinian autonomy without
    endangering security of the population.

    The above are my views on the situation. I certainly can't speak
    for all Israelis, but the ones I have spoken to seem to hold this
    view.

	>RE.34

	I too am not a lawyer so I asked one who I new had some insight as 
	to the current law and interpretation with respect to what is 
	going on with the amnesty being offered. It was assumed by congress
	when they passed the amnesty bill that if a parent qualified for 
	amnesty then his (or her) children also qualified. But under 
	U.S. law a child's legal links to a parents end at the 18th birthday
	in most cases. It was assumed that because this situation is not known
	by even most immigration experts is because it has seldom happened
	before. Try to imagine a case where a parent comes to the U.S., has
	a child and then waits over 18 years before applying for citizenship. 
	Now where people (undocumentated aliens) have resided for a long 
	period of time are applying for alien status the question of children
	over 18 has come up and there are several bills before Congress
        to address this problem.
                                 
    
	My point is not that we have an unfair law that has to be fixed but
	rather that what many of us assume to be true about life in the "great
	democracy of the U.S." may not be true. There has been many references
	to "We don't do that in the U.S., If Israel was a true democracy
	then they wouldn't do it either". The fact we have done much of the
	same in the past, and in some cases still do today. We do not
	"violating" a democratic principle as often as Israel simply because
	we are not fighting for our lives.

	No, I don't like what I see is going on over there, but I firmly 
	believe that if we in a state of war with our neighbors the same
	thing would happen here.

					Mordecai Ben_Zeef
	
     

.36>    has any single Israeli leader ever acknowledged the right of the
.36>    Palestinians to self-determination? 

    	Israel accepted the 1947 partition by the U.N.; the Palestinians
    did not.  No one can tell the course of history had the Palestinians
    accepted the partition.

    	Short of explicitly acknowledging Israel's right to exist, can't
    the Palestinians realize that they need to modify their Covenant,
    which explicitly states that they intend the two-state stage to
    be temporary?  How can Israel negotiate when the Palestinians make
    it clear in advance that they do not intend the negotiations to
    be in good faith?
    
    	See 406.135 for one possible plan.
    
    			David

>    	Short of explicitly acknowledging Israel's right to exist, can't
>    the Palestinians realize that they need to modify their Covenant,
Point taken. But I still feel that while the Palestinians must change their
Covenant and drop the reference to 'eliminating Israel', Israel must also
make a statement declaring its recognition of the right of Palestinians to
self-determination ala Balfour Declaration. What form that will take, who will
get what land can be negotiated; after all, Israel can reject any unilateral
imposition at any point. It has shown on more than one occasion that nobody
can impose anything on it!

Re Jordan: Sure, I do feel that it should have been (and should still become)
a Palestinian nation, but that is not the end of it. As I understand it, WB and 
Gaza are occupied territories. So they should be returned (to whom? if I knew
the answer to that, I won't be working for DEC 8*) )!!!
The most common objection thrown up is that parts of WB are needed for
security. Folks, modern artillery and weapons systems are so advanced, I can't
believe that this is a real obstacle. Mr.Netanyahu said that Israeli planes
cannot land without fear of being hit by missiles if these lands are given up.
But we are talking in the context of a settlement. And Israel can insist on
a DMZ with the right to intervene if weapons systems are moved in!

And let us assume that these lands cannot be given up. Is Israel then ready
to compensate by turning over an equivalent (assuming equivalency can be
agreed upon)portion of land elsewhere?

>    	See 406.135 for one possible plan.
Compromise involves both sides. It cannot be on the terms of one single side
alone; that would be seen as surrender.

Of course, one can always ask, Why should Israel compromise? After all,
over 40 years it has never been defeated; it holds more land than before;
its economy is very advanced and not dependent on the neighbours. So why
should Israel talk peace?

Morality aside, all I can say is what Nixon said (he was no dove when it
came to Israel. In 1973, as you all must know, he put US forces on alert
to forestall Soviet intervention):
There is the danger that one day Israel may be defeated. Not today, not in
the next five years. But in the long run, the Arabs will learn to fight 
well. And should that happen, then!

-parthi

    .40> Israel accepted the 1947 partition by the U.N.;  the Palestinians
         did not.
    
    Of course, they didn't.  Would the U.S. allow the U.N. to give
    half of the U.S. to a fragment of the U.S. population that intended
    to exclude or discriminate against the rest?  So, because the Palestinians
    resisted what they saw as confiscation of their land and lost, it's
    their fault?
    
    .a few ago> Could you be more precise about what you mean by autonomy
    vs. statehood?  Does a demilitarized state qualify as autonomy?
    

                                   The Big Lie

                                  Yedidya Atlas



          [Reprinted without permission from "Israel Scene", April, 1988]





      Since the start of the recent  round  of  riots  in  the  administered

      territories   of  Judea,  Samaria  and  Gaza  by  assorted  groups  of

      Palestinian Arabs, coupled with the deluge of one-sided media coverage

      turning Israel into Goliath to the Palestinian's David, there has been

      an increasingly  louder  revival  of  the  old  line  about  "Israel's

      obligation to solve the Palestinian problem."



      It will contend, again, that all that stands in the way  of  achieving

      peace  in  the Middle East is the adamant refusal by hardline elements

      within Israel to proffer  "territories  for  peace".   The  assumption

      being, that were Israel to genuinely offer territory, i. e., Judea and

      Samaria, to  the  Arabs,  Israel  will  have  solved  the  Palestinian

      problem,   ended   PLO  terrorism,  and  by  extension,  resolved  the

      Arab-Israeli conflict.



      The line stating that "the core of the  conflict  is  the  Palestinian

      problem"  is consistently and continuously repeated, like Hitler's Big

      Lie.  For indeed, that is exactly what it is.



      By assuming, however, that the Palestininan problem is at the core  of

      the  Arab-Israel  conflict,  one  is  forced  to also assume that Arab

      enmity towards Israel began only after  the  creation  of  the  Jewish

      state  in  1948.   One  must  also  assume  that  Israeli  territorial

      concessions are a  necessary  precondition  to  any  negotiated  peace

      settlement  with  the  Arabs.   Yet,  even  cursory examination of the

      historical facts belies these contentions because they  are  based  on

      the  false  premise  that the Arab-Israel conflict has something to do

      with the so-called "Palestinian problem".



      Chronologically, Arab enmity preceeded the Palestinian problem  before

      the  state  officially  existed.   The  Arab countries declared war on

      Israel before the Palestinian Arabs fled.  Logically,  then,  one  can

      conclude  that  the  Arabs had some other reason to attack a fledgling

      Israel other than the Palestinian refugees that didn't yet exist.



      It was  in  this  vein  that  the  semi-official  Egyptian  newspaper,

      "Al-Ahram", printed the following editorial on 26 November, 1955:



      "Our war with the Jews is an old struggle that began with Muhammad and

      in  which  he achieved many victories ...  it is our duty to fight the

      Jews for the sake of Allah and religion, and it is our duty to end the

      war that Muhammad began ..."



      "Al-Ahram" makes no mention or reference to Palestinians  of  refugees

      because  the  highly  touted  Palestinian problem is, at best, nothing

      more than a secondary detail and, at worst,  an  artificially  created

      political  weapon.   The Arab-Israeli conflict is based on Arab enmity

      towards Jews, and therefore the Jewish state, and has  nothing  to  do

      with either Palestinian Arab refugees of any specific Israeli policy.



      Bearing that in mind, we come to  the  question  of  "territories  for

      peace".   Even  assuming  Israel  should  be  prepared  to  make  such

      concessions, one wonders why the territories under  discussion,  Judea

      and  Samaria,  became  holy  soil  in  the  eyes  of  Palestinian Arab

      nationalism only after Israel took  possession  of  these  territories

      following the clearly defensive war in 1967.



      During the previous 19 years, from 1949 until 1967, these  areas  were

      under  Jordanian control.  Yet, despite the existence of a Palestinian

      Arab people, there was no public outcry  for  Jordan  to  return  this

      region  to anyone in order to establish a Palestinian Arab state.  Nor

      were international protests made demanding that Jordan cease "creating

      facts" by building new Arab neighborhoods throughout these areas, thus

      creating "obstacles to peace."



      If these areas held no importance to solving the  Palestinian  problem

      before 1967, why did they suddenly gain such prominence simply because

      Israel is now in possession?



      The Palestinian problem has been created and promoted, and the  double

      Big  Lie  prospers:   "Israel  must  give  territories in exchange for

      peace" and "without Israeli territorial  concessions  the  Palestinian

      problem  will  never  be  resolved  and the Arab-Israeli conflict will

      continue with Israeli intransigence to blame."



      The reality, however, is different.  The  Arab-Israel  conflict,  only

      one  of  half  a  dozen conflicts in the Middle East, has little to do

      with the Palestinian problem.  Peace will  only  come  when  the  Arab

      countries accept that Israel is here to stay.



      As the late Prime Minister Golda Meir once told a  Western  journalist

      who  had asked her what she was willing to give in exchange for peace:

      "Why, peace, of course.  What else should I give?   Is  my  peace  any

      cheaper than theirs?"

        I have a few statistics on the "oppression" of the Palestinian Arabs

        in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza:





         o  100,000 Palestinian Arabs go to work daily in Israel.  One third

            of  the  net  income in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza is derived from

            this work  in  Israel.   Industry,  agriculture,  commerce,  and

            export   are  not  only  fostered  and  improved  under  Israeli

            administration,  but  were  created  out  of  nothing  and   now

            represent an important factor in the economy of the Middle East.



         o  The state of education





                                                Before '67      Today



                Scholastic Institutions         897             1447

                Classes                         4,400           13,059

                Pupils                          174,406         475,345

                Universities                    none            6

                Technological Institutes        none            1

                Agricultural Schools            none            2

                Vocational Schools              none            26



            Since 1967, there has been an increase in school  attendance  of

            85%  in these territories.  Teachers number 8,000, of which only

            14 are Israeli.  The level  of  enrollment  and  exams  is  much

            higher than in Jordan.



         o  The sanitary conditions in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza before  1967

            were  characterized by sickness and mortality.  Since then, as a

            result of efforts by Israel, illnesses such as  malaria,  polio,

            trachoma, and typhus have been eradicated.



            Between 1968 and 1983, the population  increased  by  30%.   The

            infant  mortality  dropped by 60%, and life expectancy has grown

            from 42 to 63 years.



         o  Status of women



            Israel is the only country in the "Arab" world where women  have

            the  right  to  vote.   In  the  territories,  7,000  women  are

            teachers,  school  directors,  and  inspectors  for  the  school

            system.   More  than  55,000  are  doctors,  nurses  and medical

            personnel.  14,000 women  work  in  agriculture,  in  local  and

            Israeli  farms.   More than 4,000 women are working in local and

            Israeli factories in specialized jobs.  More than  50,000  women

            are  active in social assistance groups.  Of the wome working at

            other jobs, 5,000 are employed in Israel, where  they  are  paid

            the  same rates as Israelis for the same types of jobs, and have

            a right to all social benefits, such as  maternity  pay,  salary

            increases  for  tenure,  and paid annual vacations, according to

            the law of the land.



            Today, the illiteracy rate among women in  Judea,  Samaria,  and

            Gaza  is  around  30%,  compared  to  Syria  and  Egypt where it

            approaches 70%, and 90% in Saudi Arabia.

    re .44
    
    Don,
    
    Okay, so the Palestinians are better off today than they were
    yesterday. So, does that mean that they should continue to live
    under the present conditions? Maybe it's precisely because they are
    "living better" that they want to continue to "improve."  
    
    I do not mean to diminish the impact of the statistics you provided.
    Too often I hear the present US administration pointing to the fact
    that they are more Black middle-class members today than 20 years
    ago, so we are doing better. They totally neglect the fact that
    the underclass is also growing and at a much faster rate than that
    of the middle/upper class. So are we any better off?
    
    _karen_who_hates_statistics_cause_they_don't_tell_the_whole_story.
    
    _karen

.42>      .40> Israel accepted the 1947 partition by the U.N.;  the Palestinians
.42>      did not.
    
.42>  Of course, they didn't.  Would the U.S. allow the U.N. to give
.42>  half of the U.S. to a fragment of the U.S. population that intended
.42>  to exclude or discriminate against the rest?  So, because the Palestinians
.42>  resisted what they saw as confiscation of their land and lost, it's
.42>  their fault?

    	Your parallel is faulty.  Palestine in 1947 was not an independent
    country like the U.S.  It was territory occupied by the British,
    who were in a hurry to un-occupy it.  Two groups, the Jews and (what
    to call them?  They didn't call themselves Palestinians then...)
    the non-Jews, of approximately equal numbers, were contending for
    control of the area.  The partition split it up fairly evenly, giving
    control of specific places to the majority groups.  (I don't know
    what formula they used when there was no obvious majority.)  For
    example, the Galilee, which today is majority non-Jewish, was not
    part of Israel in the partition.  If the "Palestinians" saw their
    land being confiscated by the partition, then so did the Jews to
    an equal extent.  Also, Israel intended (and followed through in
    1948) to grant non-Jews within their borders citizenship.  There
    were flaws in how they did it, but they certainly did more than
    the non-Jewish Arab world did for the Jews in *their* midst.
    
    	Yes, I blame the leaders of the non-Jews in Palestine in 1947
    for misleading their people by giving them the impression that the
    right thing to do was to get rid of all the Jews.  They could have
    had a far better deal then than they'll ever settle for now.  The
    leaders blew it, and the followers have suffered for it ever since.

    >The partition split it up fairly evenly, giving control of 
    >specific places to the majority groups.  
    
    Evenly??  David, I think in your zeal for fairness I think you might
    have overlooked a fact or two.  Look again on the map of the U.N.
    partition.  The Arabs could have realized their dream of wiping out 
    the Jews if they had accepted the plan.

    David

re: 450.42
    
�    Of course, they didn't.  Would the U.S. allow the U.N. to give...

I'm wondering if I am reading this correctly?
Are you saying that the only way there can be peace is to get rid of 
the State of Israel?

re: 450.36

�                has any single Israeli leader ever acknowledged the
� right of the Palestinians to self-determination?

Parthi,

Quite a few Israelis have advocated just that.  It is not the policy of the
present government, but that has not prevented Israelis from publicly
advocating it.  One can read such debates in the Israeli press.  I am not aware
of any comparable debate in the Arabic press.  For the Israelis (and for the
majority of Israel's supporters, I think), the issue is not recognition of
Palestinian rights but of the survival of Israel.  That is what made Anwar
Sadat's appeal so powerful--he offered to be responsive to that issue. 

As I noted elsewhere, (at least) two things are required for peace:
The Arabs must be willing to accept Israel as a permanent part of the region
and the Palestinians must have self-determination.  I don't see any realistic
way to get to the latter without some substantial progress on the former.

Aaron

>Palestinian rights but of the survival of Israel.  That is what made Anwar
>Sadat's appeal so powerful--he offered to be responsive to that issue. 
May be we now need an Israeli Sadat!

>As I noted elsewhere, (at least) two things are required for peace:
>The Arabs must be willing to accept Israel as a permanent part of the region
>and the Palestinians must have self-determination.  I don't see any realistic
>way to get to the latter without some substantial progress on the former.
Heartily agree, Aaron. But after watching Nightline yesterday, I have the
distinct feeling that our grandchildren will be discussing this. Sad!

-parthi

RE: .50

    �                           after watching Nightline yesterday, I have the
    � distinct feeling that our grandchildren will be discussing this. Sad!

Parthi,

I agree, it is sad. I stayed up to watch the ABC Nightline program last
night/this morning; there was a discussion/debate among four Israelis and
three Palestinians (a fourth Palestinian became ill at the last moment and
could not participate).  On the Israeli side, two of the panelists expressed
a willingness to recognize and meet with whatever leadership the Palestinians
have selected, including the PLO, and negotiate the terms for a mutually
acceptable peace arrangement.  On the Arab side, there was some slight give,
but none of the Palestinians (who emphasized that they represented only
themselves) was willing to say that they (personally) believed that the
Arabs should accept the State of Israel.

The audience was also given an opportunity to ask questions, and here both
sides missed opportunities.  When given an opportunity to answer in a positive
and conciliatory way to questions, the two Likudniks on the Israeli side
refused to be responsive.  In a like manner, the Palestinians avoided
addressing the real concerns of Israelis.  It was not clear to me to what
extent the failure to talk _with_ instead of _at_ each other was calculated,
and to what extent it reflects an inability to hear what the other is saying.

On balance, it showed that there are some Israelis who are ready and willing
to work with the Palestinians to achieve a peace that leads to an Arab state
and a Jewish state; with one possible exception, the Arabs seemed to be
talking about the eventual elimination of the Jewish state.

Aaron

reply to < Note 450.50 by PLDVAX::PKANDAPPAN >
>           -< I won't say till you say which you won't till I say! >-

		I don't this that that's an accurate assessment.
		The situation not symmetric.
>
>>Palestinian rights but of the survival of Israel.  That is what made Anwar
>>Sadat's appeal so powerful--he offered to be responsive to that issue. 
>May be we now need an Israeli Sadat!
>
	Yes, perhaps. On the other hand, look at what happened to Sadat
	for making peace. That's part of this very important asymmetry here 
	that you're not noting:

	When the state of Israel was formed, it invited the Arabs
	both within and without of it's borders to live in peace.  There
	even is a specific paragraph in the Israeli "Declaratation
	of  Independence" that specifically calls for this. (Read it
	if you don't believe me...)

	Starting within days after becoming a state, and continuing
	over the last forty years, Israel has been physically invaded
	by the neighboring Arab states on six occasions. The purpose
	and effect of these invasions has NOT been lost on the Israelis.  
	And the fact that the Israelis have come close to the "edge" a 
	couple of times is also not lost on them.

	Over the years, the public Arab invective on the part of 
	officialdom, as well as individuals, has been consistent with
	the above paragraph in its consistent call for the destruction 
	of Israel and of the Jewish People. (I've posted a bunch of this
	elsewhere.)

	Well, yes, I believe that we should speak to the Arabs -- any place,
	any time.  But I'm unconvinced that the definition of the word
	"peace", as used by Arabs today means the same thing that we mean.
	I just don't think we're talking about the same thing.
	Peace for us presumes that Israel permanently exists in the
	region.

	If Arabs truly want peace in the region, up front, they are giving
	up only one thing all by accepting Israel as a permanent part of
	the region: that is, they would be giving up the self-justification to
	invade Israel once again.

	And, if they accept Israel as a part of the region, up front,
	they will gain something incredibly important:
	they will have begun to do an outstanding job of convincing the 
	Israelis that they are really serious about not trying to destroy 
	them (the Israelis) again.

	This would be a big "win" for the Arabs (and a "win" for Israel), both
	up front. And the Israelis CAN'T do it. Don't you see this?

	To get back to Sadat:  the Israelis were willing to give back
	a piece of land more than three times the size Israel itself
	in exchange for peace and recognition. Look at the acceptance
	of that idea in the Arab world, and what happened to Sadat.

	It has been an often past-stated Arab position to destroy Israel by
	first negotiating for peace, gaining an independent state,
	and then "coming after" Israel. As a broad generalization, THAT 
	IS WHAT IS INTOLERABLE TO THE ISRAELIS, NOT THE IDEA OF A 
	SEPARATE PALESTINIAN STATE.


>>As I noted elsewhere, (at least) two things are required for peace:
>>The Arabs must be willing to accept Israel as a permanent part of the region
>>and the Palestinians must have self-determination.  I don't see any realistic
>>way to get to the latter without some substantial progress on the former.
>Heartily agree, Aaron. But after watching Nightline yesterday, I have the
>distinct feeling that our grandchildren will be discussing this. Sad!

	Sad indeed.  I hope not.  I wish not.  I would do almost
	anything, personally, to prevent it --  but -- the State
	of Israel is going to continue to exist.  And until the
	parties other than Israel in the region accept that,
	there can't be a peace.

/don

    Re: .48
          
>I'm wondering if I am reading this correctly?
>Are you saying that the only way there can be peace is to get rid of 
>the State of Israel?
    
    No.  I have included below one of my messages from
    talk.politics.mideast which (I hope) makes clearer my position.
    
Path: jumbo!decwrl!palo-alto!kolling
From: [email protected] (Karen Kolling)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: where do people stand
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 19 Apr 88 10:55:55 PDT
Reply-To: [email protected] (Karen Kolling)
Distribution: world
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 33


#From: [email protected] (Hank Nussbacher)
#
#Interesting that Yigal, Steve, Raif, Youseff, Karen and a few other Arabs
#on the network have not stated their clear views of where they stand.

Pardon me.  I do not reply to every message, occasionally I actually work.
If I could make anything I wanted happen, I would establish a true
democracy (not the pseudo-democracy that Israel claims) in the entire area
and readmit the Palestinians in exile and their descendents to both the
territories and Israel proper.  Palestinian towns and villages destroyed
by the Israelis would be rebuilt and if there were later Israeli settlers
in their place the Israelis would have to settle elsewhere in the country.
All lands confiscated from Palestinians would be returned.  The whole
country would be saturated with U.N. forces until people reached a state
where they could live together without killing each other.

In practical terms, however, I have made clear that I think the solution
is an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, mod some
munging of the borders to ensure Israeli feelings of security.  I have
wondered if the distribution of arable land, land of religious and
historical significance, etc. is such that an alternative distribution of
land with Palestine a northern state between Lebanon and a redefined
Israel is practicable.  (Note that both states would be made from the land
now comprising Israel and the territories;  this is not the plan some
person had of dumping Palestinians into Lebanon). This would involve
moving Palestinians but it might not be more of a dislocation than they
would have in the WB/G arrangement relative to their ancestral homes.
It would have the advantages of more security of Israel due to better
borders, a less awkward geographical arrangement for the Palestinians
than WB/G, and it would shield Lebanon from Israel, a huge boon for
Lebanon.  Jerusalem would be the capital of both Palestine and Israel
under any arrangement and have free access to both peoples.
    

        Re: .52
        >When the state of Israel was formed, it invited the Arabs
	>both within and without of it's borders to live in peace.  There
	>even is a specific paragraph in the Israeli "Declaratation
	>of  Independence" that specifically calls for this. (Read it
	>if you don't believe me...)
         
    People wondering how the Arab inhabitants could turn down this generous
    offer might keep in mind that the European colonizers had made their
    intentions of a state which made non-Jews second class citizens
    (if, indeed they were to be tolerated at all), clear from the start of the
    immigration at the end of the last century.  One has only to look
    at the appalling discrimination suffered by Arab citizens of Israel
    today in terms of massive land confiscation, etc., to see how Israel has
    carried out this policy.
    
                        

>territories and Israel proper.  Palestinian towns and villages destroyed
>by the Israelis would be rebuilt and if there were later Israeli settlers
>in their place the Israelis would have to settle elsewhere in the country.
>All lands confiscated from Palestinians would be returned.

    Karen,

    In your perfect solution, would the above be returned to pre-1967 or
    pre-1948 situation?  I have in mind the Jews who moved into homes in
    Jerusalem after they were abandoned in 1967 by their Palestinian owners.
    Who had, in turn, occupied these homes when the Jordanians forced out
    the Jews in 1948.  We could, of course, go back a long way on this sort
    of messing around.

    Gavriel

re: < Note 450.54 by CIRCUS::KOLLING "Karen, Sweetie, Holly; in Calif." >

>    People wondering how the Arab inhabitants could turn down this generous
>    offer might keep in mind that the European colonizers had made their
>    intentions of a state which made non-Jews second class citizens
>    (if, indeed they were to be tolerated at all), clear from the start of the
>    immigration at the end of the last century.  

	Care to enlighten the discussion by giving us the specifics, e. g.,
	documents / speeches,  etc. that made this so clear?

>    One has only to look
>    at the appalling discrimination suffered by Arab citizens of Israel
>    today in terms of massive land confiscation, etc., to see how Israel has
>    carried out this policy.

	I'd appreciate it if, before you use emotionally loaded words like
	"appalling", "massive", and the "etc.", that you give us a source.
	I. e., what do you mean by "massive," specifically?
	Which lands are you speaking of, specifically?

	And, "policy".  Which policy is that exactly?

/don

    Karen,
    
    Your "democratic state" is a bad joke, and I think even you know
    it!  Replacing Israel wth a "democratic state" is a synonym for
    simply wiping Israel he face of the Earth.
    
    I personally sympathize with the two-state solution along the lines
    of the Tikkun editorial, provided military security can be provided,
    but a "democratic" state, in Middle Eastern terms, would be Libya,
    Iran or South Yemen.  Or the German Democratic Republic, Democratic
    Kampuchea, etc.  Sorry, but I know a codeword when I see it!  And
    so do everyone else.

    hi,
    
    you know I keep wondering why it's so acceptable for palestinians
    in Jordan to live without self determination?

    Maybe they just figure that Israel is an easier target  8^{).

    Gavriel

    Hey guys, there are two Karens following/writing to this topic.
    I have problems figuring out whether comments are directed toward
    me, Karen W, or the other Karen, Karen K. 
    
    _karen anne (the new me.)
    

.53> ...
.53> readmit the Palestinians in exile and their descendents to both the
.53> territories and Israel proper.  Palestinian towns and villages destroyed
.53> by the Israelis would be rebuilt and if there were later Israeli settlers
.53> in their place the Israelis would have to settle elsewhere in the country.
.53> All lands confiscated from Palestinians would be returned.

Do I detect a double standard here?  Are you prepared to leave *your* home,
which is in territory that your country grabbed from Mexico following a
war that *your side* started?

I would suggest returning the land that you stole from the Indians, but
you killed so many of them that this probably is no longer possible.

    (This is Karen the PLO agent, temporarily on Carmel.)         
    
    Re: .44  "Israeli fostering of Palestinian industry, etc."
    
    Quite amazing statistics;  I am sure the people who managed to survive
    in Palestine for centuries will be interested to know they were
    existing on "nothing".  Here is an alternative view:
    
    Arab jobs in Israel:

    What were these people doing before?  Well, mostly they were
    independent farmers, working their own land.  Why aren't they
    still doing this?  Because the Israeli government has engaged
    in confiscation of their land on a massive scale.  Most of the
    Arabs work at jobs like street sweeping, waiting on tables,
    etc., which most Israeli Jews won't do;  the few Israeli Jews
    who do work at such jobs are paid twice as much as Arab
    workers.  Until the uprising started, the taxes paid to Israel
    by Arab workers exceeded the cost to Israel of maintaining the
    occupation.  Thus Israel has simultaneously managed to: (1)
    acquire land, (2) turn people with an independent livelihood
    into people who have to work for their military occupier to
    support their families, (3) acquire a pool of cheap labor from
    among its subject people, and (4) make itself a profit from
    military occupation.

    Schools:

    I don't have my documentation about the school system at hand,
    but a great deal of the funding for the universities, for
    example, comes from Arab sources and other friends of the
    Palestinians.  I am not certain if the Israeli government
    provides any funding at all, perhaps the person who posted the
    original message can speak to this question (and specify his source).
    I do recall in Shipler's "Arab and Jew: Wounded Spirits in the Promised
    Land", his recounting of a typical harrassment tactic of the Israeli
    military in the territories -- arresting students shortly
    before the university entrance exams and then releasing the
    students after it was too late to take the exams.  (Remember that
    people in the territories can be held without charges.)  Needless to
    say, students took to sleeping in the hills and so forth as
    exam time drew near.  The universities are often closed by the
    Israeli authorities, often for months at a time.

    Agriculture and industry:

    One can only wonder what the statistics would be, if the
    miliitary occupiers did not engage in such "fostering" tactics as:
    restricting the area in which things can be sold to a very
    small geographical region, putting profitable factories out of
    business by requiring that raw materials be bought at retail
    rather than wholesale [Fernea, "The Arab World"], etc.

    From this morning's New York Times: "Bulldozers were at work in
    the village of Husan last week....it is a Palestinian farming
    village tucked in the hills a few miles south of Bethlehem and
    early one morning the Army came and sealed off the land of the
    Sabatien family.  'It is good land, not stony.  The [Jewish]
    settlers want it,' said a young Arab villager named Ali,
    pointing to a new cluster of prefabricated boxlike houses, the
    first step of settlement in the next valley.  'The land was
    beautiful -- it had many trees,' said Ahmed Sabatien, an elder
    of the family, as he stood with other villagers watching the
    bulldozer beyond the soldiers ripping up olive trees and the
    new pomegranate, fig, and almond seedlings the family had put in
    to diversify.  'They have torn all the trees from the land.'"

    From ABC news last week (not quite verbatim, since I'm too lazy
    to dig the tapes up):  [picture of Arab farm, clearly in need
    of irrigation] [picture of well on the Arab farmer's land] ABC:
    "This well supplies water to Israel, not to the farmer on
    whose land it sits.  He has applied to the military authorities
    for permission to install a second well for his farm, but
    permission has been refused."

        [picture of lawn sprinklers running on a suburban-type green
        lawn at a Jewish settlement] ABC:  water is available to the
        Jewish settlers 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

        [picture of Arabs lining up with jars to collect water from a
        tap]  ABC: water is turned on at this Arab village 6 hours at
        a time, twice a week.

        Quote from some Israeli official:  "The Palestinians should
        thank us for the water conservation measures we impose on them."

    
           

    Re: requests of documentation
    
    Try the NY Times of Apr 26th, the letters column, specifically a
    letter from Zackary Lockman of Harvard: "92 percent of israel's
    land area is administered in accordance with fund regulations, which
    prohibit these lands from being purchased, leased, or worked by
    Arab citizens of Israel.  This institutionalized discrimination is
    made even more grevious because much of the land controlled by the
    authority and to which Arabs are denied equal access was originally
    expropriated by the state, not only from Arabs who became refugees
    in 1948, but also from Arabs who are to this day citizens and residents
    of Israel."               
     
    As a concrete example, 50 percent of the Arab land around the
    Israeli/Arab city of Um el Fahem has been confiscated by the
    government.  Um el Fahem receives about one-quarter the municipal
    funding from the central government given to Israeli/Jewish towns
    of similar size, and consequently cannot even afford a modern sewage
    system.  Statistics from a talk at Stanford by an ex-Israeli/Jewish
    investigative reporter, to be included in her forthcoming book about
    Israeli Arab citizens, called "The Erased".  I say "ex-"Israeli,
    because the Israeli government booted her out of Israel rather than
    let her publish there.  Can you say "freedom of the press"?
    
    documentation of historical intent of Zionism:  when I'm back in
    at work and have access to my books here.
    
    p.s. to Steve:  I'm sorry your note got deleted too.  If you have
    a copy of it, you can send it to me offline (circus::kolling).
    
    
    

    
    Re: .44 "Israel is the only country in the 'Arab' world where
             women have the right to vote...." etc.
                                                                   
    
    Women are members of the Palestinian National Council.  And Um Jihad
    led Fatah at one point, when Arafat and Abu Jihad were in jail.
    I suppose Israel will take credit for this, too.  ("Palestinian women
    reach new positions of leadership since Israel's independence.")
     
    Would you believe, Libya?  from "Qaddafi: His Ideology in Theory
    and Practice" by Mohamed el Khawas:
     
    "As an initial step...Qaddhafi got the RCC [revolutionary Command
    Council] to invite all women to a special congress to air their
    problems and needs....He saw that their resolutions were
    implemented....It is due to his persistent efforts that women are
    currently participating on equal footing with men in the popular
    congresses and People's Committees and some of them are occupying
    leadership positions in the highest levels of these organizations.
     This newly acquired status was evident in the inclusion of three
    women in the Libyan delegation responsible for drafting a constitution
    for the ill-fated proposed union with Egypt....[chart of male and
    female students in public elementary education shows boys outnumbering
    girls 2 to 1 at the time of the 69 revolution, and nearly equal
    ten years later.]....All professions, including military service,
    are now open to them."
    
     
    

    Israel, "the only democracy in the Middle East", and freedom of the
    press:
    
    From today's New York Times:  "Palestinian journalists and family
    menbers said today that Hatem Abdel Kader, an editor of Al Fajr,
    a pro-P.L.O. Arabic newspaper, was arrested Monday night and placed
    in administrative detention.  Under the detention, he can be held
    for six months without being charged or tried."
    
    From yesterday's Los Angeles Times: "Israel toughened its crackdown
    on the Palestinian press Monday by shutting down a weekly magazine
    [ed; Al Awdah] and charging that the pro-PLO publication was a 'tool'
    of terrorist organizations.....[one of the owners] said the magazine's
    purpose was 'to offer the readers a moderate Palestinian view that
    was based on mutual recognition' of Israel's right to exist and
    Palestinian self-determination."
    
    

   Karen, what say you enter one positive reply about Israel.  
   I mean, just to break up the monotony and show us that you 
   are looking at things from a real balanced viewpoint.  
   One that's all good.  Just one.  I'm sure that you would 
   agree that Israel is not 100% bad.  Just one small, tiny, 
   little reply.  Hold your breath and do it.  Go for it!

    Re: .66
    
    Perhaps you could tell me of any positive steps Israel has taken
    about this situation?  I would be happy to hear of them, as none
    have come to my attention.
    

    Karen,
    
    I think Israel going into Lebanon was very positive. It helps 
    stabilise the region by ridding it of a few more terrorists. It
    shows that Lebabon is not a taboo area for the Israeli Army, 
    and it shows clearly that in politics it's reality that counts.
    
    Israel must use all means available to show that a long seige by
    its Arab neighbours will not work. They must show that waiting for
    a day when 'victory' will be complete will result in diminishing
    returns. For this reason the most positive thing Israel can do 
    about this situatuion is to hasten the building of towns in Judea
    and Samarea.
    
    Of course you wouldn't agree.
    
    Malcolm
    

Strange!
Just this week I booked a ticket to the Ramses exhibit and was reading up
something about him. And I learnt that he was the Pharoah at the time of
the Exodus.

Wasn't he the fellow who oppresed a whole group of people?
Wasn't he the fellow who ridiculed the efforts of those people to seek
   liberation?
Wasn't he the fellow who was so confident of his military might? Thought
   that there was no inconcievable way that this group of folks could ever
   defeat him?
Wasn't he the fellow who launched a raid on them?
Wasn't he the fellow who eventually lost all because of his refusal to grant
   justice to these folks?

Strange!
I wasn't sure whether I was reading about the past or the present!

-parthi

PS: -1, stabilise Lebanon? Surely you jest!

    Re: .68
    
    Well, to quote (as closely as I remember) Nixon:  sooner or later
    the Arabs will learn to fight, and there are far more Arabs than Israelis,
    so sooner or later if Israel stays on its present course, it will
    be overwhelmed.  Therefore if it wants to survive, it had better learn to
    live in peace with its neighbors.
    

   re: .67

   OK, let me put it this way:  Why should Israel not be 
   dismantled as a Jewish state?

    Strange that .69 should bring up the matter of Pharoe, and thus
    imply the venture of the Exodus.  Strange also that this matter
    should be brought to the fore in Israel's 40th year.
    
    The number 40 becomes significant.  Moses lead the exodus through
    the Sinai for 40 years -- not because it required that length of
    time to travel to the land of Canaan.  But to prepare a people for
    nationhood.  And in the 40 years that the Palestinians have had
    to prepare themselves for nationhood, what have they done?  Developed
    a people of kalishnikovs, explosives, and hatred.
    
    So what is the difference?  The Jews had a Moses.  The Arabs have
    an Arafat.  The people over whom he enjoys leadership will never
    be fit for nationhood.

    
    Is anyone *learning* anything from this exchange any longer?  I
    mean, we already have figured out who's on which side.  Is anyone
    getting anything out of this exchange of pokes and counterpokes?
    Just curious. /Fern

    Re: .72 The Jews had Moses, the Palestinians have Arafat
    
    and the Israelis have Shamir.
    

    The previous note is just one more example (we've had many in this
    conference) of the knee-jerk moral-equivalency argument.  It is
    just another manifestation of of the high-minded, respected tradition
    of saying, "Oh yeah! So's your old man."
    
    There is no way one could compare Yitzhak Shamir with Yasser Arafat.
    If there were no Arafat, the president of Israel (Shamir or any
    other) would undoubtedly be more concerned with the social, scientific,
    and financial problems of his state and the region, than with having
    to defend that state from its enemies.
    
    If, on the other hand, there were no Shamir, there would be no 
    democratically elected president of Israel, and therefore no Israel.
    
    I wonder what knee-jerk, moral-equivalency response this will generate.

    re:-1
    
    Just to correct one thing, Yitzhak Shamir is not President of Israel,
    but it's prime minister.  The president is Yitzhak Navon, and the
    office does not hold any real power, just prestige for what that's
    worth.
    
    David

    re: -1
    Of course, you are correct.

    
    > There is no way one could compare Yitzhak Shamir with Yasser Arafat.
    
    Watch, while I do the impossible.  Probably the worst "operational"
    charge against Arafat is the killing of innocent bystanders in
    terrorist attacks.  How does this differ from the bombs Shamir's
    group used to plant in marketplaces in the 40s?  The worst
    "goal-oriented" charge against Arafat is "the destruction of Israel".
    How does this differ from Shamir's aim to keep all of the
    Palestinians' land forever, as expressed most recently in the Likud
    platform?  (I'd quote Israel's constitution, but of course, we know
    it doesn't have one, all the better to hide the vast body of government
    policies that discriminate against non-Jewish citizens.)
    
    > If there were no Arafat, the president of Israel (Shamir or any
    > other) would undoubtedly be more concerned with the social, scientific,
    > and financial problems of his state and the region, than with having
    > to defend that state from its enemies.
    
    If there were no Arafat, there would be, sooner or later, some other
    Palestinian leader.  This belief that the Palestinians will just
    stop trying to regain their rights if Israel assassinates enough
    of their leaders or exiles enough of the leaders from the WB/G has
    never been suported by any long-term evidence, even if it were
    defensible ethically.
    
    > If, on the other hand, there were no Shamir, there would be no 
    > democratically elected president of Israel, and therefore no Israel.
    
    I'm not certain what you're saying here -- that Shamir single-handedly
    was responsible for the state of Israel?  Or that his "grasshopper"
    views represent the ethical views of the majority of Israelis?
    
                                                            

   Karen,  I'm still waiting for your reply to .71.



  re: .76 &.77
   The President's name is Chaim Hertzog.  Navon was the previous 
   one.

    re: -1 (why am I replying to this?? idle hands while my system is
    backing up I guess)
    
    I hate to inform you Karen but the Jewish underground in British
    mandate Palestine did not go around deliberately looking for innocent
    lives, and don't start ranting about the King David hotel, the Irgun
    called prior to that action warning the British to evacuate.  i
    don't recall the PLO giving any warnings in Maalot.
    
    If you want to know about the underground you can ask me because
    I interviewed Natan Yellin-Mor who took over the leadership of the 
    (so-called) Stern gang, after the assassination of Avraham Stern
    by the British police.
    
    David

    re: .79
    
    Alan, you're right, my mind slipped back a few years.  Probably
    is proof of the "prominence" of that office.
    
    David

   Don't worry about it, David.  In this case the man and the 
   office make a great pair :-)

    Re: .71 dismanteling of Jewish state.
                    
    In some recent reply I posted two different views of what I saw
    as a solution, one "If I were you-know-who" and one "practical".
    The practical one includes the continuation of the Jewish state.
    Of course, I don't think apartheid states should exist in an ideal
    world, unless they can find a place that no one else has a claim
    to, and then they have to find some ethical means to deal with
    questions like:  if the discrimination is based on religion, what
    about property rights for children who don't accept the religion?
    if it's based on race, what about rights of children who
    intermarry, etc.?  The "founding adults" presumably make some sort
    of contract, but the question of future generations becomes more
    dicey.
    

    Re: .66
    
    Wait, I get it.  Okay:  some of the behaviour that looks malevolent
    is just genuine fear.  Now it's your turn, say something good
    about the Palestinians.
            

    I think it's clear to many of us that the two extremes in this
    argument, reflecting the two extremes in the real-world argument,
    are not going to get anywhere with their childish bantering!
    
    Karen (proxy for Arab side):  The Jewish State shouldn't exist.
    The Palestinians should get it back.  Maybe a few Jews will be allowed
    to live there too.
    
    Various (proxy for Likud side):  Arabs are a bunch of violent
    subhumans.  They should be suppressed until they go away.
    
    nit re:.83 Israeli citizenship is not based on religious practice, and
    it's not the only state where ethnicity is counted within immigration
    laws.  That doesn't make it an apartheid state.  (However, some
    proposed policies of certain parties _would_.)

    Alright,  now that I've insulted both sides, I'll go back to the
    sidelines!

    Re: .85
    
    I said everybody could stay, not just "a few".
    
   Quick discussion of apartheid as system goes down in two minutes:I
    was thinking mostly not of immigration (altho that too), but of
    the land confiscation policies, restriction on water rights and
    building rights for Arab _citizens_ vs. Jewish citizens, etc.
    Palestinian newspapers being closed.
    

    
    RE: .85
    > i think it's clear to many of us that the two extremes in this
    argument, reflecting the tow extremes in the real-world argument,
    are not going to get anywhere with their child bantering!
    
    talk about moral equivalency!
    
    try to have a little politcal objectivity, let's not forget the
    likud was elected by roughly half the israeli electorate. you somply
    cannot explain that away. 
    
    comparing the likud, a mainstream party in israel to what ms. kolling
    our pro-plo spokeswoman spews out, definitely confuses the issue.
    i would even dare say with out any hesitation that even kahane can not
    be compared to an arafat or a plo, before jumping on this issue
    if you indeed choose to, read what he says before doing any moral
    comparrisons.
    
    the likud may be more conservative than you like, but coining the
    party extreme is going a little to far.
    
    it was begin that gave up all of sinai, and everything that went
    along with it. 
    
                              
    to ms. kolling
    i really get a kick out of the nonsense that you constantly come
    out with. but your thoughts and spoken words are harmless. you see
    politics are in the final analysis are driven by power and the arabs
    have none. they neither know how to make or talk peace.
    
    answer this question, let us all hear it once and for all,
    do you not agree with all the other third world gangleaders
    that zionism= racism. answer this question directly, even though
    i think you have been addressing this point all along.
    
    isn't it funny how we can carry on such a nice civilized conversation
    with people who feel that israel, a jewsih state should be eliminated.
    like i said earlier why don't you take your thoughts someplace else.
    
    i hope i didn't offend any of the sensitive noters.

    re .85
    
>    answer this question, let us all hear it once and for all,
>    do you not agree with all the other third world gangleaders
>    that zionism= racism. answer this question directly, even though
>    i think you have been addressing this point all along.
    
    As an impartial by-stander (being neither Jewish nor Palestinian), the
    above has called to mind a few questions I always wondered about:
    
    	* Why do those that do, equate Zionism with racism?
    	* What (in 100 lines or less) is the official definition of
    	  Zionism?
    	* Do all Israelis believe in Zionism?
    	* Why is Zionism NOT equal to racism?  (Obviously, if it's not,
    	  this one should be easy to answer.)
    
    I hope this doesn't derail this most interesting debate.
    
    								-mark.

    Hi,
    
    Before anyone attempts to answer .85, can you also say how
    you differentiate nationalism with Zionism or racism.
    
    Malcolm

    re.88
    	When I was a little boy in the 1940's growing up in Irish Catholic
    Charlestown, which is a part of Boston Massachusetts, my Gentile school
    mates used to say things like "Why don't you go back where you came from
    Jewball".
    	Being a Zionist means that if Gentiles again use more then words
    against us "Jewballs" we WILL have a place to go back to.
    	We will allow non Jews to live in Israel but you will not be
    allowed to call us "Jewballs" in Israel because it is OUR home.

    				Arnie

    	Please read 406.135 for some insight into the things you need
    to understand.  I do not wish to type all that again!
    
    		David

.83>    ...questions like:  if the discrimination is based on religion, what
.83>    about property rights for children who don't accept the religion?
.83>    if it's based on race, what about rights of children who
.83>    intermarry, etc.?  

    	If you think questions like this apply to the current discussion,
    it shows how broad your misconceptions of Israel and Judaism are.
    Judaism is not simply a religion, and Israel is not therefore making
    distinctions based simply on religion.  Judaism is not a race either,
    so any attempt to ascribe Israel's actions to either racial or religious
    motives is simple-minded at best and intentionally harmful at worst.
    
    		David

.84>    Now it's your turn, say something good about the Palestinians. 

    	OK, I will.  (I'll use your term "Palestinians" as you usually
    understand it, although I have often expressed my resentment over
    the abuse of the term.)
    
    	The Palestinians are actually the group in the Mideast which
    is closest in nature to the Jews in many respects.  They (given
    their name) are tied geographically to a similar piece of land.
    They, when not tied down in refugee camps, have provided an
    entreprenurial and professional class throughout the Mideast (much
    as Jews used to in Arab countries).  They have a strong sense of
    family ties, religion, and respect for education.  They are literate,
    ambitious, and worldly.  They have been abused by people who pretend
    to be their friends, e.g., kept in refugee camps by Egypt and Jordan
    simply as a weapon against Israel.

    	Another, and not as flattering, similarity, is that both groups
    have decades of manipulation and mistrust bred by themselves and
    outsiders that now makes it nearly impossible for them to negotiate
    a settlement that would be in the best interests of both.  Can you
    imagine the contribution that could be made to that part of the
    world by a combination of Israel and a Palestinian state, covering
    the present territory of Israel plus occupied territories, internally
    at peace, protected by the might of the IDF, much less threatened
    by their neighbors, combining the education, energy, and worldliness
    of both groups?  It makes so much sense it will probably never come
    to pass.

    			David

    RE>.93                               
                             
    
             A        M     M   EEEEEEE   M     M
            A A       MM   MM   E         MM   MM
           A   A      M M M M   E         M M M M
          AAAAAAA     M  M  M   EEEE      M  M  M
         A       A    M     M   E         M     M
        A         A   M     M   EEEEEEE   M     M

    
    >Various (proxy for Likud side):  Arabs are a bunch of violent
    >subhumans.  They should be suppressed until they go away.
    
I think this illustrates how distance from a situation creates misconceptions.
Although at times in this long much-too dragged out debate I have taken the 
opposite viewpoint from Karen K., I reject the labelling of being a "proxy
for the Likud side".  Just because I don't sympathize 100% with the New Jewish
Agenda-type position doesn't mean that I'm a Likudnik or I consider Arabs
subhuman.  There is a middle ground to all this, and I still believe that you
will find a good percentage of Israelis there.

David

Re .93:

My sentiments exactly! (with the exception of the "protected by the IDF")

Alas, day dreams rarely come true!

-parthi

    Re: .93
    
    Me, too, sigh.
    

    Re: .92
    
    > 	If you think questions like this apply to the current discussion,
    > it shows how broad your misconceptions of Israel and Judaism are.
    > Judaism is not simply a religion, and Israel is not therefore making
    > distinctions based simply on religion.  Judaism is not a race either,
    > so any attempt to ascribe Israel's actions to either racial or religious
    >  motives is simple-minded at best and intentionally harmful at worst.
   
    You are quite correct that I do not know what criteria a person
    uses to describe himself or others as a Jew.  I am aware of this,
    but it has never been of much interest to me to try and sort it
    out, because the point is not is the situation specifically racism or
    specifically religionism or whateverism, the point is that there is one
    class of human beings who are treated with dignity and respect and
    an excluded class who are not.  In many places Jews have been in
    the latter category;  in Israel and the territories, they form the
    former.
    

    re: .99
    
    I think that you've unconsciously stated what clouds your view in
    this reply, i.e., that you've never had an interest in who the
    Jews are, etc.  There are other nations that exist in the Middle
    East besides the Arabs.
    
    David

    Hi,
    
    There's a great deal of interesting information here, and it's
    sometimes hard for me to separate the facts from opinions...
    nevertheless, I follow this with great interest.
    
    Perhaps many of you will not find much that is new in this
    entry about how the media portrays the current events in
    Israel, but I wanted to share this because of the clarity
    with which I feel this is presented.
    
    This comes to me on International Christian Embassy Jerusalem
    letterhead, and I understand it was broadcast recently on a 
    weekly radio program, A WORD FROM JERUSALEM. I do not know whose
    radio program this is or where it is heard.    

    The content is by Rev. Frank Eiklor, President, SHALOM INTERNATIONAL,
    of Orange, California USA
                                           
    This was  posted in CHRISTIAN conference in a related topic.    
----------------------------------------------------------------------

		RIOTS IN ISRAEL:  THE UNTOLD STORY

The facts played out almost nightly on our television screens announce
angrily the brutal oppression of Palestinian Arabs at the hands of the
Israelis. But these biased, sensationalized accounts leave virtually
untouched the untold story of the riots in Judea and Samaria as well as
in Gaza. Truth demands a hearing in the face of such distortion.

1. We're told that Israel is brutalizing mere protesting youth.
   
	We're NOT told that Israeli Jews have first been made the victims 
	of rocks [an ancient mode of execution], Molotov cocktails, 
	hit-and-run vehicles, stabbings, and hand grenades.  Or that 
	the media's faulty memory forgets that M-16 rifles are used to 
	shoot rubber pellets and tear gas containers as well as live 
	ammunition.  Or that potential killers heaving gasoline
	bombs are rarely, if ever, photographed while the subduing of 
	the bomb-thrower is.

2. We're told that over 70 people have been killed by riot-control 
   Israeli soldiers.

	We're NOT told of Palestinians who admit that if these same
	demonstrations were held in Jordan, thousands of rioters would
	be killed (Los Angeles Times, 1.3.88). In this context, Israel's
	measured restraint has been incredulous.

3. We're told, through repeated brutal scenes, that there are only 
   Israelis beating up Arabs.

	We're NOT told of network news' uncanny ability to censor 
	out everything they do not wish shown and to instead insert
	isolated scenes taken over a protracted period of time in
	order to create a prolonged, horrifying battle. In NBC
	Tom Brokaw's recent "The Dream is Dying" critical documentary
	on Israel (which emphasized Israeli violence), "It did not
	mention that four NBC crews roamed the country for weeks
	looking for an Israeli beating an Arab and finding none,
	NBC resorted to an archive picture of an Israeli soldier
	shoving an Arab prisoner with a rifle and implied that
	he was arrested for stone-throwing, not -- as was the case --
	for assault with a deadly weapon." (David Bar-Ilan, Jewish
	Advocate, 9.3.87)

4.  We're told that "the Arab Palestinians are rioting as a whole".

	We're NOT told that the rioters constitute a minority bent on
	violence who force many Arab shops to close and order people
	into the streets.  Or shown interviews of Arabs who abhor the
	violence, such as Muhammad Mussarwa, the Israeli-Arab Consul
	General of Atlanta who, when asked by Rabbi Richard Yellin
	of Massachusetts if he was going to be recalled because of
	the tenuous situation that he was in, answered, "To the
	contrary, the disturbances are created by a few extremists
	and we must not allow the majority to cave in. The quality
	of life in the territories has improved steadily and 
	markedly under Israeli administration, for the betterment
	of Jew and Arab alike."

5.  We're told that "Israeli injustice against the Arabs is the root
    cause of the riots".

	We're NOT told that Arab Palestinians feel betrayed by
	Arab leaders and the PLO who have contributed nothing to their
	well being while useing them as pawns in the campaign to
	destroy Israel. Or of Palestinian Arabs who live in 20 room
	villas, drive Mercedes, and work in harmony and mutual respect
	with Israelis.  Or that Israel built four universities on the 
	West Bank, while Jordan never built one in 19 years of an
	illegal annexation of Judea and Samaria. Or that no PLO 
	newspaper is allowed to be published in any Middle East
	country -- only in Israel and Cyprus. Or that Israel is
	the only country where a PLO endorsed party representative
	sits in Parliament. Or that Egypt created the Gaza refugee
	camps and from 1948-1967 proposed no constructive solutions.

6. We're told that "Israel has no right to deport people" convicted
   of terrorism.

	We're NOT told that this is the most humane act	 
 	Israel could employ against people, some of whom are
	convicted terrorists, who inflame the masses to rebellion
	and murder. (Is long imprisonment or execution less painful?)
	Or that Israel has no capital punishment for even the most
	brutal of terrorists. Or that Syria slaughtered more than
	10,000 of its people during 1982 riots in Ilama while Jordan
	massacred thousands of Arab Palestinians during Black September
	of 1972 when the PLO attempted a takeover of Jordan.

7. We're told that "Israel is the equivalent of Nazi Germany".
	
	We're NOT told that such stereotyping is lewd distortion.
	Jews are not committing 'genocide'. Nor are they a white-minority
	government but a majority of the people in Israel. When riots
	occur in the Soviet Union or Syria, coverage of ruthless
	crackdowns is blacked out -- the opposite of democratic
	Israel.

8. We're told that "the problem lies with Israel's occupying
   territories taken by force".

	We're NOT told that the PLO was born two years prior to the
	1967 war for the sole purpose of wiping out Israel. Or that
	the PLO covenant still calls for the destruction of the Jewish
	State as well as the absorption of Jordan. Or that the so-called
	"West Bank" and Gaza were used as launching pads for terrorism
	waged against Israel from 1948 to 1967. Or that no country,
	forced to fight a costly war, has ever been required to cede
	territory so that the vanquished can test the old adage,
	"If at once you don't succeed..."

9. We're told that "Israel must make peace" with the Palestinians.	
	
	Were NOT told that any time any Palestinian has talked about
	a peace that recognized Israel's existence, he has been quickly
	assassinated by the PLO. Or that there is no coherent Arab
	authority that can call off the siege that calls for the
	elimination of all of Israel.

10. We're told that "neighboring Arab countries would cooperate in a
    negotiated Israel/Palestinian peace that would recognize a Palestinian
    state and that the United Nations can guarantee peaceful borders".

	We're NOT told that many Arab diplomats will not speak the name
 	"Israel". Or that no Arab country even shows Israel on its map
 	[recently Egypt's education minister, peace treaty notwithstanding,
	barred from Egypt's school system a world map that included
	Israel!]. Or that two heads of state, Anwar Sadat and Bashir
	Gemayel, were assassinated for even talking peace with Israelis.
	Or that the United Nations, under Secretary-General U thant,
	allowed Nasser free rein to attack Israel in 1967 and then,
	under Kurt Waldheim, exacerbated such vulgar anti-semitism
	with the 1975 UN resolution (still on the books) equating
	Zionism with racism.

11. We're told that the problem lies with two peoples laying claim to
    Palestine.

	We're NOT told that Palestine was never an independent nation
	nor Jerusalem the capital of any country for 2,000 years. That
	Jews buying land from absent Ottoman-regime Arab landlords
	paid as much as $1,100. per acre for malarial swampland
	at the time the richest black soil was available in Iowa at
	$100. per acre. Or that Israel is only 23% of original 
	Palestine because Jordan was created, at Israel's expense,
	out of the other 77%. Or that present-day Israel is only
	350 miles long, 50 miles wide, and a tenth of one percent
	of all Mid-East turf. Or that if the West Bank is lost,
	Israel is reduced to nine miles at her center.

12. We're told that Palestinian Arab insistence on statehood must be
    accommodated.

	We're NOT told that India refuses political independence to
	7 million Sikhs. Or Sri Lanka to the Tamils. Or Spain to the
	Basques. Or Iran, Iraq and Turkey to Kurds calling for 
	autonomy. Or Turkey to Armenians victimized by Turkish
	genocide, etc. Most minorities would gladly accept the
	kind of functional autonomy that Israel offers the Arabs
	in Judea and Samaria. However, PLO leaders want statehood
	on the West Bank that would allow them to gamble for the full
	bank at the expense of Israel.

 
    

    Too bad we don't see stories like this on network media. But then
    they couldn't make up any of their fictionalized reports hiding
    as the truth!

Sorry, I must disagree.  .101 seems to be propaganda, rather than reporting.

>	We're NOT told that Israeli Jews have first been made the victims 
>	of rocks [an ancient mode of execution]

This shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the Talmudic Law concerning
executions; all the more remarkable for its being formulated by one claiming
religious training.  The rocks thrown by Palestinians bear no resemblance
to the stones used for execution.

>	Or that 
>	the media's faulty memory forgets that M-16 rifles are used to 
>	shoot rubber pellets and tear gas containers as well as live 
>	ammunition.

Well, I'm certainly sleeping better for that knowledge.

 
>2. We're told that over 70 people have been killed by riot-control 
>   Israeli soldiers.

>	We're NOT told of Palestinians who admit that if these same
>	demonstrations were held in Jordan, thousands of rioters would
>	be killed (Los Angeles Times, 1.3.88). In this context, Israel's
>	measured restraint has been incredulous.

Irrelevant.  As irrelevant as a Klu Klux Klan member saying that Blacks
have it much worse in South Africa.  Israel may certainly claim that
its response has been restrained, but it would hardly be wise to say that
things would be worse somewhere else.

>3. We're told, through repeated brutal scenes, that there are only 
>   Israelis beating up Arabs.

Hardly true.  There have been many stories about attacks on Israelis.

>	[We're not] shown interviews of Arabs who abhor the
>	violence, such as Muhammad Mussarwa, the Israeli-Arab Consul
>	General of Atlanta who, when asked by Rabbi Richard Yellin
>	of Massachusetts if he was going to be recalled because of
>	the tenuous situation that he was in, answered, "To the
>	contrary, the disturbances are created by a few extremists
>	and we must not allow the majority to cave in. The quality
>	of life in the territories has improved steadily and 
>	markedly under Israeli administration, for the betterment
>	of Jew and Arab alike."

Consul Mussarwa is a representative of the Israeli government.  As a diplomat,
he has no opinions of his own.  The only way he can express an independent
opinion is by resigning his position.  (The government can express its opinion
by reassigning or firing him, and the United States can express its opinion
by rejecting his appointment.)

>	[We're not told] of Palestinian Arabs who live in 20 room
>	villas, drive Mercedes, and work in harmony and mutual respect
>	with Israelis.

Just as well.  There are Blacks who live in 20 room villas and drive
Mercedes, but we see them as either statistical abnormalities or as
an indication of what a formerly subjugated class can accomplish when
restrictions on their education and entrance into economic life are lifted.
They are as representative of the majority of the American black population
as the legendary "Welfare Queens" are of the American poor.

Also, saying that some Arabs are rich sounds just -- to my cynical ears --
like the claims made by Anti-Semites that, since the Rothchilds are rich,
the grocery store owner in your slum neighbourhood is hiding piles of
gold under his mattress.

>	We're NOT told that this [deportation] is the most humane act	 
> 	Israel could employ against people, some of whom are
>	convicted terrorists, who inflame the masses to rebellion
>	and murder.

Wait, didn't the article previously say that only a minority were rioting?
[I didn't even bother quoting that.]  Saying that a particular punishment
was more or less humane is editorializing, not reporting.  Just because
it suits our prejudices doesn't make it news.

>	Or that Israel has no capital punishment for even the most
>	brutal of terrorists.

Only uncivilized countries, such as the Soviet Union, South Africa, and
the United States, execute criminals.  (Two can play the propaganda game:
how does it sound from the other side?)

>	 Or that Syria slaughtered more than
>	10,000 of its people during 1982 riots in Ilama while Jordan
>	massacred thousands of Arab Palestinians during Black September
>	of 1972 when the PLO attempted a takeover of Jordan.

Irrelevant.  Israel must be judged by its own actions, not by its neighbours'.

>7. We're told that "Israel is the equivalent of Nazi Germany".

By whom?  The media may quote somebody, but these quotes are always disputed
by other viewpoints.  Should the media refuse to quote Israel's enemies?

>8. We're told that "the problem lies with Israel's occupying
>   territories taken by force".

>	We're NOT told that the PLO was born two years prior to the
>	1967 war for the sole purpose of wiping out Israel. Or that
>	the PLO covenant still calls for the destruction of the Jewish
>	State as well as the absorption of Jordan. Or that the so-called
>	"West Bank" and Gaza were used as launching pads for terrorism
>	waged against Israel from 1948 to 1967. Or that no country,
>	forced to fight a costly war, has ever been required to cede
>	territory so that the vanquished can test the old adage,
>	"If at once you don't succeed..."

Irrelevant and incorrect.  Territorial adjustments were fairly popular
in Europe between the mid 1800's and mid 1900's. The date of the PLO's
birth has no bearing on the legality of Israel's occupation, which is a
matter for resolution between Israel and its neighbours.

>9. We're told that "Israel must make peace" with the Palestinians.	
	
>	Were NOT told that any time any Palestinian has talked about
>	a peace that recognized Israel's existence, he has been quickly
>	assassinated by the PLO. Or that there is no coherent Arab
>	authority that can call off the siege that calls for the
>	elimination of all of Israel.

Many Palestinians seem to be saying that the PLO is their "coherent Arab
authority."  With whom should Israel make peace, if not with its neighbours
and the Palestinian minority within its borders?  The West Bank elected
officials may be a better group to choose as a negotiating partner, but
only if their authority is recognized by the inhabitants.

>	We're NOT told that many Arab diplomats will not speak the name
> 	"Israel".

Many American politicians will not speak the name Russia without prefacing
it with "evil empire" or some such.  Many political decisions are made
quietly: until the decision is finalized, the published rhetoric is
very different from the private negotiation.  You may recall that Nixon
was said to be the only American president who could recognize China,
as he was the leader of the American Anti-Communist movement for the
previous twenty years.

>	Or that the United Nations, under Secretary-General U thant,
>	allowed Nasser free rein to attack Israel in 1967 and then,
>	under Kurt Waldheim, exacerbated such vulgar anti-semitism
>	with the 1975 UN resolution (still on the books) equating
>	Zionism with racism.

Egypt hardly asked the UN for permission to attack Israel, nor has the
United States asked for permission to attack its neighbours.  The UN
General Assembly resolutions have no force in law.

>11. We're told that the problem lies with two peoples laying claim to
>    Palestine.

>	We're NOT told that Palestine was never an independent nation
>	nor Jerusalem the capital of any country for 2,000 years. That
>	Jews buying land from absent Ottoman-regime Arab landlords
>	paid as much as $1,100. per acre for malarial swampland
>	at the time the richest black soil was available in Iowa at
>	$100. per acre. Or that Israel is only 23% of original 
>	Palestine because Jordan was created, at Israel's expense,
>	out of the other 77%. Or that present-day Israel is only
>	350 miles long, 50 miles wide, and a tenth of one percent
>	of all Mid-East turf. Or that if the West Bank is lost,
>	Israel is reduced to nine miles at her center.

The old joke about real-estate says that the three most important things
are location, location, and location.  The rich soil of Iowa is not in
Israel and, besides, we stole it from the Indians fair and square.

Israel and Jordan were carved out of the British Mandate territories
at the end of the colonial era.  Israel has maintained an internationally
recognized nation there for 40 years.  The Palestinians and Israel's
neighbours have disputed that claim.  The fact that the land was once
part of the Ottoman Empire, and of the Roman Empire before that, has
little bearing on the current situation, and nothing on its resolution.

>12. We're told that Palestinian Arab insistence on statehood must be
>    accommodated.

>	We're NOT told that India refuses political independence to
>	7 million Sikhs. Or Sri Lanka to the Tamils. Or Spain to the
>	Basques.

Or the United States to the Indians, or Finland to the �l�nningar,
or Canada to the Inuits and French-Canadians, or whatever.  So what?
The fact that the national aspirations of a people are rejected by the
political entities of which they are a part has no bearing on the justice
-- or injustice -- of their claims.  Again, Israel must do what is right for
Israel, based on Israel's own needs for peace and security and on its own
moral and ethical standards, not those of India, Sri Lanka, or the United
States.

>	Most minorities would gladly accept the
>	kind of functional autonomy that Israel offers the Arabs
>	in Judea and Samaria.

Perhaps, but that is their decision to make.  And the Palestinians should
have the right to make their own decisions -- and mistakes.

Sorry for the cynical tone of this, and for the length, but propaganda
masquerading as "journalism" doesn't help the situation, no matter on
which side you're on.

Martin.

    

>>8. We're told that "the problem lies with Israel's occupying
>>   territories taken by force".
>
>>	We're NOT told that the PLO was born two years prior to the
>>	1967 war for the sole purpose of wiping out Israel. Or that
>>	the PLO covenant still calls for the destruction of the Jewish
>>	State as well as the absorption of Jordan. Or that the so-called
>>	"West Bank" and Gaza were used as launching pads for terrorism
>>	waged against Israel from 1948 to 1967. Or that no country,
>>	forced to fight a costly war, has ever been required to cede
>>	territory so that the vanquished can test the old adage,
>>	"If at once you don't succeed..."
>
>Irrelevant and incorrect.  Territorial adjustments were fairly popular
>in Europe between the mid 1800's and mid 1900's. The date of the PLO's
>birth has no bearing on the legality of Israel's occupation, which is a
>matter for resolution between Israel and its neighbours.
>
    For the most part, I agree.  We are damaged by extremist propaganda
    from either side.

    However, I think your response to this particular item does not bear
    on its intent.  This reasoning is usually used as a basis for
    questioning the motivation of the PLO, not for evaluating the legality
    of the occupation.  This speculation as to the motivations of the PLO
    is necessary for determining strategy in dealing with them.  Many have
    proposed "land for peace."  If the territories is the issue that the
    PLO exists to address, then why did it exist before the territories
    were occupied?  If the goals of the PLO have changed since its creation
    then why has the charter not changed to reflect the new goals?

    I can not claim that the PLO has or has not change goals.  But I find
    it very difficult to believe that it has given the behavior of PLO
    officials when pressed in public.

    Gavriel

Re 450.103:
Well said!

Just a little digression:
This is the second time that I have seen the "India-Sikh problem" brought into
this discussion. How little the authors of these articles know about the 
problem is best illustrated by their numbers - Sikhs are about 2% or 16 million
of the approximately 800 million in India - not 7 million!

And not even a majority of the Sikhs ask for independence, including their
head priest, a person most militant, who is asking for only increased
state rights!

I think Israel can cite the "India-Sikh problem" when its armed forces
contain about 20% Palestinians, when a Palestinian is elected President
and hold important cabinet positions and the Chief of the different wings
of the armed forces happen to be Palestinians.

Till then, such justifications are at the least, irrelevant!


Once again sorry for the digression
-parthi

.105> I think Israel can cite the "India-Sikh problem" when ...

The analogy between the Palestinians and the Sikhs, as cited in .101, came
from the International Christian Embassy.  Although this organization is
based in Jerusalem, it cannot be said to represent the Israeli government
or public in any way.

You certainly are correct in pointing out that there are a great many
differences between the situation of the Sikhs in India and that of the
Palestinians in the territories.  For example, I know of no Sikh organization
that officially calls for the complete destruction of India and its replacement
by a secular, democratic Sikh state.

>based in Jerusalem, it cannot be said to represent the Israeli government
>or public in any way.
I am afraid that this may be so; Mr.Netanyahu, before his resignation, attempted
to equate the Israeli govt actions in the WB and Gaza to the Indian govt actions
vis-a-vis the troubles in Punjab. The British tried hard to block even a
symbolic refutation by the Indians (since they were not a member of the Sec.
Council) and it was only thanks to the Soviets that the Indian representative
had the chance to challenge Mr.Netanyahu.

But I'll gladly accept your statement that that is not representative of the
Israeli public opinion!

>Palestinians in the territories.  For example, I know of no Sikh organization
>that officially calls for the complete destruction of India and its replacement
>by a secular, democratic Sikh state.
You'd make an excellent diplomat and/or a top notch negotiator!		8*)
The other party won't know whether you are making a concession or ....
We have a simile for this - "like slipping a needle in a banana"!!!	:^)

-parthi

    Re: .106 > a secular, democratic Sikh state.
    
    Toddle off to your dictionary and you will see that your statement
    makes as much sense as a "secular, democratic Jewish state" or a
    "secular, democratic Muslim state".