2004 October 06 Wednesday
Dov Weisglass Says Palestinian State On Indefinite Hold

Dov Weisglass explains the significance of the barrier fence and withdrawal from Gaza Strip.

"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process," Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser Dov Weisglass has told Haaretz.

"And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."

...

"...what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did."

Given that the Palestinian Authority is despotic and has degenerated even further into criminality and given Arafat's support for terrorism (which was so not a surprise to anyone who didn't fantasize about Oslo) the so-called "peace process" never made any sense. But I think treating the Palestinians fairly still made sense and that never happened. So I'm not totally sympathetic to the Israelis.

Weisglass tried to backpedal when the reaction to his statements became a problem for the Israelis.

"The paper quoted only the first half of my sentence. What I said is directed at this specific time when there is a non-functional Palestinian Authority, and when terror is raging– if that's the case there should not be, God forbid, a process that would lead to the establishing of a Palestinian State, which would have anarchy as its founding stone."

Israel's ambassador to the United States puts a more positive spin on it while Yossi Beilin says Sharon is not a partner for peace.

"This plan gives Israel some breathing space, to wait until there is a partner with whom it will be able to start negotiations. I think this is the core aims of the plan," Ayalon said.

MK Yossi Beilin (Yahad) said Weisglass's statement was said in "a rare moment of truth and uncover the prime minister's true intentions. The peace camp must join forces and bring the PM down, Beilin said. "Sharon is not a partner for peace," Israel Radio quoted Beilin as saying.

Of course the PLO isn't a partner for peace either and certainly Islamic Jihad and Hamas have no desire for any peace that doesn't involve total victory for their side.

Ariel Sharon is trying to say that Weisglass went too far - except of course Sharon really agrees with him.

Weisglass has been Sharon's point man in dealing with the Bush administration.

Sharon's office later issued a statement, saying the prime minister remains committed to the road map. However, in a newspaper interview last month, Sharon said Israel is no longer following the plan.

So what to make of all this? On the one hand the Israeli Likudists have legitimate fears about a "peace" deal. The demand for refugee return would lead to the end of the state of Israel if it was agreed to. Also, splitting Jerusalem between two sovereign governments strikes me as a recipe for all sorts of mischief and trouble down the road. The Muslim claim to Jerusalem as an important holy city in the Koran is bogus and was dreamt up in the Middle Ages (and I'm too busy to google up the story of how that happened but would appreciate a link from anyone who knows where to find it).

But there is a powerful faction in the Likud which is basically using the "lack of partner for peace" argument against the Palestinians to continue to build and expand remote settlements in the West Bank to ensure the Palestinians never take sovereign control of the West Bank. This faction is a mix of Jewish religious fundamentalist nutcases (like US Defense Department neocon Douglas Feith's former law partner Marc Zell and of course some nut jobs in the Bush Administration) and others who dream of a bigger Israel.

The biggest downside from the construction of the barrier fence around the West Bank is that it reduces the pressure on the Israeli government to do anything to treat the Palestinians better. As long as Israelis are not getting killed daily in terrorist attacks the settlement expansion program can continue apace while the Palestinians endure the various barriers the Israelis will of course maintain for the benefit of the remote settlements.

The remote settlements and the taking of Palestinian land are a real public relations bonanza for anyone in the Middle East who wants to stoke up anti-Israeli and anti-American sentiment. Speaking as an American nationalist who wants to protect American interests it is the anti-American sentiment that concerns me most. The Bush Administration could have taken the position on the barrier fence that the Bushies would support it in exchange for evacuation of the remote settlements. But the Bushies didn't do that. They basically took the side of the harder line American and Israeli Likudniks. If I was a Palestinian I'd see this as a bad faith move on America's part.

The barrier fence is still a good idea because it will reduce the death rate on both sides. Also, the pull-out from Gaza is a good idea by itself. But the demographic trend of lower Jewish than Palestinian Muslim birth rates combined with the continued imposition of the remote settlements on the West Bank Palestinian population is storing up bigger troubles for the future.

Also, there is an argument to be made for imposing a sort of de facto sovereignty on the Palestinians. Withdraw back to near the Green Line with barriers. Tell the Palestinians that they now have to find a way to govern themselves. Some rockets might come over the border. The Israelis would have every right to retaliate. But the Palestinians would know that what belongs to them really does belong to them. But as long as settlements are being built on seized land that is not the case.

Update: You might be wondering why Weisglass would publically state Israel's position in a way that would cause a diplomatic flap and criticism. He is trying to tell the Israeli Right that a pull-out from Gaza is part of a bigger process that produces an outcome that they will like.

Mr Weisglass, a lawyer who handles most of the Israeli Prime Minister's contacts with Washington, appeared to be attempting to make the Gaza evacuation more palatable to the Israeli right wing, which opposes the plan.

The Israelis are not going to pull out of the remote settlements unless the US applies a lot of pressure and that pressure is just not going to happen given the reality of American domestic politics. So there is not much to watch with the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians. Positions are solidifying. But babies are being born too.

There are web logs that report on the Palestininan-Israeli and Arab-Israeli conflict on a daily basis with each attack, retaliation, and fanatical statement passed along either with approval or disgust. But real changes in the positions of the combatants rarely change. The bigger changes are in attitudes and in demographics. Those changes do not bode well for the future.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2004 October 06 03:39 PM  MidEast Arabs Versus Israelis


Comments
John S Bolton said at October 7, 2004 11:49 PM:

Several Israelis just won Nobel prizes, which is a mark of the existence of high civilization in that country. On one side of the wall there is civilization; on the other unspeakable barbarism. Diplomats pretend that there is a case to be made on either side. Civilization has superior right, and barbarism is beyond the pale, and must be kept beyond the fences of civilization.

Invisible Scientist said at October 8, 2004 5:21 AM:

This comment is for John S. Bolton:

Note that this war is a war of several civilizations, not just Middle East against EU And USA.
The real war is a war of stratification, where the upper class (with IQ over 120) is continually
leaving the lower classes (defined to be of IQ less than 120) behind in all areas.

And it turns out that EU and USA have
a higher average IQ compared to the Middle East, but this is NOT the case with
the Far Eastern nations like China, Japan, Korea, etc, as the Far Eastern
nations have average IQ scores at least 5 points higher than white Europeans, and
actually 7 to 10 points higher in more educated regions of these
coutnries.

But let me return to the subject of Middle East versus European civilization.
As a result, Osama bin Laden promised his
people that he will save them from the domination of the white European high IQ
elite by destroying or conquering that civilization which is threatening to
dominate the Islamic civilization in this century: this IS a communist rebellion
against the high IQ elite, even though the rebellion is coming from a foreign land.

But note that while the EU and Middle Eastern civilization are fighting over whose
genes will dominate the future of the world, the silent majority in the Far East,
is making giant steps towards cultural, scientific, and political gains in this century,
and this is happening because the Far Eastern nations have average
IQ scores that are even higher than the white Europeans. It is conceivable that
the if history is any guide, Darwin's philosophy will once again win out, and the
survival of the fittest IQ genes will be the law of the future, meaning that
in the future, we shall end up working for the Far Eastern nations instead of being
enslaved by the Islamic civilization, but at least the Far Eastern people are secular,
and so they will let us eat and drink what we like, as long as we work for them.

John S Bolton said at October 8, 2004 2:43 PM:

I was thinking of the need of the small, but distinguished, groups and societies having superior right to keep from being made to roll backwards, over that of the inferior populations, which do not contribute more than negligibly to the advancement of civilization. Freedom of travel for such people as palestinians, across boundaries which defend civilization, is an obvious disadvantage. There is quarantine-value, and the worse the disease on the other side of the cordon, the greater the value of it will be. The Israelis would do well to set up rivals for power in their occupied territories, and allow the natural savageries to reduce the size of the threat. Regarding the whites vs. others in the world, all the non-whites together are only publishing in science at 20% of the total. This is a discrepancy of several dozen-fold, in favor of the caucasians. It is not caused by lack of money for education; hundreds of millions of Asians have gone to college. There has been a rebound from the cultural revolution in China; but why would one project those trendlines indefinitely? When rebounds and take-offs from very low levels occur, this indicates fluctuation, not constancy such as would allow the straightline projection of trendlines.

Invisible Scientist said at October 8, 2004 8:52 PM:


Comment for John S. Bolton:

Please see the following web page about the IQ distribution of nations and
the correlation between natinal IQ scores and the GDP growth of each country.Clearly
the Far Eastern countries have a genetic advantage in IQ scores, this is NOT
because of the rebound from the cultural revolution, but an innate ability the
Far Eastern people have. This will make them more successful in the future.

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm

Invisible Scientist said at October 8, 2004 8:57 PM:

Addendum to my comments above about the web page http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm

In this web page although China is listed to have an average IQ of 100, it is a very big
country with a lot of uneducated provinces. If you look at the more educated cities of China,
then the average IQ is comparable to Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong, which is much higher than
white Europeans.

John S Bolton said at October 8, 2004 11:57 PM:

Thank you, I have looked at the La Griffe analyses, including the one that uses verbal IQ in international comparison, SFT II. It is concepts that will light our way to the future, and to that which rules it. China has its smart people concentrated in the cities, having exterminated or driven off the landed gentry. Their problem is one of running a society, of taking away the freedom for aggression which officials now have. If they solve that problem, they won't be a threat. Do you underestimate their passivity and complacency? The orient has never given us an intellectual-system builder. No doubt China has plenty of room to move up economically, as their average IQ would predict. The initiative for changes in values and intellectual systems may never come from that part of the world, though.

Drew said at December 3, 2004 2:55 PM:

The so-called palestinians are nothing but a group of rabbit-like reproducers who are being used by Arabs as proxies in their war to annihilate Israel.

They have no relation to the Philistines, and should not have one acre of land for themselves in the west bank or gaza.

Answer this...why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War?

If they have a genuine ethnic identity, where are the historical documents? Who are their grandfathers?

They have no history....they are mostly unwanted Egyptians (Yasser Arafat), Jordanians, Syrians and Lebaneese. And they are too stupid to know any better. That is why I have no sympathy for the murderous bastards (in the sense that they have no fatherland).

This Palestinian State BS is a bunch of hot Euro appeasment air.

Randall Parker said at December 3, 2004 3:33 PM:

Drew,

The Palestinians did not recently come from Egypt or anywhere else. They have lived in Palestine for thousands of years.

They have no grandfathers? What, were they genetically engineered?

"They have no history": What is that supposed to mean?

Not being a religious person myself the religious claim that Jews assert on the West Bank strikes me as so much BS as well. Oh, and the arrogant, condescending sophistry advanced to make their case is getting old as well.

The ZIonists have overplayed their hand. I would agree with you that at least the Ashkenazi segment of the Jewish population in Israel are smarter on average than the Palestinians. But I think dumb people deserve to be treated with some dignity too.

drew said at December 3, 2004 4:02 PM:

I believe you are taking my words too literal in regards to the grandfather quip.

you didn't answer this...why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War?

I believe your knowlege of middle eastern history is biased with anit-semitism.

The so-called palestinians are nothing but arabs from surrounding countries that filled the void when the Israelis were conquered and enslaved.

There is no such ethnic identity.

Are you saying Arafat was not an Egyptian?

Randall Parker said at December 3, 2004 4:18 PM:

Drew,

That's the ticket: Accuse people who disagree with you of anti-Semitism. Excellent debating tactic in some quarters. Or accuse them of historical ignorance. That works too, (again, in some quarters) especially when combined with the anti-Semitism accusation. Just don't expect me to respect it.

1967: How about turning the West Bank back over to the Jordanians then?

Identities are created where none previously existed. At one point in history there was not an American identity. While my great great great grandfather fought the British at the Battle Of Monmouth my guess is that my great great great great great grandfather thought himself a loyal subject of the crown. Well, how's that happen? Events!

The Israelis treat the Palestinians as a distinct group. The Arab countries do too. The Palestinians not surprisingly have come to feel some nationalistic yearnings. You can deny it as inconvenient to the Zionist project. But there it is.

Arafat was just one person. The vast bulk of the people on the West Bank and Gaza were not Egyptians.

drew said at December 3, 2004 4:41 PM:

Ahh but I accused you of nothing.

I told you what I believed to be true...which is obviously debatable.


There you have it....you just said the Palestinians have been around for thousands of years in your previous post and now admit they were Jordanians.


I win.

drew said at December 3, 2004 4:58 PM:

I have no interest in this Zionist Project you claim exists

I feel the fence and the pullout from gaza are "events" that are necessary for the survival of the Jews.

They are being murdered for nothing but the sole reason of their existance.

Nationalistic yearnings? My ass. They yearn for Jewish blood, period.

They had the opportunity for a state and passed it up for the chance to murder more innocent school children.

Randall Parker said at December 3, 2004 5:38 PM:

Drew,

If you believe something is true then stating it is never an accusation?

There is such a thing as being excessively clever with words at the expense of the truth.

I certainly think the fence is necessary and have repeatedly advocated for it here on my blog.

I think the pull-out from Gaza was also wise because it is fair. The Palestinians are already stuck in a small enough area in Gaza. Surely they deserve the whole thing.

You have no interest in the Zionist project and yet reject any claim to the West Bank on the part of the Palestinians? Am I understanding you correctly?

Or are you saying the Palestinians have a right to live in the West Bank under Israeli rule and without statehood? In other words, are you advocating for keeping the Palestinians as stateless people?

Or do you advocate allowing the Palestinians to live in the West Bank but as citizens of, say, Jordan while Jordan doesn't get any right to claim the West Bank as part of Jordan?

Or what exactly?

drew said at December 6, 2004 9:56 AM:

"Zionist this and Zionist that" oh come on. Israel proved you wrong with Oslo. Denial is unbecoming of anyone. The truth is the truth. History is being re-written by the Euro/Arab anti-semites and most people are ignorant enough to believe it.

We all know what is really going on here. The arabs have created this whole problem...this "wedge" of an "Israeli occupation" on "palestinian" land. Complete BS and you should know better.

If the Jordanian refugees err "palestinians" err the Arab League want to accept their defeats (border changes since 1948 for defense) from their own wars against Israel....accept the fact that Israel is there to stay as a nation of Jews and Israeli arabs....accept that there will be no "right of return".....then for the sake of peace, I would accept any concessions from the Israeli government. So TRADE the West Bank to Jordan (for the sake of their own mistreated peoples) for real educational reform. It should be Jordan's responsibility in the WB. The same with Egypt in regards to gaza. The "palestinians" have proven they are incapable of self-government so I do not believe a Palestinian State COULD exist. Perhaps if this education reform I call for works, in a couple of generations, perhaps they may have this state. The issue of Jerusalem is a dead one, the arab claim to the temple mount is fraudulent. It is a holy site for the Jews and Christians. No real historical link to the desert bandit Mohammed. This claim is nothing more than history re-written by the arabs to drive this "wedge" between Israel and it's neighbors.

There you have it....Allow Jordon to annex the WB, Egypt to annex gaza, no masses of troops allowed, re-educate the poor, step-children of Jordan and live in peace. These people should work hard for a state like everyone else in the world....this generation of refugees do not deserve it. Jordan and Egypt should allow access for these refugees in to their perspective countries and open up their services to them....in the name of peace.

Why won't this happen? Because the Arabs want the Jews dead and will sacrifice their brothers and sisters in the WB and Gaza to keep his nightmare alive.


drew said at December 6, 2004 10:45 AM:

Explaination- The Zionist Project is completed...Israel IS. Existing. Thriving. Aliyah is working. Our whole debate is based on their self-defense/preservation.

OF course, I would like to see the upcoming elections and a palestinian government work. I would hope the people in the territories are not as stupid as I believe them to be, and would start to govern themselves in peace with Israel.

This would go a long way in proving the Bush Doctrine as brilliant.

But...alas...the Bush Doctrine will have to prove itself in spite of the impending failure of the "palestinian" experiment.

Randall Parker said at December 6, 2004 1:31 PM:

Drew,

You really do not undestand where I'm coming from. I was proved wrong about Oslo? I opposed Oslo. I expected the outcome it produced. Bringing a terrorist group in to run the West Bank and Gaza was insane. Leaving the question of ultimate borders undecided and also not bulding a wall to separate the Palestinians and Jews was also insane. But the Israeli Right was unwilling to give up West Bank and Gaza as part of Greater Israel. So it wasn't just the Arabs who were being unreasonable. Bringing the PLO in and continuing to build large numbers of settlements so that the Israeli Jewish settler fanatics were mixed in with the Arab Palestinian Muslim populations with roads cutting thru and disrupting Arab life and stealing territory was and still is madness as well (and morally wrong too). So Oslo was stupid or immoral or both and incredibly foolish.

You seem to think there are only two positions possible:

1) Arab killers and hater and liars.

2) Virtuous Israelis and their allies who can do no wrong and have done no wrong.

Wrongo. And really BS.

Oh, and I know that some Arab leader in the 12th or 14th or so century made up the myth of Jerusalem as being a Muslim holy city. Your problem in arguing with me is that you don't think I know much about what has really happened in the distant past or more recently.

Drew said at December 6, 2004 4:54 PM:

Forgive my own ignorance as I'm sure it is obvious. I meant that Israel has tried very hard to accomodate the palestinians. Now didn't the oslo accord offer 98% of the WB to the palestinians under self rule? Now if they wanted to work and/or live in Israel, than why should the settlers leave?

I think I disagree that the settlers are fanatics. If you think about it...these orthodox Jews are the ones that hold dearly onto history and protect their religion with zeal. Even if I disagree with them as far as religion goes.

I tend to believe in the "fanatical" point of view that the land is Israel's and to give it up to the palestinians would be a strategic mistake considering Syria and Egypt and their propensity to attack Israel. I believe Jordan has learned it's lesson. So I believe the settlements are defensive tactics. A defense against the anti-semites of Europe and their tendancy to ignore the facts and blame Israel.

So I think we both believe the same thing until you bring religion into it. Except I think you lean more toward the Euro type of thinking. That is to blame Israel, blame Israel and then blame Israel for mearly surviving. Survival is not unreasonableness (ha! that is actually a word!)

But like I said, without some sort of guarantee that these people can and will change through education, it would be just plain stupid to leave the West Bank.

Let 'em rot in gaza until they become civilized.

I

Randall Parker said at December 6, 2004 5:32 PM:
I meant that Israel has tried very hard to accomodate the palestinians.

Disagree. Oslo let the settlement construction continue.

Now didn't the oslo accord offer 98% of the WB to the palestinians under self rule?

No. That wasn't possible in part because of the settlers.

I tend to believe in the "fanatical" point of view that the land is Israel's

Why is it Israel's? If you want to argue that Israel owns it simply because Israel conquered it then say so. But that is not the argument made by settlers on the Israeli Right. They argue that God gave it to them.

Look, I know Zionists who think that Israel should keep the West Bank and they look at what the Palestinians do purely to look for arguments for why that position is justified. If the Palestinians fight back with terrorist attacks then that is proof the Palestinians are uncivilized. If the Palestinians do not fight back then that is proof that Israel can keep the West Bank at little cost and therefore should keep the West Bank. Basically whatever the Palestinians do or do not do the hardline argument is that West Bank should be incorporated as part of Israel. More quietly the hardliners hope for some sort of uprising combined with a war against Arab states that would give them the excuse to expel all the Palestinians. They have to hope for that outcome btw. The demographic situation is that very soon there will be more Muslims than Jews in the combination of Israel, West Bank, and Gaza. Demographc trends are not on Israel's side.

As for the defensive value of the West Bank: Jordan's military is a joke. What invasion force is the West Bank supposed to be for? Nowadays air forces can blow up any tanks that try to cross a desert.

Some time back Bret Stephens wrote an essay in JPost dissecting the factions on the Israeli Right and Left and how their positions have changed. See my post Bret Stephens On Need For Israeli-Palestinian Separation for a starting point. One faction on the Right did put forth the argument of settlements as having military value. But that position was dubious then and really hard to make now. The settlements are a financial and military burden. The IDF certainly sees them that way. Another non-religious argument for the settlements was that they'd make bargaining chips in some comprehensive settlement. But I do not buy that argument either.

Drew said at December 8, 2004 1:34 PM:

If you want to argue that Israel owns it simply because Israel conquered it then say so.


"If the Jordanian refugees err "palestinians" err the Arab League want to accept their defeats (border changes since 1948 for defense)"

I did say so. Israel was attacked. Not the other way around. The WB IS ISRAEL. So this position of yours that Israel needs excuses to keep it is preposterous. They paid for it with their blood. Any removal of any settlement IS PURE 100% CHARITY. And I am against it without an assurance of change from the arab dream of "total annihilation of Israel".

Let me ask you this......why aren't you arguing that the WB should belong to Jordan? Why is it BOOM all of a sudden Palestinian territory? Aren't you arguing from silence here? Didn't Israel annex the WB from Jordan after the war(s)? Where did this Palestinian territory BS come from?

Jordan and Syria's militaries are jokes. That is why terrorism against the innocent is the preferred MO of Islam.
That is why we have the Golan Hights and the Philadelphia corridor.

Regardless of mine or the beliefs of these Zionists you know, Israel won the land fairly in war. wars they did not provoke.

now to trun the question around on you.....should we give Texas back to Mexico because Houston won that war after the attack on the alamo? War is war, period.

Please answer this for me.

Let me ask you this......why aren't you arguing that the WB should belong to Jordan? Why is it BOOM all of a sudden Palestinian territory? Aren't you arguing from silence here? Didn't Israel annex the WB from Jordan after the war(s)? Where did this Palestinian territory BS come from?

Brian said at January 19, 2005 6:56 AM:

Zionism is a concession to racism. Period. If you accept that anti-semitism is an innate part of human psychology, or somehow genetic, then Zionism is the only outcome. If people are inherently anti-semetic, then the only solution is to take all the jews, separate them from the jew-hating rest of the world, and have their own sanctuary. But this is not the case. Anti-semitism has a historical origin. Monarchs and corrupt leaders trying to divert popular anger, used the jews as a scapegoat. Ultimately, Hitler and the Nazi's distilled anti-semitism into public policy. But Hitler's rise to power wasnt inevitable and neither is anti-semitism.

Zionism was always a fringe movement, looked upon as a right-wing sect by many jews. This is not to deny the historical tragedy of anti-semitism, or to say that it was a figment of this or that rulers imagination. The holocaust was one of, if not the most tragic and dispicable tragedies the world has seen (with the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan coming in second). The victims of this tragegy must be compensated and the world educated about what happened and how to prevent it in the future.

Anti-semitism today is a backward and racist reaction to modern problems and it does exist. But Zionism is its polar opposite and they feed off eachother. Zionism wraps the Holocaust in a shroud of inevitability and minipulates the despair and pain felt by the world to push its own agenda, which is a political, jewish-only state.

I refuse to belive that we cannot fight anti-semitism where it exists. I refuse to believe that Jews must abandon their homes, native countries, to live in isolation among their own kind. Just like segregation wasnt the answer to Jim Crow, Zionism is not the answer to anti-semitism.

All of the social promises of Zionism have been un-fulfilled. with case in point, Israel is the most dangerous place for a Jew to live in the world and facism among jews is on the rise in the Israeli population (see a survey by Haaretz that notes how common the conflict is referred to as "The Palestinian Question"). And this is not a testament to how anti-semetic arabs are, it is a testament to how bankrupt the project of Zionism is. People already lived there, and it doesnt matter if they had a national identity or not.

Lets fight anti-semitism where it exists, not encourage Jews to concede to racism and flee to a sanctuary separate from the world. And consequently, most of the worlds Jews do not chose to live in Israel for many of the reasons I mentioned above.

Israel should be a single, secular democracy, encompassing all of historic Palestine, Judea, whatever you want to call it. The refugees should be given compensation, with a choice of returning to their land, or a sum of money that would allow them to re-locate to a land of their choice. The model that could be used is the same package Israel is offering the settlers in the Gaza strip for leaving their homes. The $5 billion in aid the US gives Israel every year should be used to reconcile the "facts on the ground" with the "right of return" in a democratic and just manner. There will be extremists on both sides, but as in all peoples, all over the world, the moderate majority will dominate, if given dignity and a real voice in outcome of their lives.

I hardly feel this is utopian, especially compared with the alternatives posed by Israel (transfer of all palestinians from their homeland to "somewhere else") and by palestinian extermists (expulsion of the Jewish people from Israel).

I repeat, Zionism is a concession to racism and therefore is an ineffective weapon against anti-semitism.

Randall Parker said at January 19, 2005 11:15 AM:

Brian,

No, the moderate majority does not always win out. Also, no, the majority is not always moderate. The premises of your argument are incorrect. Therefore your conclusion is wrong.

Some problems can not be entirely solved or even sometimes mostly solved.

The Truth said at March 28, 2006 10:20 PM:

Dear All,

The truth is know one has taken the average IQ of the palestinian people. But if they you would find that there IQ is much higher then that of the Zionists. The Palestinian people have been known to be the most educated smartest people in the world. Where ever they have gone they have had success. The highest percentage of people educated in the world are palestinians. And Honestly the Zionist are the stupedist people on the earth. How smart can it be to go to a place where palestinians live and are the actual decendants of the Jews, romans, Canaans, and all the people that went through that land kill them, take their land, humilate them and have enemies all around you when you are happily living in europe, America, And Russia. I mean really Zionist have one or two chilldren. Palestinian about 6 is the average. you do the math. Israel will disapear with in 50 years.

Why would any one want to leave Europe and America to live in Palestine surrounded by enemies how stupid can you get.

Chaya said at May 28, 2007 5:20 AM:

Randall Parker is so wrong. There is no such thing as a 'palestinian' people. It s a fabrication made up to smear Israel and the Jewish people! Read Joan Peters' book, "From Time Immemorial." Look at their videos posted on You Tube. Read their translations from Arabic posted on MEMRI. They are no different from the German Fascists. Their connections to the Nazis has also been documented very carefully.

Chaya said at May 28, 2007 11:56 AM:

The Koran itself says that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people:

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1531


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©