We'd rather be Dhimmi.
Middle East Politics
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
We'd rather be Dhimmi.
I don't know about never, but, as far as I understand the situation, there's no end in sight. Because the only true resolution I can imagine would be a somewhat amicable two-state solution, which seems impossible for the foreseeable future.
Here's what Edward Said, the greatest spokesperson for the Palestinian cause and the intellectual godfather of the one-state agenda, had to say when asked how he thought Jews would fair in a one-sate Palestine:
“I worry about that. The history of minorities in the Middle East has not been as bad as in Europe, but I wonder what would happen. It worries me a great deal. The question of what is going to be the fate of the Jews is very difficult for me. I really don’t know. It worries me...I believe it is viable. A Jewish minority can survive the way other minorities in the Arab world survived...As a Jew, you obviously have good reasons to be afraid."
How many Israeli Jews would feel reassured by that, coming from the Palestinian intellectual who tended to be the most willing to urge the need for mutual empathy?
For what it's worth, while Said argued for a denationalized, federalized Palestine with Arab and Jewish cantons in which the Jews would be a minority, he believed such an arrangement for Iraq could only be imposed by the military force of the US. Here he is criticizing the plans of Kanan Makiya for a denationalized, federalized Iraq with Arab and Kurdish cantons in which the Kurds would be a minority:
"Where federalism as a system is supposed to come from (other than from his desk in the State Department), he doesn't bother to say. Clearly, he plans to have it imposed from the outside, although he makes the largely unsubstantiated claim that "everyone" is agreed that federalism in Iraq should be the outcome. This "means devolving power away from Baghdad to the provinces", presumably by a stroke of General Tommy Franks' pen. One would have thought that post-Tito Yugoslavia never existed and that that tragic country's federalism was a total success...The grand climax of Makiya's justification for the invasion of Iraq by the United States is his proposal that the new Iraq should be non-Arab...How this magical de-Arabising solution is to come about, Makiya doesn't say, any more than he shows us how Iraq is to be relieved of its Islamic identity and its military capabilities."
“I worry about that. The history of minorities in the Middle East has not been as bad as in Europe, but I wonder what would happen. It worries me a great deal. The question of what is going to be the fate of the Jews is very difficult for me. I really don’t know. It worries me...I believe it is viable. A Jewish minority can survive the way other minorities in the Arab world survived...As a Jew, you obviously have good reasons to be afraid."
How many Israeli Jews would feel reassured by that, coming from the Palestinian intellectual who tended to be the most willing to urge the need for mutual empathy?
For what it's worth, while Said argued for a denationalized, federalized Palestine with Arab and Jewish cantons in which the Jews would be a minority, he believed such an arrangement for Iraq could only be imposed by the military force of the US. Here he is criticizing the plans of Kanan Makiya for a denationalized, federalized Iraq with Arab and Kurdish cantons in which the Kurds would be a minority:
"Where federalism as a system is supposed to come from (other than from his desk in the State Department), he doesn't bother to say. Clearly, he plans to have it imposed from the outside, although he makes the largely unsubstantiated claim that "everyone" is agreed that federalism in Iraq should be the outcome. This "means devolving power away from Baghdad to the provinces", presumably by a stroke of General Tommy Franks' pen. One would have thought that post-Tito Yugoslavia never existed and that that tragic country's federalism was a total success...The grand climax of Makiya's justification for the invasion of Iraq by the United States is his proposal that the new Iraq should be non-Arab...How this magical de-Arabising solution is to come about, Makiya doesn't say, any more than he shows us how Iraq is to be relieved of its Islamic identity and its military capabilities."
@2cents Thanks for the references, it's funny because I felt the humiliation few paragraphs before he himself talks about it.
They wouldn't. Buy then why should the Palestinians trust the Israelis who have abused them for the past decades?
The Arabic minority in Israel is actually doing pretty well.
They wouldn't have to worry about that (Said clearly doesn't) since, in a one-state solution, they would constitute a considerable majority with the right of return implemented. Which is why it's only Palestinians and their supporters (including the odd far-left Israeli Jew) who you find advocating for the binational one-state, and why Israeli Jews don't see it as a "peaceful solution" but rather as a plan for Palestinian victory.
No. You can't ignore the Palestinians who live in the West Bank and Gaza. As the occupying power they are Israels responsibility and they mostly spend their time oppressing them
A majority in numbers but not power, as I said two parliaments with law having to pass both house's, Palestinian and Jewish
Who exactly among the Palestinians or Israelis are advocating something like this? And are there examples of such an arrangement working anywhere else?
No one, but this is my solution for this, there has to be shared power.
I am inspired somewhat by the arrangements in Lebanon, where certain ministries are guaranteed for certain minorities, president Christian, prime minister sunni, speaker Shia
right.
And what an inspiring model that is.
Israel wants apartheid and that's not good enough
Abbas should just dissolve the P.A.
Agree with that in theory, but it's not that simple, the PA is the biggest employer in the territories and the source of most income so simply dissolving it without any plan to replace those salaries would be an extremely painful move which would likely end up with an Israeli re-invasion of Area A of the West Bank (i.e. the major Arab population centres) and a full assumption by Hamas of responsibility for the Palestinian cause which would be a disaster for the Palestinians internationally.
They'll need to be a bit more creative in thinking about how to disengage from the peace process and pursue their cause independently of the US and Israel without causing that kind of chaos.
This utter shite from today...
“I don’t want to discuss religion or history because they (Jews) are really excellent in faking and counterfeiting history. But if we read the Torah it says that the Canaanites were there before the time of our prophet Abraham and their [Canaanite] existence continued since that time, this is in the Torah itself. But if they (Jews) would like to fake this history, they are really masters in this and it is mentioned in the holy Quran they fabricate truth and they try to do that and they believe in that but we have been there in this location for thousands of years.”
He's not wrong
Its as if fearless has a file of retorts and distorted videos handed down to him from the department of propaganda.
Fearless is basically MEMRI at this point... All a bit pathetic, really.
Shooting the messenger is all you do. Which really is pathetic.
At least Mozza puts up a spirited fight - I'll actually miss him when there's peace.
So Arabs are from Canaan now. Why aren't they called Carabs then?
You can ridicule that all you want (and he has certainly written and linked stuff I don't agree with at all), but what's shown in the videos from posts #251, #254, and (provided it's translated correctly) #300 is a central part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and a main reason why it's such a never-ending story. It's also a growing threat to Jews all over the world, and has already cost many lives to date.
Resorting to polemic dismissals may be a convenient form of denial - and will surely meet with some approval -, but it does not make these things go away.
There is no peace, just luls in how many people Israel is murdering
The central part of the conflict is Israel murdering and oppressing Palestinians, never lose sight of that
Arab/Palestinian rejectionism has certainly played a leading role in the perpetuation of this conflict.
Not at all. Israel began as a colonial state, that's the reason for the conflict
And all the Arab countries were not? From the Muslim conquests to the Ottoman Empire and the European's after that, the whole ME is a mish-mash of previous invasions.
Your hypocrisy is truly stunning.
Last edited:
And all the Arab countries were not? From the Muslim conquests to the Ottoman Empire and the European's after that, the whole ME is a mish-mash of previous invasions.
Your hypocrisy is truly stunning.
The spread of Islam was not an act of colonialism
The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are under PA and Hamas rule, and not Israel.
The minorities with Israeli citizenship have as good a life in Israel as any minority in Ireland.
The West Bank is occupied by Israel, the Gaza Strip an open air prison with the jailers being Israel. Israel controls Palestinians lives, using them for labour as Apartheid South Africa used black people, before returning them to their town ships. No vote for those Palestinians. Just a few in Israel in numbers that can never effect Jewish control over the Palestinians
1. Elections: You don't appear to understand the nuances of the agreements that currently govern the West Bank. For Palestinians living under PA and Hamas rule, the PA are responsible for holding elections - not Israel.
2. Gaza: The Gaza Strip is not an open air prison. There are border crossings with both Israel and Egypt. But no country is obliged to permit you entry. There are plenty of countries I need permission and paperwork to gain entry too.
3. Apartheid Analogy: On the contrary, many Palestinians in the West Bank are either tradesmen or in gainful employment with Israeli businesses. The Palestinians get more for their wages because of Israel's higher standard of living. This is despite the fact the PA prohibits Palestinians from work for Israeli businesses in the WB. That is nothing like Apartheid South Africa.
Meaningless elections, the power resides with Israel
Israel regularly fires on Gazan fishermen. It destroyed the air port and blockades the sea. Also there is a US backed puppet in charge of Egypt. Gaza is a prison
Thats exactly how it was for black South Africa, work for the white man but have now franchise, no vote, no power. Israel uses the cheap labour of Palestinians but shoves back into their hovel at night. Israel uses Palestinians
Well I'm not an expert in international law, therefore I tend to defer to the experts on these matters. In its 2004 advisory opinion, the most authoritative legal opinion on the conflict I am aware of, the International Court of Justice ruled that "All (the) territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power." It then confirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply in those territories and that Israel is in violation of it.
Remarkably, all 15 judges were unanimous on these points.
Point remarkably well made sir.
The ICJ Opinion has, among other flaws, one [potentially] significant flaw. The Court failed to exam the legal status of the WB prior to 1967. Judge Al-Khasawneh's words illustrate the Court's failure:
"The Court followed a wise course in steering away from embarking on an enquiry into the precise prior status of those territories not only because such an enquiry is unnecessary for the purpose of establishing their present status as occupied territories and affirming the de jute applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to them, but also because the prior status of the territories would make no difference whatsoever to their present status as occupied territories except in the event that they were Terra nullius when they were occupied by Israel."
The failure to fully examine the legal status of the West Bank means (I) that the historical narrative (paras. 71-6) ignores the context and circumstances in which Israel entered the West Bank, and (II) the Court assumes that (a) Israel is an occupying power, and (b) fails to establish who has better legal title to the land.
The failure to examine both points means the Court did not take the opportunity to examine the effect the legal status of the West Bank has on the laws of occupation.
Last edited:
And now for some light entertainment....
Nice try
You people don’t lack for creativity, I’ll give you that!