102. Random - Oct. 12, 1998 - 4:19 PM PT
They've ruined this thread which had such potentially for learning more about the Israeli-Palestinian problems. I, too, am gone.
103. ptboya - Oct. 12, 1998 - 8:24 PM PT
No Random. I think they made their point and are content to let it play out now. Remember, turnabout is fair play except for those innocent bystanders. This is THE lesson extremists on both sides of the Arab/Israeli divide could learn as well. The horror of collateral damage is easily repressed in the mind anticipating the sweet taste of revenge.
104. alistairconnor - Oct. 12, 1998 - 9:55 PM PT
That's nicely said, pt. Now if our host can get it through his head that he can't play terrorist in foreign threads and expect to stay safe and cosy in his god-given homeland, sorry I mean thread...
105. davidmeyer - Oct. 12, 1998 - 11:07 PM PT
I debated in college in 1995-96; the topic was: "the United States government should substantially increase security assistance to one or more of the following entities: Egypt, Israel, Syria, Jordan, or the Palestinian National Authority."
We advocated creating a remote sensing program to establish a clearing house for satellite information - we claimed that it would facilitate confidence building measures and help reduce some of the tension over water reserves, since it would be known when water was being diverted.
The obvious downside is that it would facilitate missle targetting and offensive military strategy, but we argued that both tension reduction and easier counter-measures would compensate. An interesting idea.
Another interesting topic is the role Russia should play in the ME. Syria and Russia have historically been allies; a major foreign policy success could shore up the legitimacy of the Russian govt, especially since Primakov would be able to claim so much credit personally.
106. ptboya - Oct. 13, 1998 - 2:29 PM PT
As is clear from the latest outrage in the woods near Jerusalem, the extremists on either side can derail this process at any time. Hopefully Netanyahu will have the strength to look to the future.
107. iswool - Oct. 14, 1998 - 11:54 AM PT
With regard to confidence building measures, what ever happened to the Israeli-Jordanian-Palestinian water desalinization plant? Wasn't one of the points of Oslo to create peace-based facts on the ground that produce tangible benefits for all sides?
109. RustlerPike - Oct. 15, 1998 - 5:25 AM PT
Quiz question:
Who created the Hamas, and nurtured it in its early days?
answers:
a) Yitzhak Rabin
b) Sheikh Ahmed Yasin
c) Mustafa Natshe, mayor of Hebron.
d) Iran
110. DanDillon - Oct. 15, 1998 - 5:35 AM PT
e) all of the above
111. marjoribanks - Oct. 15, 1998 - 6:38 AM PT
A)
112. ptboya - Oct. 15, 1998 - 7:11 AM PT
One little tidbit of info I have to offer here. When marjoribanks says "A" he really means "A + 1" - just a clarification. <g>
113. MrSocko - Oct. 15, 1998 - 7:22 AM PT
Hamas was nurtured by Israel at the time of the Lebanon invasion. So the answer is: none of the above.
114. ptboya - Oct. 15, 1998 - 7:37 AM PT
Since when is nurturing equivalent to creation? I agree with Dan's reply.
115. MrSocko - Oct. 15, 1998 - 7:44 AM PT
PTB:
Oh, I see. Pray tell us the role Mr. Rabin played in creating Hamas.
116. ptboya - Oct. 15, 1998 - 10:07 PM PT
OK…
First, let me repeat that I admire and respect Rabin, mostly because of his evolution as a man… from a soldier, who sometimes acted not so righteously (his call to beat and break bones comes to mind) to a genuine peacemaker. I have no such respect for hamas, it being an organization and not a person. I note only this hypothetical… had Israel lost territory at any stage, Israelis who used force to try to regain that territory would no doubt be treated as heroes.
The broken bones statement, was of course *nurturance* to hamas and the intifada since they already existed. Rabin's act which definitely was prior to the existence of hamas and which can be seen as helping its inevitable *creation* occurred in '48. Rabin then commanded the Harel Brigades that defended Jerusalem during Israel's war of independence. In this position he oversaw the expulsion of 50,000 Palestinian men, women and children from coastal areas of what is now Israel. As RustlerPike has stated, the old fiction that these people left because other arab nations directed them to is now judged by historians as propaganda. Return of territories is, of course, part of hamas's charter.
117. MrSocko - Oct. 15, 1998 - 11:33 PM PT
Well, I must say that you don't seem very well informed about Hamas. As a paramilitary force, it was nurtured during the time of the Lebanon invasion as a counterweight to the PLO. Rabin's involvement in this process was negligible, if at all. You also appear unaware that a great deal of Hamas's traditional activities have been charitable, some of which I would consider to be quite praiseworthy.
118. RustlerPike - Oct. 16, 1998 - 12:44 AM PT
MrSocko:
Before you get yourself into trouble: Rabin was secretary of defense under Peres and Shamir during the rotation government of 1984-1988. The Israeli invasion of Lebanon lasted until 1985, when Israel pulled out of most of the territory it had occupied in 1982, leaving only the "security zone" in its - and its proxy's - hands.
It was this period I referred to in the quiz question - so Marjoribanks was right, and you're right too. Rabin created and nurtured the Hamas, during the time of the Israeli invasion/occupation of Lebanon.
At least - that is my recollection. That it was Rabin's idea - and not his predecessor, Arens'. The idea was to create a counterweight to the PLO in the territories.
There had been an attempt to nurture something called "Agudot Hakfarim" - the Assosiations of Villages - before that, but this had not caught on very well. It was too obviously an Israeli creation, an artificial body of armed collaborators. So the Israeli Administration of the Territories came up with the idea of fostering a religious-based social-oriented movement, as an alternative to the nationalist PLO. This caught so well, it's been exploding in our faces ever since.
119. RustlerPike - Oct. 16, 1998 - 1:05 AM PT
ptboya:
Rabin's call to break bones was his initial, rather stupid, response to the Intifada, which broke out in November (December?) 1987. He gave instructions to take Arab stonethrowers and break their arms and legs, instead of arresting and trying them, which he found to be clumsy and ineffective when dealing with a massive uprising.
(Rabin was always complaining about the Israeli laws which, he felt, made it impossible to properly deal with the "bad guys" in the territories. He thought it made no sense to allow a terrorist to appeal to the Israeli Supreme Court against his house being demolished).
There were officers who carried out this policy on one or two occasions (they rounded up some youths, took them somewhere out of town, and proceeded to break their bones with truncheons), but this was as far as it got. There was a big hue and cry, the officers and soldiers involved were put on trial, and Rabin had to think of less offensive ways to quell the uprising.
He finally came up with Oslo, 6 years later.
120. RustlerPike - Oct. 16, 1998 - 1:16 AM PT
Hey guys - there are some Arabs who live in my settlement, Katzir (about 20 of the 600 families on this settlement are Arab, I believe). I don't know any of them. If you encourage me, I'll go visit one of them - I'm thinking of someone specific - and ask him to join this debate.
I know he's a lawyer, and pretty politically oriented. His coming to live here, in the middle of a Jewish settlement, was as at least partly a political-legal statement. I believe he had to defend it in court, and did so rather successfully. I also saw him being interviewed about it on TV, and I think the story made it to international television as well.
I have no idea if he is connected to the internet, how good his English is, or how amenable he would be to this suggestion, but I'll do it if you encourage me to.
What do you think?
121. ptboya - Oct. 16, 1998 - 7:57 AM PT
"As a paramilitary force, it was nurtured during the time of the Lebanon invasion as a counterweight to the PLO."
Socko, perhaps I wasn't clear about the semantic distinction between *creation* and *nurturance*. I see the two as distinct. I know when hamas came into being and I am aware that much of their work is community based charitable stuff.
Still, that doesn't alter my view of the marketplace suicide bombings for which it has taken credit. I'm just not in favor of any acts of war which either targets civilians or, to put the best face on it, disregards collateral damage, whether by hamas or the Israeli air force.
Great idea Rustler. Invite him in.
122. MrSocko - Oct. 16, 1998 - 5:54 PM PT
Pike:
I believe you're wrong with regard to who set up what. Unfortunately, we're both appear to be going on recollection -- guess I'd better dig out that Friedman book again!
ptb:
Really, you appear to be impossibly idealistic. This is the Mideast, this is Hama Rules! Are you familiar with how the game is played?
123. MrSocko - Oct. 16, 1998 - 5:54 PM PT
Pike:
I believe you're wrong with regard to who set up what. Unfortunately, we both appear to be going on recollection -- guess I'd better dig out that Friedman book again!
ptb:
Really, you appear to be impossibly idealistic. This is the Mideast, this is Hama Rules! Are you familiar with how the game is played?
124. RustlerPike - Oct. 16, 1998 - 10:38 PM PT
Socko:
Encourage me to call on this guy, will you? I need one more gentle prod.
125. wexxford1 - Oct. 17, 1998 - 6:18 AM PT
Will RustlerPike get the guy to tell us about the inflation rate in Israel and Jordan ? How is the currency holding upin Israel , Rustler ? Is the local currency used or barred in the big new casino ? How's the local stock market now that the chips arew down ?
126. RustlerPike - Oct. 17, 1998 - 1:22 PM PT
wexx:
The dollar has gone from around 3.8 NIS to 4.1 NIS in a week, which means that prices are going up too. Before this happened, though, inflation was pretty low. There was even negative inflation one month, I think. Unemployment is very high though - over 200 thousand unemployed, I believe. I'm very bad at this economics stuff.
And someone, a religious MP I think, has demanded the casino in Jericho be closed down. He says that according to the Oslo accords, anything which is illegal in Israel, is also illegal in the PA.
I was in Jerusalem today. Pretty scary place. Too much religion, too much history everywhere.
127. ptboya - Oct. 17, 1998 - 1:37 PM PT
Socko…
Pray tell, show me some idealistic statements I've made, since you've seen fit to twice impugn me. Itchy trigger finger again uh?
Rustler…
I think what is important about Rabin's dictate, to break bones, was that it showed to the world that Israel was not immune to the tendency to treat one's enemies as something less than human. That video, shot from a distance, of soldiers repeatedly smashing bones with large rocks was truly devastating. The veil was lifted for those who foolishly believed that a long and vivid history of oppression visited upon a people would cause them to act more humanely. I use "foolishly" advisedly, because human nature always trumps ethnic differences, no matter how much these differences are magnified in the mind by hatred.
128. MrSocko - Oct. 17, 1998 - 5:27 PM PT
"The veil was lifted for those who foolishly believed that a long and vivid history of oppression visited upon a people would cause them to act more humanely."
That's part of the problem, isn't it? The Jews do something bad and the world clutches its skirts in horror, saying, "Oh, just look at those Jews -- they've had so many bad things happen to them, and now look at what they're doing to others!" To which I would say, "Well, the Jews are humans, and if they act like humans, then so fucking what? For 2000 years the Jews have taught the world how to be moral, and look where *that* got them!"
PTB, I would urge you to read the chapter titled "Hama Rules" in Friedman's _From Beirut to Jerusalem_. It has a nice line about the approach of Americans such as yourself to the Mideast: "Americans approach this region as if it were a one-dimensional game of draughts," Friedman writes. "Unfortunately, as they soon discover, the truth is that it's a three-dimensional game of chess."
(I'm quoting the above line from memory. I know I've gotten the thrust of it right.)
129. RustlerPike - Oct. 19, 1998 - 10:59 AM PT
I'm such a wuss! I made it all the way out of my car and down the steps leading to this Arab family's house and couldn't bring myself to knock on the door. I think I'll try again on Saturday, in the daytime.
You see - the thing that bothers me is - they don't really want to fit in at all. They send their children to an Arab school outside of our settlement, and they don't seem to mix at all... and this is a very community-oriented type of place. So there's a problem there.
I've never seen them *anywhere* - except on TV! Not at the grocery store, not at the shop or the post office... and there is obviously a political statement to an Arab family coming to live here. Just as there was a political statement in building this settlement in a predominantly Arab area, I guess.
I guess I sound hopelessly racist, don't I. But consider this: if I decided to live in Umm el-Fahm, where he's originally from, I'd probably get my ass whooped the same night.
130. ChristinO - Oct. 19, 1998 - 11:16 AM PT
Speaking of ass whuppin' have you recieved your birthday spankings yet? Although I suppose I shouldn't encourage violence of any kind here in the Fray. I guess I'll settle for:
HAPPY BIRTHDAY RUS!
131. Jenerator - Oct. 19, 1998 - 1:46 PM PT
ChristinO,
Good call!
RustlerPike,
HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!:) I hope it's a great one for you!
132. xkennedy - Oct. 19, 1998 - 3:13 PM PT
Arabs vs. Jews. No one to root for!
133. ChristinO - Oct. 19, 1998 - 3:59 PM PT
Regardless of whom you agree with or whether you disdain the actions or goals of either side we're still talking about people's lives and freedom. It's not a ball game.
134. xkennedy - Oct. 19, 1998 - 4:20 PM PT
Well, let's see. During WW2, after the invasion of Russia by the Germans, various groups who were overrun formed guerrilla groups known as partisans and conducted terrorist attacks on the Germans and their lines of communication. They are generally regarded in a favorable light today. Why, therefore, should we look upon the equivalent attacks upon an invader negatively as in the Israel-Palastine situation? Why are the Israelis in the west bank except through agression?
135. MrSocko - Oct. 19, 1998 - 5:35 PM PT
xkennedy:
I sense that you feel that you have just said something profound, even remarkable. Actually, it's quite beside the point as to why the Israelis are where they are. The fact is that they are there, the others are there, so now how can they continue to live without killing each other? What's your solution?
136. xkennedy - Oct. 19, 1998 - 8:30 PM PT
MrSocko
My solution: Have the Israelis move back to the pre-1967 borders. Permit the Palestinians to achieve statehood on the remaining lands. Return the Golan Heights to Syria. Acknowledge the right of the Israelis to exist within the previous borders. Move on from there. The current situation where Israel holds a captive people in subjugation is abhorrent to me and to most of the world and should nto be tolerated.
137. ptboya - Oct. 19, 1998 - 8:35 PM PT
Socko…
I'll be happy to look up Friedman's book. Though I gave it as a gift to a friend I've never read it. I believe it is a compilation of his NY Times editorials isn't it? I've read most of those, so I'm familiar with his take. Generally, I find him too willing to treat this area of the world as a special case, mysteriously not amenable to ordinary laws, ethics, politics and diplomacy established through the course of hundreds of years of prior conflicts. It's like sayng one can't do anything about the Balkans because after all it's the Serbs… or the Albanians or whomever. Bushwah… that's essentialism at its worst. All conflicts are like three dimensional chess. All are amenable to similar solutions.
138. ptboya - Oct. 19, 1998 - 8:44 PM PT
x…
"The current situation where Israel holds a captive people in subjugation is abhorrent to me and to most of the world…"
It's also tactically stupid. The energy it takes to do this saps the strength and eventually the self respect and the morale of the captor.
139. RustlerPike - Oct. 19, 1998 - 9:44 PM PT
pt, x:
What about if the captor has been stateless for 1900 years, and has returned to his ancestral homeland, after learning the hard way that without it, he's better off dead?
What if the subjugated people are part of a much larger nation, with 21 humungous independent countries of its own and 100 times more people than the subjugator, which wants the subjugator dead and will do anything to achieve that, including things suicidal? How many other cases like that do you knowledgeable guys know?
140. MrSocko - Oct. 19, 1998 - 9:49 PM PT
xkennedy:
Well, that seems mostly reasonable to me. A demilitarized Palestinian state is, I believe, realistic, as is Israel's right to exist within the pre-1967 borders. Some agreement will be needed to hammer out the status of Jews already living in the West Bank, which shouldn't be all that hard given that Israel itself allows nearly 1m Arabs to be full citizens of the Jewish state.
I don't see any great need to return the Golan to Syria. Syria lost the Golan in a war of its own making. Unless the country's leadership is prepared to make an offering more substantial than merely whispering the word "Peace" then, it's really their tough shit.
ptb:
The Friedman book is a book in its own right, much more than merely stitching together a few NYT columns. I personally don't much like Friedman's op-ed pieces -- they're most pompous and glib, such as when he uses the journalistic device of writing "letters" to various heads of Mideastern states. His book is top-notch, however.
141. RustlerPike - Oct. 19, 1998 - 10:33 PM PT
Thank you Chris and Jen!!! Swwwaaak!!!!
142. ptboya - Oct. 20, 1998 - 7:39 AM PT
Thanks Socko… I'll look up the book. I was only hesitant because my feelings about his pomposity and glibness match yours.
Rustler…
The history of humans is that of a migrating species. There are many definable groups that have always been stateless. Nation states are after all modern inventions. There is no law of our species that says a group, however one defines it, is entitled to a nation. Liberia is a nation founded by ex American slaves. The suffering of the definable group, Africans, in the Americas, was used to justify their desire for a nation to protect them from further suffering, but it has done nothing to ameliorate the predictable conflict between those nation building ex-slaves and the indigenous people. That conflict still rages. The problem is similar in Israel.The Palestinians have been indigenous to the area for millenia.
Now suppose that we agree that all groups which have suffered grievously are entitled to the protection of a homeland… Jews, Kurds, Liberians etc. Does that mean that the Kurds e.g., should then get a pass on adherance to international law if they are granted such a territorial homeland? Or, should they be held to the same standards as others? Would they be condemned if they expelled non-Kurds living in the granted territories? Would they be condemned for attempts to alter populations in adjacent territories? It's clear they would be, on both moral and legal grounds. Of course there is the question of the power and will of those who would enforce international law. E.g., though China is condemned for its actions in Tibet (an attempt to completely alter the demographics of the area by settling Chinese) no country has the power to enforce action to stop them.
143. marjoribanks - Oct. 20, 1998 - 10:55 AM PT
"What about if the captor has been stateless for 1900 years, and has returned to his ancestral homeland, after learning the hard way that without it, he's better off dead?
What if the subjugated people are part of a much larger nation, with 21 humungous independent countries of its own and 100 times more people than the subjugator, which wants the subjugator dead and will do anything to achieve that, including things suicidal? How many other cases like that do you knowledgeable guys know?"
Well, such an example doesn't exist anywhere in the world in the first place.
The "captor" in the Israel/Palestinian theatre is a cobbled together multiethnic agglomeration loosely named 'the Jews'. The sheer diversity of humanity in this mix is not an insignificant matter, it points to why "homeland" comments are absurd rhetoric.
You distort the reality of the Arab world. There is nothing resembling the cohesiveness you imply, the imbalance of population is not in least bit relevant to Israel's security or well-being, and your speculations regarding Arab motivations are overheated and extremely suspect.
144. ScottLoar - Oct. 20, 1998 - 11:58 AM PT
Mentioned elsewhere other than in this or the International thread is news from Israeli sources that Saddam Hussein has cancer. The fickle finger of fate...
145. RustlerPike - Oct. 20, 1998 - 12:09 PM PT
ptboya, marj:
You make rather silly points. I really think I'd better go talk to that Arab neighbor of mine on Saturday and try and get him to join us here, if only to make the debate more interesting.
Wrt to statehood vs. wandering: we Jews were wanderers for about 1900 years. We did not enjoy it. We will not go back to it - ever. I believe I speak for a majority of Israelis when I say that we would rather go down (up?) in a ball of flames than go back to the Diaspora, as a nation. The Holocaust is too recent a memory. Sorry! Maybe a hundred years from now, or 200. Not anytime soon though.
The nation-state is a modern invention which has its roots in the biblical idea of nationhood. The Bible describes a nation that can survive outside its borders if it is forced to, but which always strives to return to its homeland, and which is connected to its land by the strongest possible bonds. There is no way one can exaggerate the bond between the Hebrews and their land, as it is portrayed, and manifested, in the Bible.
Really it makes me laugh that you guys lecture me on nation-states, and on my right (or lack of) to a country of my own. I don't know where you guys are from (marj is English/Indian, right?), but let me tell you something, and I hope I don't sound like I'm lecturing: the United States of America is one of the world's youngest nations, a mere 220 years old. The English are a pretty old nation. Maybe a thousand years old, maybe a bit more.
The Jews are one of the oldest nations out there, if not the oldest. We've been ourselves for 4000 years. We remember the friggin' Romans, Greeks, and ancient Egyptians.
(cont.)
146. RustlerPike - Oct. 20, 1998 - 12:24 PM PT
(cont.)
We were there, and we were a nation, and our basic religion and identity has not changed, though it has developed considerably, and we have a clear, unbroken heritage connecting us with all phases of our history (unlike the Greeks, who were not a nation in their glory days, but a collection of city-states, whose religion has changed from pagan to monotheistic, and whose modern identity is hard to connect with their ancient one).
Now - the Palestinians - they are probably the *youngest* nation out there. The Palestinian movement was born about the same time I was (al-Fatah was founded in 1964). As far as I know, this is when the Arabs this side of the Jordan started referring to themselves as a nation, as Palestinians (and not just Arabs).
So here is the (arguably) youngest nation on earth telling the (arguably) oldest nation on earth that they do not belong on their homeland. Actually - even the Palestinians have accepted our existence. Only ptboya hasn't.
As for the ethnic mixing argument - I really don't know what you're getting at, marj. And we've had this argument before, with Pe. Then someone provided a link to genetic research that showed a very definite genetic bond between Jews of different backgrounds, which satisfied Pe (no less).
Besides, who's to say the Palestinians aren't a mix of Samaritan, Edomite, Canaanite, Arab, Turkish, and Jewish blood? They probably are.
"the imbalance of population is not in least bit relevant to Israel's security or well-being":
You're seriously saying that there being 100 times more Arabs than Israelis doesn't mean anything, security-wise? You joking or what?
147. epartee - Oct. 20, 1998 - 1:07 PM PT
I don't have a problem with people in power subjugating the people without it. That's the way the barbaric world of so-called civilization has always worked (right, wrong, whatever). My problem is, as an American citizen, if I'm paying my tax dollar to oppress someone, I damn well have a right to choose whom I wish to put the boot on. I don't have a beef with Palestinians, so why is so much of MY MONEY flowing from the US government to help Israel solve its problems? And don't say national security, because we all know that the most dangerous nations these days are the ones who combine religious zealotry with nuclear weapons capability. Hmmm, who does that remind me of? If they have some kind of god given right to "security," maybe they could ask for some divine intervention in the finance department. I need some ROI over here. To quote the Godfather of Soul, James Brown :"I'm paying taxes, but what am I buying? A whole lotta cussin' and a-fussin'..." It's not worth it.
148. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 1:27 PM PT
God, what a boring thread. The last time there was a Middle East thread in the Fray (early 1997), not much happened then, either.
RP (Message #145 et al.)
Yes, I think it's pretty much beyond scientific dispute that Jews of disparate backgrounds are genetically kin. However, I have never heard of a theory of nationalism based primarily on genetic kinship. Even the Nazis talked of a Volkskultur. My point is that Marzipranks's observation is valid, that Israeli society was forged from disparate cultural elements. And surely, the racial, religious and ethnic divisions make Israel a little more heterogeneous than, say, Japan?
Ultimately, the legitimacy of a nation-state is based on power and thus its ability to hold onto the piece of territory its people sentimentalise, fantasticate and mythologise as their "homeland". All the talk about the Bible etc. is just nonsense. So, as long as Israel can hold onto what it wants to hold onto, the moralistic effusions of the Marzipranks of this world are basically irrelevant. Of course, the catch is, Israel won't get any peace without relinquishing territory.
You also missed Marzipranks's other point: the "Arab" world is not heterogeneous. But they he is wrong in one respect: since the "Arabs" have acted in concert against Israel in the past, your and other Israelis' fear of a population imbalance is quite legitimate.
149. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 1:34 PM PT
Let me clarify my position on this "homeland" thing.
If I were a statesman in the middle of the 19th century and cared about the future peace in the Middle East (unlikely), I would vociferously oppose any Jewish homeland in the Middle East. Why? Because I don't buy any of this sentimental heritage crap. Who cares whether the Jews were where they were at the time of the Egyptians, the Greeks and the Romans? Who gives a shit what the Bible says? They were expelled or left; all that counts is that they were absent from the area for 1900 years.
Today, I (along with everybody here in this thread and elsewhere) acknowledge the legitimacy of the state of Israel. However, perhaps unlike others, I acknowledge it because it's already there, real and viable and sustainable and permitted by the realities of power. In a sense, it's a fait accompli.
150. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 1:36 PM PT
ERRATA
You also missed Marzipranks's other point: the "Arab" world is not HOMOGENEOUS.
151. RustlerPike - Oct. 21, 1998 - 10:24 AM PT
Pe:
"Even the Nazis talked of a Volkskultur. My point is that Marzipranks's observation is valid, that Israeli society was forged from disparate cultural elements. And surely, the racial, religious and ethnic divisions make Israel a little more heterogeneous than, say, Japan?"
I know very little about Japan. For all I know, religious, ethnic and class differences may cut very deep there.
Israel, or the Jewish part of it, which is what we're talking about here, is quite a melting pot, yes. I see that as an advantage, personally. Uniformity bores me, and I like different colors (as you may know). But unlike the USA, there is a very strong common denominator between the various elements in Israeli society: they are all Jewish, both ancestry-wise and culturally. True, they came from different cultures, but they were all Jews *in* those cultures. That's more of a common denominator than you may think.
The rate of intermarriage between Ashkenazim and Sepharadim is about 30%, I believe. This means that in a couple of generations' time, it will be hard to find anyone who is all-Ashkenazi or all-Sepharadi. This is quite a different situation from the States, I think. There is also quite dramatic advancement of Sepharadim into positions of power.
152. RustlerPike - Oct. 21, 1998 - 10:47 AM PT
"Today, I (along with everybody here in this thread and elsewhere) acknowledge the legitimacy of the state of Israel. However, perhaps unlike others, I acknowledge it because it's already there, real and viable and sustainable and permitted by the realities of power. In a sense, it's a fait accompli".
You've made the fathers of Zionism very happy. That's just what they were hoping you'd say.
As for homogeneousness in the Arab world: I'm not saying there aren't some very serious rifts, religious, political, and ethnic, but basically, they all seem to define themselves as Arabs, they're all Muslims, they speak Arabic, they are Semitic-looking, they have mustaches (kidding!), they live in the Mideast and North Africa, and they hate our guts. That's pretty homogeneous, I think.
The most important point, of course, is that *they* see themselves as part of a single body, whether in Pan-Arabist ideology or the idea of a Muslim *umma*. And, they've managed to unite effectively on many an occasion: wars, embargos, summits, etc.
153. JoeTiernan - Oct. 22, 1998 - 7:27 AM PT
Hillary Clinton has been vocal about her support of an Independant Palestinian state. I can see that soon people will look back on the WYE agreement (if there is one) and call it the WHY? agreement.
154. radi11 - Oct. 22, 1998 - 8:20 AM PT
Dear Sirs,
Last night and till early this morning ,Idid write my opinion about Israel Palestine , but unfortunately , I couldn't see it published . I don't know how this forum works.I hope its a technical delay. Your Truly radi11
155. JoeTiernan - Oct. 22, 1998 - 8:28 AM PT
radi11--Whatever you did just now, worked. Whatever you did last night, didn't. Suggest you redo whatever you wrote. The only other possible answer is that you posted it in another thread. (g)
156. Wombat - Oct. 22, 1998 - 9:22 AM PT
Joe:
A Palestinian state is inevitable, for the same reasons that brought about the formation of Israel.
157. ptboya - Oct. 22, 1998 - 7:04 PM PT
You did sound like you were lecturing Rustler, but that's de rigeur for this joint.
Since you brought up our respective nationalities, I thought I should clarify a few things that are not implicit in the posts I've made. I am personally an atheist when it comes to nationality. I've been a citizen of three countries. I have loved all those places and people, but not because of anything associated with nationality. One cannot see countries from a plane; the demarcations are in the mind of believers. Of course I must deal with the exigencies of the world as I find them; I use a passport because I must, but choose between two at my convenience. I cheer no louder for any nation's athletes, unless I have some personal connection to them. I suppose I'm a citizen of the world. With that background in mind, you should understand that I accord no weight to your argument based on the span of a nation's life. However, I do think that those who dwell within a territory should have control over the disposition of their lives. If they wish to define this territory as a nation, so be it.
Now, you've stated that I don't accept the existence of Israel. You didn't get that from anything I've posted, because it is not true, categorically… not true. All of my posts have criticized Israel not on the basis of its right to exist but solely because it has flouted international law concerning populations living in captured territories. I have applied the same standard to all the countries we've discussed, whether it be one of the three I have lived in or yours or any others.
158. RustlerPike - Oct. 22, 1998 - 10:22 PM PT
I've contacted the guys who run the ISP I'm connected to, Arabs from Umm el-Fahm, and the webmaster there promised to find us someone who would join the conversation - he had someone specific in mind, he said. Maybe it's radi11?
I'd like an international take on my hesitance to approach my neighbor, which I so touchingly described in Message #129. Does this strike my fellow Fraygrants as racist? Sad? Understandable?
159. MrSocko - Oct. 22, 1998 - 10:29 PM PT
RP:
You have never struck me as being in any way racist. You live in a situation and try to make the best of it. Nuff said.
160. RustlerPike - Oct. 23, 1998 - 5:30 AM PT
Well well - it appears that there's gonna be a ceremony on the White House lawn today! An agreement - who would've thunk it?
So we are given a temporary respite from fear of a blowup. But how long will it last? My guess: 6 months tops.
There have been several attacks on settlers in the past few months: a guy called Dov Driven was killed, I forget where exactly, in the course of a land dispute, another settler was killed while he was on guard patrol outside Yitzhar near Nablus, a Rabbi called Ra'anan was murdered in his home in Hebron, and the same guy who did that also singlehandedly mounted a grenade attack on Israeli border guards in Hebron, and Israeli soldiers in Be'ersheba (when he was caught). There have been a couple of other killings of settlers, I forget who and where. A very murderous attack would force the Israeli government to take military action.
Then there is the potential for settlers killing Arabs - as provocation, or as revenge. This would ignite the Arabs.
There is no reason to believe there won't be more of these attacks, especially after more land is ceded, and more settlements become isolated, easy targets, Jewish enclaves in Palestinian-controlled areas.
161. ptboya - Oct. 23, 1998 - 6:02 AM PT
I would've thunk it. This is the second step of several towards what I vividly recall proposing to friends, sitting around my table, after a gruelling 3 sets of tennis doubles in '77. The other three guys scoffed at my proposals then which were… 2 states, Israel and Palestine. Israel to return essentially to '67 borders with some adjustments for security and Palestine to consist of most of the West Bank and Gaza with some kind of corridor between so the WB could have access to an ocean port. Such howls of derision I have rarely heard. But it seemed then and still seems to be the only viable and just solution; satisfying to a critical mass of both populations.
Yes Rustler, the killings won't stop; antipathies will die slowly, but eventually they will expire through attrition… if the perception remains that this is a just settlement.
162. Ronski - Oct. 23, 1998 - 6:14 AM PT
As an Israeli (Israeli Arab, I believe, judging from the accent) said on CBS Radio News this morning: "All it takes is one crazy guy with a bomb" to wreck the whole thing, "...so why are they bothering?"
I hate to sound as pessimistic as he, but I'm afraid I am.
I do not think the Palestinians have either the ability, or frankly, at this point, even the will to stop the kind of violence that will destroy whatever accord comes out of Maryland, or out of Israel next year in the next round of talks.
We are many decades away from peace in the Middle East, I think, but I will pray for it anyway.
163. marjoribanks - Oct. 23, 1998 - 6:17 AM PT
FWIW, I have been making predictions for years too, especially after spending a month working in the West Bank (for the Israelis) and some time in Gaza (working for an NGO).
1) The proposed Palestinian state is unworkable on its own, a measly cobbling together of the most useless and barren territory in the region.
2) Israel will not give up the more valuable and significant parts of the West Bank, and most importantly, they will retain the sources of water .
3) The only workable solution will be some kind of co-existing state system with relatively open borders and free trade. Obviously, this will only work when both sides realize that they are permanently stuck with each other and better work together rather at cross-purposes.
164. marjoribanks - Oct. 23, 1998 - 6:22 AM PT
I'm afraid that both Ronski and Pike are selectively worried.
The Palestinian opposition to the Peace accords exists, but it is less significant and less powerful than the Israeli opposition to the Peace accords. What is more, you have an Israeli leader in office with a dangerous bent towards uncompromising stances. I consider the netanyahoos to be by far the biggest factor of instability in the region. The Palestinians are too poor and too disorganized to do very much more than offer mild resistance to the peace plan, the Israelis have much much more ability to destroy it.
165. ptboya - Oct. 23, 1998 - 6:24 AM PT
The violence has come fairly steadily from both sides. I find it amusing that some don't wish to see that, but hatred will eventually fade, if a critical mass is on board on both sides: unless one buys into essentialism…i.e., (Serbs) (Irish) (plug-in your choice) are in capable of peaceful coexistence. All peoples are amenable to the hope of living better lives; bring on the right enhancements and peace will prevail.
166. marjoribanks - Oct. 23, 1998 - 6:27 AM PT
Boya,
Amen.
167. RustlerPike - Oct. 23, 1998 - 6:32 AM PT
marj: remind me of the last time any country gave up any considerable amount of territory willingly. The only instances of retreat I can think of are when countries were forced to give up territory after losing a war.
Since the Palestinians are doing all the getting and the Israelis all the giving, it makes sense that there would be more opposition within Israel to this peace than among the Palestinians. All we're getting is security assurances. That's like you giving me real estate in return for me promising not to poison your dog.
168. ptboya - Oct. 23, 1998 - 6:37 AM PT
"Yes, I think it's pretty much beyond scientific dispute that Jews of disparate backgrounds are genetically kin."
It is actually very much in dispute. There are statistical means to show that there are DNA similarities amongst Jews as disparate as those in Ethiopia, Spain/Morocco and the Pale. The question is, is this any more significant than matches that can be found in the set comprising of Christians from say, Nigeria, Greece and France.
One can set criteria, genes coding for melanin production e.g., in the Rift Valley and based on those criteria could lump those folks into a racial group formerly called Negroid. The problem is that if we examine the entire (mapped) section of the human genome for people in the Rift Valley we find the most varied genotypes on earth. In fact if everyone else on earth were wiped out but these people, the vast majority of all genetic variations would be preserved. So theories which purport to build a case for a racial categories (Jews, Arabs, Caucasians etc.) have become increasingly suspect.
169. marjoribanks - Oct. 23, 1998 - 6:42 AM PT
Pike,
You, along with a minority of Israelis, apparently only see land as the currency of the potential accords. This is silly and more than a little messianic,
You keep bringing up examples like " remind me of the last time any country gave up any considerable amount of territory willingly" as though they mean anything in the context. Pike, remind me of the last time an essentially migrant population held on to territory with claims of divine mandate (e.g. the Bible says its ours). My point is, the Israel/Palestine situation is unique, uniquely complicated and the only possiblity for real peace will come through unique measures.
Frankly, I don't think Israel is giving up anything meaningful, it's more a symbolic "relinquishment" of territory. And I already indicated that the only way forward to peace (according to me) will be a kind of shared situation, with both peoples acknowledging co-existence even if grudgingly.
170. Wombat - Oct. 23, 1998 - 7:49 AM PT
As a violent situation approaches a possible end-game scenario, increased violence is inevitable. The status quo is about to change. The Israelis will be giving up territory and recognizing the PLO as the governing body of the Palestinian "entity" or whatever. The Israelis will no longer be able to treat Palestinian activity as subject to military action. They will have to attenuate the activities of Israeli settlers.
The Palestinians will no longer be able to afford the "luxury" of being a national liberation movement. With statehood or "entity-hood" comes real responsibilities, obligations to keep its side of the peace with Israel, and obligations to its own people.
There are people and/or organizations that want no part of this, and have sought to destroy the existing accords. Will the Israeli and Palestinian governments be able to resist the temptation to exploit future violence for political gain? I hope so.
171. MrSocko - Oct. 23, 1998 - 8:03 AM PT
I'm not sure I get your point, Wombat. All the considerations that you mention have been there since 1993.
172. RustlerPike - Oct. 23, 1998 - 12:27 PM PT
ptboya:
Jeez, I wish I had kept the site on the research on Jewish genetics bookmarked. I'll try to search for it if I have time. In any case - I really fail to see the point of this racial purity check the Jewish people are being submitted to here. Maybe more people bought into Hitler's racial purity thinking than I thought.
I don't think racial homogeneousness is a consideration here, one way or another. Hitler said we were 'mongrelized'? Fine for Hitler. He also thought Jesse Owens couldn't win the 100 yard dash, he thought the Slavs were meant to be his slaves, and a lot of other garbage. I really don't understand why this is relevant.
The people of the United States are the most racially heterogeneous in the world: does this mean they have less of a right to nationhood, or to anything?
173. RustlerPike - Oct. 23, 1998 - 12:40 PM PT
marjie:
"You, along with a minority of Israelis, apparently only see land as the currency of the potential accords. This is silly and more than a little messianic"
You sure that wedgy didn't reach the inside of your head, somehow? What are you talking about? Of course land is the only currency here. And Israel is doing the paying.
"Pike, remind me of the last time an essentially migrant population held on to territory with claims of divine mandate (e.g. the Bible says its ours)".
The Jews have had periods of wandering, and periods of sovereignty. We have certainly been sovereign in the land in Israel for far longer, all in all, than the Indians have been in India, or the Americans in America, or the Mexicans in Mexico, or the Iraqis in Iraq. Read the Bible, or ask historians. If that seems too imaginary and far fetched, just the 50 years that Israel has existed is more than a lot of other countries out there.
So why you see us as more "migratory" than anyone else is beyond me. Unless you accept that ancient Christian prejudice, that Jews have been punished by God with a sentence of eternal wandering.
(cont.)
174. RustlerPike - Oct. 23, 1998 - 12:58 PM PT
But you wanted examples of nations that "held on to territory with claims of divine mandate (e.g. the Bible says its ours)".
Well - this is a little known fact: there were a bunch of English Christians who dubbed themselves "pilgrims", in the 17th century, who founded colonies on the shores of a continent that they migrated to, and justified their subsequent acts of colonization, genocide, and expansionism with the help of the Old Testament (the Jewish Bible).
Though not Jews, and quite far from the Middle East, they founded towns with Hebrew names like "Bethlehem", "Bethel", "Nazareth" and "Jerusalem". They called their children "Abraham", "Isaac", "David" and "Ebenezer"... quite silly-sounding names, really, for Englishmen.
And there were other groups of colonists who saw themselves as modern-day Biblical Jews, settling the Promised land. The best example, of course, is the Boers in South Africa. I even heard recently that there is a city called Rehoboth in Namibia.
(cont.)
175. RustlerPike - Oct. 23, 1998 - 1:10 PM PT
So what you want from the Jews is not clear to me at all. The Puritan Pilgrims came to a land they had had no previous connection to, decided it was their by divine right, and created Bethlehems where there were previously only Chappaquiddicks and Ho-ho-kuses.
The Jews go back to their original, ancient homeland, and want to live in or near the *real*, *original* Bethel (*Beit El*) and Bethlehem (*Beit-Lekhem*) - both, by the way, place names that *mean* something in our language - and we're called on it. Why?
176. radi11 - Oct. 23, 1998 - 1:12 PM PT
RustlerPike and Everybody,
Yes I am the person whom you have expected .I thank you for suggesting this forum to a friend of mine who asked me to check and join this forum. In fact ,I did write to this forum three times , two of them were hours each time , but I don't know why it worked only in the shortest of my trials yesterday ( No54 above.)
Anyway it's a good occasion to start my talk here at a time when they are preparing for the finishing touches of the Press Conference in the White House( Now it's 10:05 Israel Time). This event must be blessed by everybody in our country and allover the world although it is very but not too late.This agreement ,in my view , should have been signed and implemented long ago.Anyway,it's never too l;ate, as they say .
PS:I will be satisfied with this just for a trial posting as it didn't work when I wrote more.
177. radi11 - Oct. 23, 1998 - 1:41 PM PT
Rustler Hike ,
I am glad it did work this time,too.
I noticed from reading your comments here and there that you have this curiosity to know Arabs more closely.I have great honor to tell you ,as an Arab living almost 10 or less miles from your Kat...Settlement , that I will really be happy to get in touch with civilized people who are ready for modern open dialogue over our mutual conflicted cause.Our political conflict - if there is such one between my views and yours must never disturb our good intentions of understanding each other , as peace ,in the end ,is made between peoples and not leaders.
Now I am writing to you and watching on my PC screen the Secretary of State of USA alive before signing the Wye Plantation agreement.
I wish this agreement every success and pray that the whole process will in the end lead to an independent Palestinian State living peacefully and respectfully side by side with Israel.Moreover I think peace is incomplete if it is not built on the UN Resolutions especially 242 and 338 that illegalize the acquiosition of lands by force and withdrawal from the Occupied Territories including the Golan Heights and the Lebanon so -called "Security Zone".Because in the end Peace is what will bring us security and not the contrary. My proof is the occupation of parts of Lebanon is the cause for creating the Hizballah Party.
Mr Rustler Hike()G.R.
I reiterate my invitation to you is a real intimate one .
178. Wombat - Oct. 23, 1998 - 2:25 PM PT
Well isn't this just ducky. Let's break out the bongos and guitars and all sing Kumbaya (not Michael Row Your Boat Ashore. That may be a little inflammatory).
I look forward to a very interesting dialog. I hope that we won't lapse into set rhetorical positions too quickly, and that the dialog will survive all the provocations that will surely come. (The first paragraph is intended to be humorous, not cynical.)
179. RustlerPike - Oct. 23, 1998 - 2:26 PM PT
radi11:
Yes!! Mazal tov! You're in!...
I would be glad to meet with you in person, and you are welcome to come visit me any day. Even tomorrow evening is good for me - I will be busy during the day (I will be in a printer's shop in Kafr Kara, putting out a leaflet for one of the candidates in our municipal elections). Or we can meet later this week - whenever.
I have so many questions for you - let's start with two:
- are they holding municipal elections in Umm el-Fahm also?
- does Umm el-Fahm mean "mother of coal"? What is the origin of the name? Do you know?
I also recommend, and invite you, to check out the "Language" thread here on the Fray. We have a lot of questions for you there, about Arabic. There are two Arabic speakers who participate in the discussion there, called hashke and DanDillon, but they are not native speakers.
OK - I'm off to listen to Chairman Arafat's speech....
180. MrSocko - Oct. 23, 1998 - 4:35 PM PT
Articles on Jewish genes (from the website mentioned by Pike):
• `Ancient Missense Mutations in a New Member of the RoRet Gene Family are Likely to Cause Familial Mediterranean Fever', The International FMF Consortium, Cell, 90, 797, 1997.
• `Y Chromosomes of Jewish Priests' (Scientific Correspondence), Skorecki, Selig, S., Blazer, S., Bradman, R., Bradman, N., Warburton, P.J., Ismajlowicz, M., and Hammer, M.F., Nature, 385, 32,
1997.
• `Two Distinct Origins of a Common BRCA1 Mutation in Breast-Ovarian Cancer Families: a Genetic Study of 15 185delAG-mutation Kindreds.' Berman, D.B., Wagner-Costalas, J., Schultz, D.C., Lynch,
H.T., Daly, M., and Godwin, A.K., American Journal of Human Genetics, 58(6):1166-76, 1996.
• `Genetics of Human Body Size and Shape: Complex Segregation Analysis' Livshits, G., Otremski, I., and Kobyliansky, E., Annals of Human Biology, 22(1):13-27, 1995.
The genetic component in a mixed heritability model, including major gene, multifactorial and sibling environment transmissible components, was studied for some 20 anthropometric traits in 83 Ashkenazi
Jewish nuclear families living in Israel. (taken from the abstract by I. Vaisman)
• `The Carrier Frequency of BRCA1 185delAG Mutations is approximately one percent in Ashkenazic Jewish Individuals' Struehling, J.P., Abeliovich, D., Peretz, T., Avishai, N., Kaback, M.M., Collins,
F.S., and Brody, L.C., Nature Genetics, 11, 198 (1995)
181. MrSocko - Oct. 23, 1998 - 4:36 PM PT
A mutation which predisposes towards breast cancer appears at a frequency of one percent in Ashkenazim and did not appear in the sample of 815 non-Jewish individuals at all. The authors attribute this gene to a founder effect, i.e. an indication of population bottleneck in the Ashkenazim. (This explanation assumes that
the mutation has no benefits which would increase the fitness of carriers.)
•`One of the Two Common Mutations Causing Factor XI Deficiency in Ashkenazi Jews (type II) is Also Prevalent in Iraqi Jews, Who Represent the Ancient Gene Pool of Jews' Shpilberg, O., Peretz, H., Zivelin, A., Yatuv, R., Chetrit, A., Kulka, T., Stern, C., Weiss, E., and Seligsohn U., Blood, 85(2):429-32, 1995.
• `Two Common Mutations Causing Factor XI Deficiency in Ashkenazi Jews May Point to a European Origin', Zoossmann-Diskin A., Blood, 86(8):3267, 1995.
182. xkennedy - Oct. 23, 1998 - 7:17 PM PT
It is miraculous, but I have to tip my hat to two Democrats for actions over the last couple of weeks. First, to Senator Tom Harkins, Dem, Iowa, for temporarily blocking the Bill to allow about 50 thousand more immigrants to work in high tech areas. Unfortunately, his attempt was overridden. And today, I tip my hat to Bill Clinton for not releasing Jonathon Pollard, per the wishes of the Israeli delegation. To have released Pollard would consitute high treason in my mind. Pollard should only be released in a body bag, or after several hours in a very hot oven. To say the Israel is our friend or ally is rediculous -- ask the crew of the USS Liberty, or ask the DIA, whose report that Israel was the leading industrial spy in the U.S. was squelched, as a sop to the jew lobby. I don't want to take sides here; I detest both Isrealis and Palestinians. I don't give a damn if they ever come to an agreement. I just want them out of the U.S.'s hair.
183. RustlerPike - Oct. 23, 1998 - 10:49 PM PT
Socko's list must have somehow triggered the right brain cell, and I remembered the guy's name: Vishniac. This is the site.
184. wexxford1 - Oct. 24, 1998 - 5:48 AM PT
Time to cast the "Israel and Palestine " movie.Who's gonna get the juice femme part, "Queen Noor?" Herself?
185. wexxford1 - Oct. 24, 1998 - 5:49 AM PT
Oh, yeah . Bobby Di Niro as Pollard.
186. boohab - Oct. 24, 1998 - 8:38 AM PT
i'm here mostly to vent about what a cruel sumbitch is netanyahu. everything about him makes me ill. he's a paranoid bully and he should be ousted.
i am constantly embarrassed by the arbitary and rough treatment of the palestinian people by israelis and the willingness of the israeli government to fan the fears of their citizens. i beleive that the people of the area have every possibility of living peacibly among themselves, but are constantly provoked by policies and rhetoric which sacrifices tranquility and civil liberty for 'security'. the place is long past any resemblance to what we would call a free society, and i am ashamed that the united states is party to israeli hostility.
187. radi11 - Oct. 24, 1998 - 4:35 PM PT
Dear RustlerPike,
I hope you will email me at
radi@blablabla
( exactly as the rest of your email.)I am a little busy and discussions here take a lot of time and effort.So , please email me and check your email there.
188. captqueeg - Oct. 24, 1998 - 7:48 PM PT
a scenario that i have'nt seen addressed yet by those who
see no problem with a palestinian state;
the state is declared. warm hearted people everywhere say
its "fair" everybody will live side by side and the bad feelings
of the past will eventually go away. its a sort of touchy-feely
solution. these two tiny states living in eventual harmony.
however, the new state of palestine revokes the agreement
to be demilitarized. what then? does israel attack her little
weak neighbor to enforce it? i think not. when the state is
declared it will be recognized by the u.n. it will be under
the watchful eye of its 180 million arab neignbors.
so israel swallows it because it means all out war to
enforce it. the new palestine starts arming with the help and support
of most of the world. everybody wants a new customer for
a modern army. israel can only watch.
the new state enters into mutual defense treatys with egypt,
syria,iraq, libia and most important, jordan. most important
because jordan shares a border with syria and the new state.
palestine announces war games with syria. syria can now
cross into jordan and into the new palestine. the war games
have troops, tanks, air power and maybe some naval power
from gaza's new port. the arab nations send friendly observers
to watch the "games"
what do you think israel will do?
the captain
189. captqueeg - Oct. 24, 1998 - 7:53 PM PT
rustlers pike.
i've been following your posts. well said!
you have plenty of friends out here.
190. RustlerPike - Oct. 24, 1998 - 9:43 PM PT
Thanks capt...
I am right in the middle of begging Radi to find time to post to the Fray. It would suck if he left us now.
191. captqueeg - Oct. 25, 1998 - 12:51 AM PT
a question for the participants:
israel is a tiny sliver of land. it is the only homeland of the
jews. (although arabs can be citizens) it has a population
of about 4 1/2 million.
there are twenty two (22) arab countries in a huge amount of
land. in many of them jews cannot be citizens. they have a
population of about 185 million.
the arabs cannot live in peace, free from the terror of israel,
and the rest of the world is endangered unless there are
twenty three (23!) arab countries!
do i have that about right? what am i missing?
the captain
192. bloodnfire - Oct. 25, 1998 - 3:43 AM PT
Radi 11. Your grace is charming. Hope you stick around. I look forward to reading your discussions with RustlerPike.
193. Wombat - Oct. 25, 1998 - 4:47 PM PT
Queeg:
You are right...so what? Would you rather live under military occupation from another country, or in your own?
194. ptboya - Oct. 25, 1998 - 9:23 PM PT
Rustler…
Re: your #172. I agree with most of what you say here. Either I am failing to communicate clearly or perhaps your reading comprehension is lacking. Or maybe English is not your first language? Whatever… allow me to clarify.
I don't see how you can read my post as an argument for racial purity. I don't know how many times I have, in this thread, decried essentialist thinking. Do you understand what is meant by essentialism? If you do, you could not suppose I would then make any argument based on racial purity?
In fact, my assertion was that… THE VERY CONCEPT OF "RACE" ITSELF IS NOT VALID. This is not simply my opinion; it is the consensus of genetic researchers. My example of people in the Rift Valley was meant to point out that a group which formerly would have been lumped together (as Negroids) by reference to a small constellation of traits, actually displays the most varied genotypes on the planet.
"Of course land is the only currency here. And Israel is doing the paying."
I fundamentally disagree with this. Blood is by far the more important currency. Israel has paid dearly in this currency along with its enemies. Israel, the land, without its people, would be meaningless. And since the intifada, Israel has had to weigh more prudently the risk/reward of holding a hostile people captive. Its leaders have decided that the rewards flowing from retention of the entire captured territory is not worth the risk to its most important treasure… its people.
195. ptboya - Oct. 25, 1998 - 9:58 PM PT
After reading the materials linked (on gene studies) my conclusion remains. Assertions of kinship based upon a small constellation of traits are not that meaningful. Sure, one can find commonalities and point to founder populations. This has been done with reference to Mitochondrial Eve, to whom we are all related. One study of Y chromosomes (male sex chromosome) concluded that Adam was a pygmy living some 200,000 years ago in Central Africa. We are all traceable back to these two founders. So what? Both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA studies show a surprising uniformity of types outside of Africa. The evidence suggests a bottleneck occurred around 100,000 years ago when a founder population left Africa.
My point is that one should be very careful when drawing meaning from an apparant genetic "sameness" of disparate peoples. E.g., what does it mean that only Jews and French Canadians share the same propensity to acquire Tay-Sachs disease?
196. RustlerPike - Oct. 26, 1998 - 5:10 AM PT
ptboya:
1) OK - define "essentialist" for me. Maybe I'll learn something new.
2) Are you a geneticist? Sounds to me like you're just making all sorts of silly pronouncements because you read a book or two and want to sound like an expert on the subject - which is quite a complex one.
197. valerytaylor - Oct. 26, 1998 - 7:45 AM PT
Anyone into discussing where we should hang Jonathon Pollard. The fact that he is alive is an insult to all those good people who labored so long and hard to insure the deaths of Ethel and Julius R. They must be laughing in their graves atthe thought of Pollard going free. I'm sure the Pollard supporters are the same who would exhume the bodies of Ethel and Julius and intern them in a museum to be built with public find on the Mall in D.C. I mean is there a fifth column in the United States or what?
198. radi11 - Oct. 26, 1998 - 2:38 PM PT
To ValerTailor,
First, don't misunderstand meand think I am for supporting spying.
Second , Why do you think that this man shoud be hanged?
Is it because he implemented what his masters in the "Mosad" had asked him?If so, why don't you ask for hanging those who designated him for that job? I think if you really think that every spy should be hanged ,then this will mean executing all the CIAs all over the world. I just want you to tell me which of the countries of this world doesn't spy for its own benifit.If there is a body that can be trialed , it must be the governments who sacrify these " stupid" people that are this easily betrayed.
199. ptboya - Oct. 26, 1998 - 7:06 PM PT
Re:#196
"Are you a geneticist? Sounds to me like you're just making all sorts of silly pronouncements because you read a book or two and want to sound like an expert on the subject- which is quite a complex one."
Man… you are one deep mutha! Oh well, we agree that it is a complex subject.
If you'd like to begin the pedigree pissing contest, be my guest. I will pass.
"OK - define "essentialist" for me."
Essentialism… as opposed to Existentialism… presumes that there is, in humans, an essence, which takes precedence over existence. On this account, humans are not free, not responsible for their acts and cannot escape their nature, fixed as it is from birth.
200. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 26, 1998 - 7:13 PM PT
"I don't know how many times I have, in this thread, decried essentialist thinking."
Sigh. Essentialism is merely the opposite of the so-called Standard Social Science Model -- which argues that human behaviour is entirely determined culture and environment. Essentialism argues that human behaviour (and therefore culture) is the product of a complex interaction between biology and environment.
There is no reason to decry essentialism per se. One ought to decry only those things which are falsely essentialised, like race.