What is wrong with...

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:39 am

Algeria

Bahrain

Egypt

Iraq

Iran

Israel

Jordan

Kuwait

Lebanon

Libya

Morocco

Oman

Palestine (as proposed)

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

Sudan

Syria

Tunisia

Turkey

UAE

Yemen

It seems that most of these countries are widely hated and seen as backwards, countries that can't govern their own affairs. This is the Middle East. Shall we decide their fate for them?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:17 am

koan;728058 wrote: Algeria

Bahrain

Egypt

Iraq

Iran

Israel

Jordan

Kuwait

Lebanon

Libya

Morocco

Oman

Palestine (as proposed)

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

Sudan

Syria

Tunisia

Turkey

UAE

Yemen

It seems that most of these countries are widely hated and seen as backwards, countries that can't govern their own affairs. This is the Middle East. Shall we decide their fate for them?

By whom?

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:08 pm

gmc;728096 wrote: By whom?

I'm reacting to the many anti Middle East comments that I've read on this board.

I may have the list of countries wrong, just grabbed it from a random site. We can start by narrowing down who they are.

I've made some harsh statements about Israel. I do see them as a terrorist state. There's a start of personal admission. What say all of you about the others?

drumbunny1 · Post by **drumbunny1** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:12 pm

Well whats wrong with the U.S.? Theres been anti Middle eastern comments, but I've also seen a whole lot of Anti US comments...probably more!

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:25 pm

koan;728176 wrote: I'm reacting to the many anti Middle East comments that I've read on this board.

I may have the list of countries wrong, just grabbed it from a random site. We can start by narrowing down who they are.

I've made some harsh statements about Israel. I do see them as a terrorist state. There's a start of personal admission. What say all of you about the others?

Which ones do you think can't govern their own affairs and are backward?

posted by drumbunny

Well whats wrong with the U.S.? Theres been anti Middle eastern comments, but I've also seen a whole lot of Anti US comments...probably more!

Well what do you think is wrong with the US? Why do you feel you can't stick up for your own country? Are you embarrassed or what?

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:32 pm

gmc;728194 wrote: Which ones do you think can't govern their own affairs and are backward?

posted by drumbunny

Well what do you think is wrong with the US? Why do you feel you can't stick up for your own country? Are you embarrassed or what?

I believe they can all govern their own affairs. Others have said otherwise. I'm opening up the discussion and trying to put it in a non accusatory way. This is a chance for everyone who thinks a country isn't doing a good job of it to step forward.

For me, I think Israel needs to be treated as an equal country not a superior one. If they're allowed to have nuclear weapons than so are the others.... etc.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 2:47 am

koan;728202 wrote: I believe they can all govern their own affairs. Others have said otherwise. I'm opening up the discussion and trying to put it in a non accusatory way. This is a chance for everyone who thinks a country isn't doing a good job of it to step forward.

For me, I think Israel needs to be treated as an equal country not a superior one. If they're allowed to have nuclear weapons than so are the others.... etc.

Maybe there's a case that any state where religion rules the roost demonstrates it is a backward country. Advanced Industrialised nations where the population are well educated are in the main secular and encouraging of new ideas.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 7:27 am

jimbo;728949 wrote: hey koanie the thought of suicide bombers armed with dirty nuke bombs is not a good one for me

Agreed, so we should make sure that Israel and Pakistan dispose of their nuclear arms as well.

I do think that if we give Palestine some helicopters, tanks, and acceptable artillery we could quickly eliminate dirty bombs and suicide bombers.

guppy · Post by **guppy** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 2:44 pm

The only thing i see wrong with most of them..is i havent got to go visit yet..wonder if i would leave an impression? hehehehehe:wah:

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 3:02 pm

I saw some comments today about Sudan in the thread about the teacher... come on in here and tell us what the fate of Sudan should be... it's on the list here.

Kittypaws · Post by **Kittypaws** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 5:29 am

koan;728058 wrote: Algeria

Bahrain

Egypt

Iraq

Iran

Israel

Jordan

Kuwait

Lebanon

Libya

Morocco

Oman

Palestine (as proposed)

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

Sudan

Syria

Tunisia

Turkey

UAE

Yemen

It seems that most of these countries are widely hated and seen as backwards, countries that can't govern their own affairs. This is the Middle East. Shall we decide their fate for them?

Which of these countries does NOT ...

Treat women worse than dogs?

Does not practise female circumcision?

Deny women the vote?

Sentence women to a lashing for naming a teddy bear?

Stone women to death?

Cannot be seen as backwards?

Is widely hated by the Arab world?

Indeed ... this is the middle east ... thank god for the one civilised country there.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:39 am

Kittypaws;729949 wrote: Which of these countries does NOT ...

Treat women worse than dogs?

Does not practise female circumcision?

Deny women the vote?

Sentence women to a lashing for naming a teddy bear?

Stone women to death?

Cannot be seen as backwards?

Is widely hated by the Arab world?

Indeed ... this is the middle east ... thank god for the one civilised country there.

So, I presume, you are saying that Israel is the civilised country... correct?

And what do you propose should happen to the rest of them?

Kittypaws · Post by **Kittypaws** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:05 pm

koan;730107 wrote: So, I presume, you are saying that Israel is the civilised country... correct?

And what do you propose should happen to the rest of them?

when rogue regimes refuse to behave in a civilised manner in respect to human rights and refuse to treat women as equals then they should suffer the same fate that has been meted out to cuba and was meeted out to south africa ...

sanctions work ... eventually ... wars never solve anything except the population explosion ...

cinamin · Post by **cinamin** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:28 pm

Kittypaws;729949 wrote: Which of these countries does NOT ...

Treat women worse than dogs?

Does not practise female circumcision?

Deny women the vote?

Sentence women to a lashing for naming a teddy bear?

Stone women to death?

Cannot be seen as backwards?

Is widely hated by the Arab world?

Indeed ... this is the middle east ... thank god for the one civilised country there.

Just stopped in this morning to read and found this thread, just had to comment.......I believe that the middle east has a culture that is by all means, archaic and stuck in the past. They do not want to change, and by this, the countries and people in them suffer as they are not allowed to progress.

I believe that people or groups of people are either expanding their condition or contracting (getting worse). Even if a person or group is staying the same, they are in a sense contracting. Because they are not growing.

I asked a history professor once, why is it that years ago when our country was being formed, like during the colonial times, that the Arabs were not here. But now that there is money to be made off of us, they are over here with their own businesses. The Irish, Italians, Germans and many other Europeans were building this country. so where were the Arabs. The teacher replied (and I am paraphrasing), there were not ship routes from the Middle East, geographically they are so far away, they could not get here. And also, they did not want to be part of the "infidels". The mid east considers the Europeans "infidels".

So I think that there is a lot wrong with the Middle East, way too much for our country to fix.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:29 pm

jimbo;728949 wrote: hey koanie the thought of suicide bombers armed with dirty nuke bombs is not a good one for me

Excuse me but what size do you think a nuclear bomb is?

Sure as hell can't strap one round your waist - come to that, you wouldn't get one into the back of your jeep.

As for making your hand grenades dirty - you don't need a nuclear weapons program to do that.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:33 pm

Kittypaws;730220 wrote: when rogue regimes refuse to behave in a civilised manner in respect to human rights and refuse to treat women as equals then they should suffer the same fate that has been meted out to cuba and was meeted out to south africa ...

sanctions work ... eventually ... wars never solve anything except the population explosion ...

Might I ask why, in your opinion, sanctions were imposed on Cuba?

I'd also ask what you think of Israel's human rights record and the way it treats it's Palestinian citizens?

Post by **spot** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:38 pm

Kittypaws;729949 wrote: Which of these countries does NOT ...

Treat women worse than dogs?

Does not practise female circumcision?

Deny women the vote?

Sentence women to a lashing for naming a teddy bear?

Stone women to death?

Cannot be seen as backwards?

Is widely hated by the Arab world?

Indeed ... this is the middle east ... thank god for the one civilised country there.
Shall we start with "Deny women the vote" in the Arab world?

Women were granted the right to vote on a universal and equal basis in Lebanon in 1952, Syria 1953, Egypt in 1956, Tunisia in 1959, Mauritania in 1961, Algeria in 1962, Morocco in 1963, Libya and Sudan in 1964,Yemen in 1970, Bahrain in 1973, Jordan in 1974, Iraq in 1980, Oman in 2003, Kuwait in 2005.

Kittypaws · Post by **Kittypaws** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:44 pm

Bryn Mawr;730238 wrote: Might I ask why, in your opinion, sanctions were imposed on Cuba?

I'd also ask what you think of Israel's human rights record and the way it treats it's Palestinian citizens?

Probably because they allowed the then Soviet Union to build IBM silos there ... and probably because they acted as the Soviet Union's lackey in many conflicts on the African continent ... probably because we don't like a Communist regime on our doorstep ... probably for the same reason your government occupied an island off your coast ... probably for the same reason your government sent innocent women and children to concentration camps to die during the Boer war ...

See my list of what Israel IS NOT guilty of doing as opposed to her neighbours ...

Kittypaws · Post by **Kittypaws** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:55 pm

spot;730243 wrote: Shall we start with "Deny women the vote" in the Arab world?

Women were granted the right to vote on a universal and equal basis in Lebanon in 1952, Syria 1953, Egypt in 1956, Tunisia in 1959, Mauritania in 1961, Algeria in 1962, Morocco in 1963, Libya and Sudan in 1964,Yemen in 1970, Bahrain in 1973, Jordan in 1974, Iraq in 1980, Oman in 2003, Kuwait in 2005.

Yeah right .... maybe on paper

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:56 pm

Kittypaws;730220 wrote: when rogue regimes refuse to behave in a civilised manner in respect to human rights and refuse to treat women as equals then they should suffer the same fate that has been meted out to cuba and was meeted out to south africa ...

sanctions work ... eventually ... wars never solve anything except the population explosion ...

One of the worst culprits is your biggest ally. So when are you going to invade saudi arabia. No you can't can you you need he oil so just turn a blind eye and don't mention the fact it was Saudi terrorists that attacked you in 2001.

Come to that which nation was one of the biggest supporters of The south african apartheid regime and opposed the imposition of sanctions? Course Nelson Mandela is one terrorist everybody wants as a friend now. Not to mention all the israeli terrorist leaders that went on to become statesmen. They were pretty good at blowing up civilians themselves, arguably still are come to that.

Post by **spot** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:56 pm

Kittypaws;730254 wrote: Yeah right .... maybe on paper

What specifically do you find inaccurate in my post?

Kittypaws · Post by **Kittypaws** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 2:07 pm

gmc;730256 wrote: One of the worst culprits is your biggest ally. So when are you going to invade saudi arabia. No you can't can you you need he oil so just turn a blind eye and don't mention the fact it was Saudi terrorists that attacked you in 2001.

Come to that which nation was one of the biggest supporters of The south african apartheid regime and opposed the imposition of sanctions? Course Nelson Mandela is one terrorist everybody wants as a friend now. Not to mention all the israeli terrorist leaders that went on to become statesmen. They were pretty good at blowing up civilians themselves, arguably still are come to that.

How many of these countries have been "invaded" by the United States?

Algeria

Bahrain

Egypt

Iraq

Iran

Israel

Jordan

Kuwait

Lebanon

Libya

Morocco

Oman

Palestine (as proposed)

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

Sudan

Syria

Tunisia

Turkey

UAE

Yemen

So why do you keep harping on Saudi Arabia? Of course they have oil ... so what?

You want us to take out the Saudi family same as we did the Hussain family?

This isn't the movies ... its reality ... Saudi Arabia is one of a whole list of countries who deny women their basic rights .... its got nothing to do with oil ...

Kittypaws · Post by **Kittypaws** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 2:08 pm

spot;730257 wrote: What specifically do you find inaccurate in my post?

Nothing at all ... having the right vote and being allowed to vote are two different things ...

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:01 am

kittypaws

So why do you keep harping on Saudi Arabia? Of course they have oil ... so what?

You want us to take out the Saudi family same as we did the Hussain family?

This isn't the movies ... its reality ... Saudi Arabia is one of a whole list of countries who deny women their basic rights .... its got nothing to do with oil ...

They're one of the worst culprits in all of these things you find so shocking. It is also the homeland of wahibism which is the start of all the current islamic fundamentalists. It was saudis who flew those planes on 911 do you really think if it wasn't for oil they would be allies of anybody?

http://www.opec.org/aboutus/history/history.htm

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is a permanent, intergovernmental Organization, created at the Baghdad Conference on September 10–14, 1960, by Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. The five Founding Members were later joined by nine other Members: Qatar (1961); Indonesia (1962); Socialist Peoples Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (1962); United Arab Emirates (1967); Algeria (1969); Nigeria (1971); Ecuador (1973–1992); Gabon (1975–1994) and Angola (2007). OPEC had its headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, in the first five years of its existence. This was moved to Vienna, Austria, on September 1, 1965.

If you think tolerance of countries like saudi arabia and turning a blind eye to their culpability has nothing to do with oil you're rather naive.

The British have invaded all these countries at one time or another as have the french but that's another story.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 3:27 pm

Kittypaws;730245 wrote: Probably because they allowed the then Soviet Union to build IBM silos there ... and probably because they acted as the Soviet Union's lackey in many conflicts on the African continent ... probably because we don't like a Communist regime on our doorstep ... probably for the same reason your government occupied an island off your coast ... probably for the same reason your government sent innocent women and children to concentration camps to die during the Boer war ...

See my list of what Israel IS NOT guilty of doing as opposed to her neighbours ...

Nope - it was before Russia built silos there in response to the US placing missiles on the Turko-Russian boarder, it was before Che went into Angola, it was before Castro (a nationalist) was driven into bed with the communists - it was a direct response to the Cubans having the utter gall to kick our the US sponsored puppet government. Absolutely nothing to do with human rights and the treatment of women as you claimed.

Should we list all of the human rights abuses that Israel *is* guilty of - the list is even longer and attested by the likes of Amnesty International as opposed to your tabloid hyperbole.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 3:29 pm

Kittypaws;730254 wrote: Yeah right .... maybe on paper

Would you care to supply any evidence that it is not so in real life?

Kittypaws · Post by **Kittypaws** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 3:48 am

Should we list all of the human rights abuses that Israel *is* guilty of - the list is even longer and attested by the likes of Amnesty International as opposed to your tabloid hyperbole.

Please do and also state why in your opinion the United States has not invaded Israel or is critical of Israel .... unlike Saudi Arabia ... this sovereign democratic country where regular elections are held and which has a free press and where women have the same rights as men ... has no oil ... so if they are guilty of all these human rights abuses ... why does the USA not condemn them as it does other countries that are also guilty of human rights abuses?

Also please state if you are Anti-Semetic ... Anti-Zionist or Anti-Israel and don't insult my intelligence by saying neither of the above ... unless of course you are just Anti-United States of America ...

Oh I know! You're gonna say: "No on the contrary I am not anti-USA and I am not anti-Semetic or anti Zionist or anti Israel ... i'm only anti-Bush!" ... Yeah Right!!

And talking of hyperbole ... what could be more exaggerated than ..."all of the human rights abuses that Israel *is* guilty of - the list is even longer and attested by the likes of Amnesty International ..."

Oh and seeing as how you are reluctant to comment or the British occupation of Northern Island and the gross human rights violations that were commited there by the occuping forces or the barbaric treatment meted out by the British against the Boers in South Africa ... i assume that you consider these to also be "tabloid hyperbole"

Oh sorry ... we're only supposed to be knocking the USA here aren't we?

Post by **spot** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 4:07 am

Kittypaws, you do seem to flail around the issue. A degree of focus would be welcome.

You equate Anti-Semitic with Anti-Zionist or Anti-Israel, for example. I see no such equation.

Zionism is the movement which established and supports the current Israeli national framework.

Israel is a country whose laws discriminate between peoples in a way comparable with the laws of apartheid South Africa. Even if a two-state partition of the Holy Land between Palestine and Israel is achieved those discriminatory laws will remain in place.

Being Jewish, whether that's expressed as a race, a religion, an ethos or a culture, is a privilege of history.

It seems quite reasonable to argue against the continuance of one in its current form without disparaging another.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:13 am

posted by kittypaws

Oh and seeing as how you are reluctant to comment or the British occupation of Northern Island and the gross human rights violations that were commited there by the occuping forces or the barbaric treatment meted out by the British against the Boers in South Africa ... i assume that you consider these to also be "tabloid hyperbole"

Oh sorry ... we're only supposed to be knocking the USA here aren't we?

You're actually the one that brought the US in to it.

The thread was originally about the middle east but what you will find is that most of the british posters will know about the boer war, starting the slave trade, the taking over of mesopotamia, india etc etc in fact the history of the british empire is actually taught in school and is hardly a big surprise. It is also in the past and pointing out our excesses in the past doesn't really justify anyone elss now. I did point out that at some time or other we have invaded every country on the list. that's not hyperbole it's actually true. Originally, back in the middle ages supposedly for religious reasons later on for the oil. Mind you they did try and take over europe at one point. Did you know the British dropped mustard gas on the iraquis long before Saddam did? Wasn't terribly effective so we only tried it once. The days of empire are long gone. In europe so are the days of religious wars.

Tell you what you don't mention the boer war and we won't mention the indians, the Philippines's Hawaii and your own bits of empire even although you don't call it that. Or that it's only relatively recently that you stopped lynching black people and wouldn't let them vote.

So what are you suggesting? Sanctions instead of invasion? Personally I'm all for that. International courts? Not knockig the US or anything but your government refuses point blank to recognise the jurisdiction of the international court in the hague-and is also on record as stating it will abrogate any treaty that it decides no longer suits it's interests-so much for all the trade treaties then.

Oh sorry ... we're only supposed to be knocking the USA here aren't we?

Sometimes it's hard not to as every comment is taken as being necessarily anti american. Why are you so paranoid and convinced everybody is out to attack the US? What have you been reading?

Kittypaws · Post by **Kittypaws** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:12 am

spot;731743 wrote: Kittypaws, you do seem to flail around the issue. A degree of focus would be welcome.

You equate Anti-Semitic with Anti-Zionist or Anti-Israel, for example. I see no such equation.

Zionism is the movement which established and supports the current Israeli national framework.

Israel is a country whose laws discriminate between peoples in a way comparable with the laws of apartheid South Africa. Even if a two-state partition of the Holy Land between Palestine and Israel is achieved those discriminatory laws will remain in place.

Being Jewish, whether that's expressed as a race, a religion, an ethos or a culture, is a privilege of history.

It seems quite reasonable to argue against the continuance of one in its current form without disparaging another.

Dear Mr Spot ... Being quite new to this I am unsure about how one addresses a moderator and a man with so many posts behind his name. Unlike many of your gender you appear to have more between your ears than just a dead short or a vacuum.

This being so I shall enjoy debating with you even though from my more than considerable experience of men ... especially intelligent men such as yourself ... you are unlikely to cry "uncle" in any argument with a female ...

Even so I shall fearlessly make my point here even though the post you have replied to was directed at the Edwardian looking gentleman whose name I have forgotten ...

Being a citizen of a country which believes that all people are created equal I shall defend your democratic right to voice any opinion you feel inclined to ... in the full knowledge that you will grant me the same favour ... so Mr Spot ...

1) It is only your opinion that I "seem to flail around the issue." Believe me I am fully focussed and in my opinion (to which I am fully entitled) I am presenting my argument in a logical way ... you may think otherwise and that again is your right.

2) In my opinion anti-Semitic=anti-Zionism=anti=Israel ... that is the equation.

3) Israel is a country whose laws discriminate between peoples in a way comparable with the laws of apartheid South Africa. Even if a two-state partition of the Holy Land between Palestine and Israel is achieved those discriminatory laws will remain in place.

What may i ask gives you the right to make this statement? Is this based on the Edwardian looking gentleman's theory of "tabloid hyperbole?" Do you have first hand experience? Have you been the victim of this discrimination? Have you ever lived in Israel or the Republic of South Africa? (Before you ask ... yes Mr Spot I have spent a very considerable time in BOTH these countries.)

4) "Being Jewish, whether that's expressed as a race, a religion, an ethos or a culture, is a privilege of history."

I am unsure as to what you are implying with this rather bizarre statement. As this applies to every person on the planet I can only interpret it as Anti-Semitic. Why else would you say this? Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

5) It seems quite reasonable to argue against the continuance of one in its current form without disparaging another.[/QUOTE] No ... in my opinion it is totally unreasonable.

Yours sincerely,

Catherine Poores aka Kittypaws.

Kittypaws · Post by **Kittypaws** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:30 am

gmc;731752 wrote: posted by kittypaws

You're actually the one that brought the US in to it.

The thread was originally about the middle east but what you will find is that most of the british posters will know about the boer war, starting the slave trade, the taking over of mesopotamia, india etc etc in fact the history of the british empire is actually taught in school and is hardly a big surprise. It is also in the past and pointing out our excesses in the past doesn't really justify anyone elss now. I did point out that at some time or other we have invaded every country on the list. that's not hyperbole it's actually true. Originally, back in the middle ages supposedly for religious reasons later on for the oil. Mind you they did try and take over europe at one point. Did you know the British dropped mustard gas on the iraquis long before Saddam did? Wasn't terribly effective so we only tried it once. The days of empire are long gone. In europe so are the days of religious wars.

Tell you what you don't mention the boer war and we won't mention the indians, the Philippines's Hawaii and your own bits of empire even although you don't call it that. Or that it's only relatively recently that you stopped lynching black people and wouldn't let them vote.

So what are you suggesting? Sanctions instead of invasion? Personally I'm all for that. International courts? Not knockig the US or anything but your government refuses point blank to recognise the jurisdiction of the international court in the hague-and is also on record as stating it will abrogate any treaty that it decides no longer suits it's interests-so much for all the trade treaties then.

Sometimes it's hard not to as every comment is taken as being necessarily anti american. Why are you so paranoid and convinced everybody is out to attack the US? What have you been reading?

Ah gmc ... are those the initial letters of your name or ... horror upon horrors!!!

don't tell me you actually drive an automobile manufactured by The General Motors Corporation? No I guess not ...

Not much to comment on in your post except this:

"Not knockig the US or anything but your government refuses point blank to recognise the jurisdiction of the international court in the hague-and is also on record as stating it will abrogate any treaty that it decides no longer suits it's interests-so much for all the trade treaties then.

Sometimes it's hard not to as every comment is taken as being necessarily anti american. Why are you so paranoid and convinced everybody is out to attack the US? What have you been reading?"

First point ... the safety of its citizens is the first priority of the United States government ...

Second point ... What have I been reading ... oh some of the anti-American posts on this thread ... by a very small minority I must admit ...

Isn't it so strange ... when the West ... including Britain ... was faced with the threat of the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact ... the United Kingdom was quite prepared to hide behind the skirts of the United States ... but now that this is no longer a threat ... thanks to the USA ... it is a different story.

Makes you think .... doesn't it?

Post by **spot** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:43 am

I had in mind the comments of Ehud Olmert at Annapolis last week actually:FAILURE to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians could plunge Israel into a South African-style apartheid struggle, with Arabs demanding equal voting rights to Jews, says Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. So the creation of a Palestinian state is vital to Israel, he insisted in an interview published yesterday. Such a scenario, he continued, would mean "the State of Israel is finished".

While Olmert has long said that the region's demography is working against Israel, these comments were among his strongest as he prepares a sceptical public for the renewed peace talks launched at this week's conference in Annapolis, Maryland. His reference to apartheid was particularly explosive as Israeli officials have long rejected any comparison to the racist system once in place in South Africa. The Palestinians want to form an independent state in the Gaza Strip, West Bank and east Jerusalem - areas that Israel captured in the 1967 Middle East war. Many Israeli demographers believe that with their higher birthrate, the Arab population of these areas, combined with Israel's own Arab population, could soon exceed the Jewish population in Israel.

Jews are a solid majority inside Israel proper, comprising roughly 80% of the population. However, if the West Bank and Gaza are included, Arabs will comprise nearly half the population of the region. To ensure that Israel can maintain its character as a democracy with a solid Jewish majority, Olmert supports a large withdrawal from the West Bank and parts of east Jerusalem, following Israel's pullout in 2005 from Gaza.What I'm implying by "Being Jewish, whether that's expressed as a race, a religion, an ethos or a culture, is a privilege of history" is that Jewish isn't something one can choose to become in the way one can become a Republican or a Muslim or British or philanthropic. It's an aspect of ancestry. It's also a recognized discriminatory aspect of Israeli law.

It seems quite reasonable to argue against the continuance of this discriminatory aspect of Israeli law without having any disrespect for or dislike of Jews. I'd regard a disrespect for or dislike of Jews to be anti-Semitic. I can see that a desire for a change in Israel's discriminatory laws which favour Jews might be labelled anti-Zionist or anti-Israel but not anti-Semitic. All three terms have distinct meanings, equating all three as you explicitly do is a deliberate attempt to smear a legitimate point of view.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:53 am

Nice little barney you lot have going on again! Here is a quick (and a little tongue in cheek surmise of these countries giving the good and bad)

Algeria: Once a Latin Colony, it fell to the Arabs during the Islamic expansion in North Africa, taken over by the French in the 19th Century as its full of nice beachfront property. It used to have about 2 million French living there, they were called the Pied Noirs for some reason that no one understands anymore. Bit of a revolution in the 1950s and 60s, and then a bit of a nasty civil war in the 90s. Is an economic basket case, lots of Algerians emigrated to France and now spend their time stopping their children from rioting, it has a pro western governemnt that is undemocratic, Algiers was once a big holiday location, lots of desert. They have oil, but they are not good with money.

Bahrain: A sultinate init? Jobs for engineers over there, too small to mean anything. Used to be big in the 1980s, they are in trouble when the oil goes.

Egypt: Big important country in the region, lots of history involving very large pyramids (and possibly Aliens?), Romans, fairly sexy queens, Pharohs, etc etc. They also have the most archeologists per sqaure inch of any country in the world. The British got involved a couple of centuries ago, but that more or less ended in tears. (For Spot: The French also invaded led by a fellow called Napoleon, you may have heard of him, apparently it was the French who blew the Sphinx's nose off with a cannon, those damn Frenchies). There have been lots of attempts to modernize the Egyptian economy since 1850, but all have failed miserably. Egypt is very poor, but it makes excellent cotton, it has an autocratic government that represses its homegrown Islamic Militants. Also most well off Egyptians have their children educated in Europe and the U.S., though there are only about 348 well off Egyptians and they are all related to the president. Historically one of the most important Islamic countries. It has diplomatic relations with Israel and the U.S., though it has invaded Israel from time to time with disasterous consequences. Once had a chap called Nasser who ran the place, he was a jolly bad egg and the British attempted to teach him a lesson with the help of the French, but the Yanks stopped that party.

Iraq: What can I say? Not the garden spot of planet Earth right now. Ottoman territory since medival times, Bagdad was always a centre of culture and commerce, and its close to the ancient site of Babylon (man). Other important cities include Basra, and Najaff. Iraq was once the heartland of civilization both pre- and post- the Islamic conquest, it is home to the Marsh arabs who are an ancient tribe from pre-history possible as far back as when it was called Mesopotamia. It fell to the Arab conquests of the 8th and 9th centuries. In more recent times it was part of the Ottoman Empire but became a British Mandate Territory post WWI (are you seeing a middle-eastern pattern here?), the Brits took it over, quelled the resultant insurgency in 6 weeks, and did a lot of organizing as they tended to do. (why the British never gave the Americans any advice on how to do any of these fairly simple things is anyones guess, just the British being eccentric as usual I guess). Interesting fact: Iraq was a first for the use of chemical weapons dropped from Aircraft, but it was the RAF and not Saddam who got that first in, circa 1923. After WWII, there was lots of British meddling, a small revolution in the 1950s, then a Socialist authoritarian government was installed, then Saddam got into power, he basically eliminated anyone he didn't like and "pacified" the non-sunni people of Iraq. No, he was not a nice fella, but if he hadn't invaded Kuwait all those years ago would still be "our man in Bagdad". Anyway, the U.S. decided for some reason to invade Iraq properly in 2003 supported by their traditionally unwavering allies: The British Labour Party. Following was a swift defeat of the regime followed by the worst thought out military debacle since the Austro Hungarian Empire decided to attack Serbia in 1914. Current state: complete Disater Zone, I would say that they probably regret ever having invited Donald Rumsfeld for tea in 1988.

Iran: Once called Persia, which was the world super-power of its day, but came to grief at the battles of Platea and Salamis when the Athenian and Spartan Greeks got all angry on their cultured asses. Then Alexander the Great decided to go a walking and walked right over them and went on all the way to the Indus, but then it got too rainy and the Greeks decided to go home, the lightweights. Persia remained a hugely important place through classical times. In the Islamic Era it was equally important and is still one of the most important Islamic countries with a long history of high civilization. Now a strongly Shi-ite Islamic country, it was once a British terrritory (of course), after this it had a Hashemite King who got himself deposed, then it had the Shah who was the West's best friend ever, then he was turfed out by an Islamicist revolution in 1979. Then Khomeni came back from Paris dumped his French Can Can Dancer Girlfriend grew a beard and became spiritual leader (okay this is not exactly true but I wish it was). Now this revolution was the seminal event in Modern middle eastern history with repercussions that are ongoing and driving a lot of the politics of the region, so remember that as it may be important later. Ruled by a military/relgious heirarchy but still retains a high culture and also makes nice carpets. Recently they have taken a big gamble to get back on the world's big stage by stirring it up with the current big kid on the block the good old US of A; how wise this is at the present time is uncertain. Interestingly, Iranians are considered to be a very good-looking race of people. Winner of the "most likely to get Nuked award 2008".

Israel: Boo hiss! Founded in 1948 from land that was previously part of what is called Palestine which was ruled by the Ottomans and then the Briitsh under an international mandate, bit unpopular with its neighbours, a Jewish State in the midst of Muslim region, bit of trouble with the other people of the "holy land" unimaginatvely called the Palestinans. Israel is a democracy on the European model, but is generally unpopular with a lot of Western people for being so beastly to the Palestinians. Israel has lots of cute women, but be careful because they have nearly all served in the IDF at some point and will seriously ruin your day if you annoy them with your anti-semitic propoganda. Most Israelis are quite normal, but some are a bit mentalist and live in big council estates in another country, these people have staring eyes and should not be approached.

Jordan: Mostly Harmless. Was also founded from the rubble of the Ottoman Empire, part of the British Mandate, went its own way. Its another Hashemite kingdom, relatively stable, how its managed to survive this way in such a wacky region for so long is a bit of a mystery. The old king had a fairly hot wife who wrote some popular books in the west, all adding to the somewhat quirky image of Jordan, though they can also mix it up when they need to.

Kuwait: A little bitty Kingdom, very oil rich, but not very well armed, which was a cardinal mistake for this region. It was invaded in 1990, was liberated by coaalition forces in 1991 in one of the most ill-matched battles in modern history, is now a very pro-western country, but its not very important really. They have very white clothes. Also a lot of Kuwaiti consumer durables ended up in Iraqi kitchens circa 1991. Kuwaitis love all things American and have even invented their own brand of Persian Gulf ghetto rap music, unfortunatly it sucks.

Lebanon: Oh dear, poor old Lebanon, once the premier league holiday desitination in the Eastern Med. Had a history quite similar to Syria, in fact it was part of the ancient province of Syria, but in their infinite wisdom the French decided to partition Syria and Lebanon, perhaps they still had a gra for the Crusader history of the place. So everything went swimmingly but then its Christian and Muslim inhabitants started fighting in the 1970s because of the ridiculous hairstyles of the time. Syria and Israel have been up to their necks in this place for donkey's years, neither seem to be able to do anything constructive or just leave it alone. Lebanon recently witnessed a new round of fighting between its variously complicated sides, and is currently trying to prevent another batch of hostilities opening up again. Hopefully they will all calm down one day and we can all take Club Med holidays in Beirut again. The Aga Khan is from here, he likes horses so he does. Robert Fisk also lives in Beirut so if you really like him, or alternately think he is a pinko rag-head lover you can write to "Fisky" Apartment 234, Block 101, Infidel Street, Beirut 69, Lebanon.

Libya: Once called Cyrene and was an important Roman province, went through a similar process of Islamic expansion in the 8th and 9th century, then European colonization in the 19th (Those damn Frenchies again). Then a local revolution occurred that was fairly civilized by North African standards, eventually ruled by one Mr. Colonel Gadaffi, who was the Osama of his day, and did just enough to make sure that Tripoli got bombed by the US, but has settled into a comfortable middle age of not being bothered that much any more.

Morocco: Ancient Berber Kingdom, was once a French dependency, very illustrious Islamic history. Is also reasonably stable, though dirt poor. It has reasonable relations internationally. They invented a great hat called the Fez, and it also became popular in Turkey and Hollywood. Most important historical event: When Ingred Bergman walked into Humphrey Bogart's gin joint in 1941.

Oman: Or as its known in California, "Oh Man". Bit on the end of the Arabian penninsula, I am not sure who ruled this place because I can't remember what country Aden is in, it might be Yemen, but anyway, was once slightly strategically important, but it isn't now.

Palestine (as proposed): Palestine, once an Ottoman vassal state, then ruled by the British, experienced a concurrent Jewish and Palestinian struggle for independence within its borders in 1948, the Jewish side won, the UN bottled it, and then the Jewish people founded Israel, then in 1967 the Jewish side won again after a surprise (naughty!) attack by various angry neighbours. Then Israel took over what was left of Palestine and have occupied it till the present day. The Palestians are too busy trying to secure their independence to give much of a toss about the bigger picture at the moment. At present the Palestinian territories are two seperate entities the West Bank and the Gaza strip. The West Bank ain't no picnic but Gaza makes the West Bank look like the Hamptons.

Qatar: Mental little place, I think Al Jezzera is based here, but don't let that fool you, its about as big as Romford, but has more money than Bill Gates and Paris Hilton combined. Nice shops.

Saudi Arabia: Big mofo this one, a strange place ruled by a very conservative Islamic feudal monarchy, but has the largest reserves of oil on Earth and therefore has enough money to keep 15,000 princes in the style of well, Saudi Princes, the basket case of all basket cases, when the oil runs out they will have to go back to making carpets. But they will have to make a lot of carpets if they are going to keep up the repayments on all those Hummers, you can expect the entire ruling elite to immigrate to Switzerland with most of whatever is left moneywise in about 2017. Most Saudi's are not rich, but the ones who are are really rich and all have apartments on the Edgeware Road in London SW1, very swish, but they really block up the traffic as they have about 19 Bentleys each, and they like to have them driving around all the time, as it means there is always a ready market for their oil. Saudi Arabia is the homeland of one Osama Bin Laden whom you may have heard of, it is also where most of the men who committed the September 11th attacks on the USA in 2001 came from as well as the money; it is also the major funder of the hundreds of Wahabi Madrassa schools around the region that are currently teaching millions of young Muslim men around the region the more fundamentalist (if you remove the "funda" from that last word you get a better idea of what its all about) version of Islam. Despite this, Saudi Arabia is not held in any way responsible for the attacks, while Saddam and his Iraqi regime, (which was violent anti-fundamenalist, and killed as many Mujahadeen as they could get their hands on) was somehow. I kinda missed how that happened, so if any American posters can fill in the dots for me there I would be grateful, you can send your replys to "Fisky" in Lebanon and he can write about it in the Indepedent.

Sudan: African place, full of excitable African chaps, spot of bother with General Gordon in the 1870s I believe, was once part of the British Empire, but now they flog teachers for having unauthorized feelings towards teddy bears, the nile starts here, the Sudanese govt is currently and illicitly organizing the ethnic cleansing of the country's southern regions of its black non-muslim popularion, not a very nice place, deserve a good kicking if you ask me, but you can't say things like that nowadays.

Syria: Interesting place, once a Roman and then Byzantine Christian state, fell to the Arabs in the tenth century, then the Crusaders got in there, but then Saladin took it back, then the Ottomans (once they had gotten rid of Byzantium) took it over, then the French got involved so now all Syrians drive Peugeots, but eventually also underwent a national revolution and developed along the lines of Iraq though not nearly quite as wicked in terms of its leaders. Always a bit of a wild card Syria, did square up to the Israelis in 67, but got decisively ass-whooped, still angling to get the Golan Heights back, and is fiddling about continually in Lebanon, currently full of Iraqi's trying to get away from Iraq.

Tunisia: Used to be Cartegena, of Carthage fame, produced a general called Hannibal who was pretty nifty at fighting classical battles and kicked Roman butt at Cannae, but the Romans got their own back, got rid of him, then in the Third Punic war destroyed Carthage completely. After that it became a Roman province, then a Norman kingdom, then fell to the Arabs in the Islamic Expansion, it keeps its head down does Tunisia, they are a wise bunch of heads.

Turkey: Once Anatolia, Greek, integral part of classical European civilization, then Byzantine, invaded by sucessive waves of turks in the 11th and 12th centuries, the Greek population was overwhelmed and Anatolia became the homeland of the Ottoman turks who went on to found the Ottoman Empire, one of the great powers of its time. With the Ottoman collapse the country was renamed and became Turkey. Turkey is a modern secular state founded by Attaturk, which includes a bit of Greece that used to be called Thrace and the city that was once called Constantinople but is now called Instanbul. Interesting fact, the reason we call Turkeys Turkeys is because the men who used to sell them in London markets in the 16th century were Turkish merchants. The Turks are no pushovers and they gave the British and their allies a right pasting in WWI during the Galipoli campaign. Since WWII has been an integral part of the NATO alliance, and is trying to gain membership of the European Union or the "YuROP-ian Cowmmon Euro Areaaa" to our American chums. They will be waiting a while for membership of this club thinks I. Famous for inventing the kebab, Turkey is a good place for middle-aged western women to find young good-looking husbands. They were quite nasty to their local Greeks and Armenian populations in 1922, but we can't mention that as they get quite annoyed if you try. The Turks and the Greeks are traditional enemies, as are the Turks and the Russians, the British and the Turks did not get along occasionally either, (as they all wanted Constantiople/Istanbul along with a passage through the Bosphorous). The Turks and the Armenians are also not bossom buddies, and come to think of it, the Turks and the Kurds are not on the best of terms, I also think that Turks and other Turks also do not see eye to eye, hmmmn, I think I see a pattern here.

UAE: They called it the UAE in hope that people would mistake them for the USA and believe they were omnipitent world masters armed to the teeth with nukes and itching for a fight, hiding the fact that the UAE is about only 6 miles long and is full of money and fat Arabs. They are a nervous people, and who can blame them.

Yemen: Always a bit mental Yemen, even the Saudi's think the Yemeni's are kinda crazy, no one knows a lot about what goes on in Yemen as no one really wants to stay there very long, and those that do don't come back. Though of course the British mixed it up a bit in there in their heyday as they were always up for a bit of Empire smash and grab with anyone.

You did neglect to mention Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Chechyna, Khasakstan, Turkistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, etc, but thats enough to be getting on with! :p

Post by **spot** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:57 am

Merciful Jesus that'll take a while to read!

You put a lot of effort and craft into your posts, it'll be fun going through this one.

eta, after reading it all...

That was even more fun than I'd hoped. I like the historical aspects.

Egypt - British involvement ending in tears - I think that applies rather more to the French than to us - it didn't half mess up Napoleon's visit anyway. I have it in mind that he announced there that he's converted to Islam, I might look that up sometime.

Is there a mention of French colonial ambitions of the 1st century? Weren't they still getting over being divided into three parts at that stage?

I looked in vain for Glubb Pasha, he's a fascinating chap.

The reason you can't remember which country Aden's in is that Yemen was two countries back then. It was Mad Mitch's stamping ground. I'm sure the army needs people like him but I wish they'd keep them locked underground with safety protocols on their launch systems.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:14 am

spot;731904 wrote: Merciful Jesus that'll take a while to read!

You put a lot of effort and craft into your posts, it'll be fun going through this one.

eta, after reading it all...

That was even more fun than I'd hoped. I like the historical aspects.

Egypt - British involvement ending in tears - I think that applies rather more to the French than to us - it didn't half mess up Napoleon's visit anyway. I have it in mind that he announced there that he's converted to Islam, I might look that up sometime.

Is there a mention of French colonial ambitions of the 1st century? Weren't they still getting over being divided into three parts at that stage?

I looked in vain for Glubb Pasha, he's a fascinating chap.

The reason you can't remember which country Aden's in is that Yemen was two countries back then. It was Mad Mitch's stamping ground. I'm sure the army needs people like him but I wish they'd keep them locked underground with safety protocols on their launch systems.

Yes, sorry there were a couple of typo's there (I was writing fast, but not a bad off the top of the head summary I think) the French of course were not invading anyone in the First Century AD as they were called Gauls then and at that stage France was actually several large Roman provinces. They were far too busy getting over Caesar to even consider a day trip to North Africa so I meant to say the 19th Century.

I never realized that Napoleon pulled that old trick on them, "Je Suis en Mussleman" I can just image that pint-sized, crossaint-eatin, Josephine-lover trying anything to get cosy with the Egyptians alright. So Aden is in Yemen is it? That was quite an important place at one time I believe.

Kittypaws · Post by **Kittypaws** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:17 am

Dear Spot ... This is the only part of your lengthy reply which can be attributed to Prime Minister Olmert ... I must admit that I have not personally read this ...

FAILURE to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians could plunge Israel into a South African-style apartheid struggle, with Arabs demanding equal voting rights to Jews, says Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. So the creation of a Palestinian state is vital to Israel, he insisted in an interview published yesterday. Such a scenario, he continued, would mean "the State of Israel is finished".

An intelligent man such as yourself should be able to read between the lines Spot and be able to separate the "spin" for reality ... FAILURE to reach a peace agreement (your capitals) ... COULD plunge Israel (my capitals) ...

So you're saying that I can CHOOSE to become a Muslim and that is acceptable and its not an aspect of ancestry then? Oooh! Isn't that descrimatory?

In other words you are saying that in order to be British ¦ American ¦Canadian etc etc you HAVE to have been born in that particular country ¦

So if I am a Jew born in the United States I have no empathy for Israel!

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmh!

Post by **spot** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:27 am

You seem to have a rather upside-down view of things here. Of course you can choose to become a Muslim, how's that discriminatory? Just as you can choose to be a Methodist or a Buddhist. The option doesn't exist for non-Jews to choose to become Jews, that was the difference I was emphasizing. You don't have to have been born British, American or Canadian in order to become British, American or Canadian, you can be naturalized. You can only become naturalized in Israel if you're Jewish. There are discriminatory laws operating there in favour of Jews. Entry rights, naturalization rights, land rights, these are all existing aspects of apartheid already in existence.

Olmert's comments are indeed about the consequence of second class Palestinian citizens if the Holy Land isn't partitioned into two states. What he fails to note is that a state is by definition responsible for its own foreign affairs and has borders across which foreign armies may not step. I can't see that happening with Israel as it's currently constituted having a say in the matter. I'd be far happier with a non-discriminatory single state of Israel encompassing the Holy Land in its entirety.

Some Jews born in the United States have an empathy for Israel, some disapprove of its very existence. Both positions are held in good faith.

Kittypaws · Post by **Kittypaws** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:49 am

spot;731987 wrote: You seem to have a rather upside-down view of things here. Of course you can choose to become a Muslim, how's that discriminatory? Just as you can choose to be a Methodist or a Buddhist. The option doesn't exist for non-Jews to choose to become Jews, that was the difference I was emphasizing. You don't have to have been born British, American or Canadian in order to become British, American or Canadian, you can be naturalized. You can only become naturalized in Israel if you're Jewish. There are discriminatory laws operating there in favour of Jews. Entry rights, naturalization rights, land rights, these are all existing aspects of apartheid already in existence.

Olmert's comments are indeed about the consequence of second class Palestinian citizens if the Holy Land isn't partitioned into two states. What he fails to note is that a state is by definition responsible for its own foreign affairs and has borders across which foreign armies may not step. I can't see that happening with Israel as it's currently constituted having a say in the matter. I'd be far happier with a non-discriminatory single state of Israel encompassing the Holy Land in its entirety.

Some Jews born in the United States have an empathy for Israel, some disapprove of its very existence. Both positions are held in good faith.

spot;731987 wrote: You seem to have a rather upside-down view of things here. Of course you can choose to become a Muslim, how's that discriminatory? Just as you can choose to be a Methodist or a Buddhist. The option doesn't exist for non-Jews to choose to become Jews, that was the difference I was emphasizing. You don't have to have been born British, American or Canadian in order to become British, American or Canadian, you can be naturalized. You can only become naturalized in Israel if you're Jewish. There are discriminatory laws operating there in favour of Jews. Entry rights, naturalization rights, land rights, these are all existing aspects of apartheid already in existence.

Olmert's comments are indeed about the consequence of second class Palestinian citizens if the Holy Land isn't partitioned into two states. What he fails to note is that a state is by definition responsible for its own foreign affairs and has borders across which foreign armies may not step. I can't see that happening with Israel as it's currently constituted having a say in the matter. I'd be far happier with a non-discriminatory single state of Israel encompassing the Holy Land in its entirety.

Some Jews born in the United States have an empathy for Israel, some disapprove of its very existence. Both positions are held in good faith.

Oh ... okay then I have no more to say on this particular subject ... thank you for your input ... as I said before ... you are fully entitled to your opinion as i am ..

oh and this "Some Jews born in the United States have an empathy for Israel, some disapprove of its very existence. Both positions are held in good faith."

isn't quite accurate ... "MOST Jews born in the United States ..., VERY FEW disapprove ..."

I shall meet with you again no doubt on some other thread ...

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:49 pm

Kittypaws;731740 wrote: Should we list all of the human rights abuses that Israel *is* guilty of - the list is even longer and attested by the likes of Amnesty International as opposed to your tabloid hyperbole.

Please do and also state why in your opinion the United States has not invaded Israel or is critical of Israel .... unlike Saudi Arabia ... this sovereign democratic country where regular elections are held and which has a free press and where women have the same rights as men ... has no oil ... so if they are guilty of all these human rights abuses ... why does the USA not condemn them as it does other countries that are also guilty of human rights abuses?

Also please state if you are Anti-Semetic ... Anti-Zionist or Anti-Israel and don't insult my intelligence by saying neither of the above ... unless of course you are just Anti-United States of America ...

Oh I know! You're gonna say: "No on the contrary I am not anti-USA and I am not anti-Semetic or anti Zionist or anti Israel ... i'm only anti-Bush!" ... Yeah Right!!

And talking of hyperbole ... what could be more exaggerated than ..."all of the human rights abuses that Israel *is* guilty of - the list is even longer and attested by the likes of Amnesty International ..."

Oh and seeing as how you are reluctant to comment or the British occupation of Northern Island and the gross human rights violations that were commited there by the occuping forces or the barbaric treatment meted out by the British against the Boers in South Africa ... i assume that you consider these to also be "tabloid hyperbole"

Oh sorry ... we're only supposed to be knocking the USA here aren't we?

Please do not put words into my mouth - I am perfectly capable of stating my position for myself and perfectly willing to do so.

Firstly, I am not anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist but I am highly critical of the actions of the Israeli state and their dealings with the Palestinians - especially those within its boarders who are citizens of that state.

Secondly, I am not anti-American, if by that you mean against the people of America, but I am highly critical of the foreign policy of the American government.

Thirdly, I do not recall having expressed an opinion about the Troubles or the Boer War - I do not see that they are at all relevant to a discussion about the Middle East.

The USA is very unlikely to invade Israel, or even criticize her, whilst the American Jewish population form such a large and vocal lobby group with a large and proven ability to swing votes. I note in passing that the US is also very reluctant to invade or criticize China despite all of her well known human rights failings.

In what way is ."all of the human rights abuses that Israel *is* guilty of - the list is even longer and attested by the likes of Amnesty International ..." exaggerated hyperbole? You put up a list of human rights abuses you accuse a long list of countries of having committed. I have stated a belief that there is a list, longer than the list you posted, of human rights abuses levelled against the state of Israel. I repeat, in what way is that exaggerated hyperbole?

As to that list. Let's see if I can back up my claim and product a list longer than the one you posted - seven entries now that I look back.

Many of the alleged hras are connected with the building of the Wall and the denial of access for Palestinians to their own land :-

* The construction of the fence/wall inside the Occupied Territories violates international law, is based on land confiscation and is causing grave human rights violations. In addition, military checkpoints, blockades and a barrage of other restrictions confine Palestinians to their homes or immediate surroundings. As a result, the Palestinian economy has virtually collapsed.

* In addition to the fence/wall, the movement of Palestinians is severely constrained by a host of other restrictions, including over 500 checkpoints and blockades, and a network of roads for Israeli settlers to use which is off-limits to Palestinians. The barrier, together with these roads and roadblocks, benefit continuously expanding but unlawful Israeli settlements and make them territorially contiguous with Israel.

Along the same lines is the illegal destruction of Palestinian homes :-

* Over the past five years, close to 20,000 Palestinians have been made homeless and thousands of others have lost their livelihood as the Israeli army has destroyed over 4,000 homes, vast areas of agricultural land and hundreds of other properties.

# On 29 October, the Israeli army forced more than 200 Palestinians from their homes in the village of Khirbet Qassa , Hebron District. The small village was established in the 1950s and most of its residents are refugees from the village of Beit Jibrin . The new Tarkumiya checkpoint, which lies very close to the Green Line, is being built near the village.

the illegal restriction of movement :-

* The sweeping restrictions on the movement of Palestinians are disproportionate and discriminatory – they are imposed on all Palestinians because they are Palestinians, and not on Israeli settlers who live illegally in the Occupied Territories. Even though the Israeli authorities claim that such measures are always imposed to protect the security of Israelis, the restrictions imposed within the Occupied Territories do not target particular individuals who are believed to pose a threat. They are broad and indiscriminate in their application and as such are unlawful. They have a severe negative impact on the lives of millions of Palestinians who have not committed any offence.

# Israel continues to delay entry of toddlers with cystic fibrosis

The two children require monthly treatment at Hadassah Hospital. Since September 2007, Israel has refused both parents entry permits into Israel. Unable to reach treatment, the children's condition has deteriorated.

# Gazan cancer patient dies after Israel denies him access to treatment

Na'el al-Kurdi, 21, died yesterday in Gaza. On 8 November, Physicians for Human Rights petitioned the High Court to allow him and 10 other patients requiring urgent treatment to enter Israel or go abroad. The court ordered the state to respond within seven days.

and the denial of essential infrastructure :-

* Cutting off the supply of basic necessities such as water and electricity -- which Gazans cannot obtain from elsewhere because of the blockades imposed by Israel -- would constitute collective punishment of Gaza's population in violation international humanitarian law, which prohibits all forms of collective punishment.

# Petition to Supreme Court against Suspension of Power Supply to Gaza

Human rights organizations filed a petition against Israel's illegal decision to cut off vital electricity and fuel supply to Gaza as a collective punishment measure.

Added to this are hras connected to the holding of political prisoners :-

* Over 8000 Palestinians, most of whom are nonviolent prisoners of conscience and few if any of whom have received trials that meet international standards, are being held as political prisoners.

* Thousands of Palestinians, hundreds of them children, have been arbitrarily detained in mass arrests. Most have been released without charge and often without having been questioned. Ill-treatment of detainees has become once again widespread during arrest and interrogation and some have been tortured. Some 800 Palestinians are held in administrative detention without charge or trial, on the basis of "secret evidence", which neither they nor their lawyers are allowed to see or challenge in court. Most detainees cannot receive family visits because of the closures preventing movement of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories

and the killing of civilians :-

* More than 2,000 Palestinians have been killed, most of them unlawfully, by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), who routinely use F16 fighter jets, helicopter gunships and tanks to bomb and shell densely populated Palestinian residential areas. The victims included some 380 children . Some 100 individuals have been killed in targeted state assassinations. In the course of such attacks, the IDF and security services have killed scores and injured hundreds of other men, women and children bystanders.

# The State Attorney's Office has consented to have an independent committee examine the circumstances of a targeted killing. The case involves a 2002 bomb attack on a residential building that killed Salah Shahadeh and fourteen others, 13 of them civilians.

torturing them :-

# In March 2007 the police arrested 7 Palestinian construction workers in a building site in Beer Sheva and interrogated them. According to testimonies given to B'Tselem, at least three of the detainees were tortured during their interrogation.

or just beating them :-

# On 5 May 2007, the Border Police set up a flying checkpoint near ‘Ajjul, Nablus District. The police officers removed three young men from taxis that were waiting at the checkpoint and took them behind the Border Police jeep, where one of the officers severely beat the men with his club for more than ten minutes.

That is only including some of the direct hras from two sites - one of the Israeli human rights sites (#) and Amnesty International (*).

If you allow abuses that are not directly against humans we can start with the building of illegal settlement in the West Bank :-

Jerusalem's city council plans to build three new Jewish settlements on land it occupied in 1967, in contravention of international law, it was announced yesterday. The estates will be built on land that has been earmarked for a future Palestinian state, close to Bethlehem and Ramallah.International law forbids construction on land acquired by war, but since 1967 Israel has built homes for around 500,000 Israelis in the West Bank and Jerusalem.

and continue from there.

mor · Post by **mor** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:54 pm

koan;728058 wrote: Algeria

Bahrain

Egypt

Iraq

Iran

Israel

Jordan

Kuwait

Lebanon

Libya

Morocco

Oman

Palestine (as proposed)

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

Sudan

Syria

Tunisia

Turkey

UAE

Yemen

It seems that most of these countries are widely hated and seen as backwards, countries that can't govern their own affairs. This is the Middle East. Shall we decide their fate for them?

hated and backwards seem really strong words.

Post by **spot** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:57 pm

The denigration of countries in the Middle East is often expressed in even more vivid language. Do you doubt that they're hated or accused of being backward?

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:07 pm

mor;732130 wrote: hated and backwards seem really strong words.

I agree.

There are, as Galbally pointed out (in his very delightful and informative post!), a number of countries missing from the list. I should make sure we don't leave them out.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 3:02 pm

Okay here are some more entries in "Galbally's Guide to the Middle East and the Islamic World".

Pakistan: This is a big country that used to be part of India, but was partitioned from India in 1948 by the British when they gave up and went home, (I believe that was Louis Mountbatten's Idea). Its obvious that 1948 was a great year for waccy partitions. The resultant civil war that broke out resulted in an estimated 2 million deaths and the greatest population movements ever witnessed in modern times. Pakistan then went through various political upheavals usually resulting in a military dictatorship and a little war with India. Has experienced periods of democracy though and once even elected a woman Prime Minister, (those crazy guys :rolleyes:). Pakistan is a poor country with tens of millions of its citizens living in abject poverty, therefore it was obviously necessary to spend billions of dollars on a nuclear weapons program to keep up with the Indian joneses, (who are actually called the Singhs). Currently ruled by a military Junta led by President Musharrif, who in a bold move took his Uniform off the other day. They are going to have elections in a few weeks, which will be interesting as all of the opposition candidates have been jailed for having the cheek to be opposition candidates. Pakistan is undergoing a process of radicalization, which is not being helped by the situation next door in Afganistan. Because this is such a potentially huge problem the West is completely ignoring it and focusing on much more important things like Britney Spears battle with depression.

Afganistan: Has a history that is interlinked with that of their close neighbours Iran. Afganistan has always been famous for the fierceness of its peoples, so of course the British just had to have a go in the 19th Century, which was a difficult episode to say the least, they were joined at this time by those other famous Imperialists, the Russians. In the 20th Century Afganistan was not such a bad place and Kabul was apparently a pretty nice spot. Of course this situation was completely intolerable and the Russians invaded in 1979, cue pandemonium. This sparked an insurgency led by the Mugahadeen (including one Osama Bin Laden) who were fighters from across the Muslim world and financed by the CIA and Saudi Arabia, as these countries were more afraid of the Soviets than they were of the Mujahadeen, which in hindsight was a bit of a miscalculation. These fighters fought an incredibly fierce battle against the Soviet Union and bled the Red Army white, being partly responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Empire in 1989. Unfortunatly they weren't finished there and decided that it was important to spread their Jihad against infidels across the globe taking on all comers and inevitably coming up against their own paymasters the U.S., who didn't take any of them seriously until one of them managed to build up the Al Queda movement and attack the U.S. directly on its own soil killing thousands and causing billions of dollars of damage. Meanwhile Afganistan spiralled and eventually ended up being ruled by the Taliban. These lovable rouges initiated a period of ultra-reactionary Islamic totalitarianism that involved banning books, music, dancing, bright clothes, sport and women in general. To counter the dismay of the population at not being able to do basically anything except eat approved food and grow heroin, the Taliban made it obligatory for everyone to have 3 foot long beards, and turned public executions into a public spectator sport held in the country's now unused Soccer stadiums. And if you think this is part of my comedy routine you are wrong, they actually did all these things. Unfortunatly they came a cropper when they decided to give Osama Bin Laden (that man again) sanctuary and after September 11th they were overthrown by the US backed by local tribes who had had enough of the Taliban. This was a good thing, but then the US decided to also invade Iraq (for a laugh) and then everyone promptly ignored Afganistan again, which is now badly policed by US special forces, and a large amount of very reluctant European troops on National Service, (including the always-game-for-a-punch-up British who currently are fighting a quite serious war against the re-organized Taliban using equipment that the MOD bought in a pound shop in Hackney. Despite having a budget of about £34.50 the British Army is holding its own, though morale is at an all time low, and the Prime Minister is not very popular with his senior Army Staff). This war has also caused quite a lot of friction in NATO with everyone basically trying to cover their arses. Despite all this, Afganistan continues to supply about 90 percent of the worlds heroin as it has for decades. Confused? You will be! Watch this space for more fun and games.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 4:07 pm

Here are a few more off the list.

Bangladesh: Like Pakistan was partitioned from the rest of ex-British India in 1948 and was originally called East Pakistan, despite being separated from the rest of Pakistan by over 1,000 km. The population is made up of Muslim Bengalis who did not want to be part of the Indian state with their Hindu Bengali neighbours. Eventually following conflict and political strife decided to seek full independence as Bangladesh. Since full statehood Bangladesh's major problems are based on its precarious coastal areas which are prone to frequent flooding, tropical storms and Earthquakes, one such even claimed the lives of over 250,000 people. Most recently have had to deal with another tropical storm that has killed thousands. Bangladesh is an unlucky country, though this is not the fault of its people.

Indonesia: Indonesia, an archipelago in SE Asia, this is the most populous muslim country in the world as its home to over 200 million people. Colonized by the Dutch (for a change) and exploited for its natural resources. Gained independence from the Dutch in the Early 20th century. Started well, but unfortunatly the military decided to take over an instigate a totalitarian government that has gone on a campaign of repression of its own people, annexation of small neighbours like East Timor, and widespread environmental destruction of irreplaceable pristine habitats. Its captial city is Jakarta, ruled by a succession of non-entity generals, it has some very beautiful natural environments, an ancient SE Asian culture, and not everything is bad, but there could be a lot of improvement.

Chechyna: An ex-soviet republic in the Caucuses region of central Asia between the Caspian and Black sea. Its a mountainous land traditionally inhabited by a fierce tribe of warriors that adopted Islam in Medieval times. Annexed by Czarist Russia during Russia's huge expansion in the 19th century. Famously the entire population was deported to Siberia by "uncle" Joeseph Stalin the 1950s because they annoyed him. Stalin was quite the prankster really. However, they were all sent back after Stalin died as the politburo decided that in this case he had gone a bit too far in the practical joke department. Fast forward to the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1989, following this the Chechens saw their chance to break away from their Russian masters. Unfortunatly the Russians decided to make an example of the chechens and leveled the country in a counter-insurgency war that was brutal in the extreme. This war involved the use of all forms of conventional weapons up to the use of ballistic missiles on the Chechen's capital city Grozny. Despite this, the Chechens fought on, despite the fact that they have little outside support, no money, and not a lot of guns. Amazingly the Russians have failed to really beat the Chenchens and bloody stalemate is in progress, which will break out into outright hostility as soon as Putin rigs the Russian constitution to make himself leader for another term. Any Russian journalists investigating what is going on in Chechyna are generally murdered and the West ignores it because there isn't much it can do, and Chechyna is not very important.

more later!

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 4:22 pm

Absolutely brilliant, Galbally!

The best thing for this thread is to see the bigger picture of all these places that get summarized into one stereotype. Special thanks, for making it so enjoyable to read.

Kittypaws · Post by **Kittypaws** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:08 pm

Dear Mr. Bryn Mawr:

I do not wish to put words in your mouth however you have made the following two statements:

"Firstly, I am not anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist but I am highly critical of the actions of the Israeli state and their dealings with the Palestinians - especially those within its boarders (sic)who are citizens of that state.

Secondly, I am not anti-American, if by that you mean against the people of America, but I am highly critical of the foreign policy of the American government."

Why sir if you are so critical of the American government have you have gone to such lengths to find the most desparaging things to say about Israel? Your words in the above two paragraphs do not ring true in my ears.

Unlike Mr Spot ... in my opinion you are not a gentleman so I will no longer spend time in debate with you

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:10 pm

Kittypaws;732490 wrote: in my opinion you are not a gentleman so I will no longer spend time in debate with you

in my opinion you are not a lady

As far as Israel goes, one can only really say that all those crimes are the sad truth... and that is how one can say such things about them.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:54 am

Kittypaws;732490 wrote: Dear Mr. Bryn Mawr:

I do not wish to put words in your mouth however you have made the following two statements:

"Firstly, I am not anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist but I am highly critical of the actions of the Israeli state and their dealings with the Palestinians - especially those within its boarders (sic)who are citizens of that state.

Secondly, I am not anti-American, if by that you mean against the people of America, but I am highly critical of the foreign policy of the American government."

Why sir if you are so critical of the American government have you have gone to such lengths to find the most desparaging things to say about Israel? Your words in the above two paragraphs do not ring true in my ears.

Unlike Mr Spot ... in my opinion you are not a gentleman so I will no longer spend time in debate with you

What on earth are you talking about?

We have been having a discussion about the Middle East, not America - it was you that introduced the USA as a side issue.

You accused the Muslim countries of human rights abuses, holding up Israel as a paragon of virtue. When I suggested that Israel was itself guilty of human rights abuses you said I was using exaggerated hyperbole. You also implied that I am anti-Semitic and anti-American - charges which I strongly deny.

When I prove my case you try to reverse the subject.

You, madam are mad - either that or deliberately disingenuous which, on a discussion forum, is even worse.

If you cannot discuss the subject at hand then stay out of the thread.

If you cannot put forward a cogent argument then why join the debate?

If you are wrong then have the good grace to admit it.