Lately it has been said that the Arabs are in a panic over the growing power of Iran. We are told that Arab rulers so fear the rise of Iran that this fear has eclipsed all others—it’s the sum of all fears. And it’s making a new Middle East

That is what David Brooks, New York Times columnist, wrote last November: “Iran has done what decades of peace proposals have not done—brought Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the Palestinians and the U.S. together. You can go to Jerusalem or to some Arab capitals and the diagnosis of the situation is the same: Iran is gaining hegemonic strength over the region.” Martin Indyk of the Saban Center used the same language in a November interview. Iran, he said, was making “a bid for hegemony in the region.”

The Sunni Arab states, and…Israel, suddenly found that they were on the same side against the Iranians. And so that created a strategic opportunity which the [Bush] administration has finally come to recognize, and that’s, more than anything else, what’s fueling the move to Annapolis.

If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Just last month, Iran’s President Ahmadinejad was invited to attend the summit of Arab Gulf rulers (the Gulf Cooperation Council) in Qatar. That was the first time an Iranian president had ever attended a GCC summit. Two weeks later, Ahmadinejad arrived Mecca, for the haj pilgrimage, at the invitation of Saudi King Abdullah. It was the first pilgrimage by an Iranian president since Iran’s revolution. And as any travel log of Arab and Iranian ministers will show, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

What game are the Gulf Arabs playing? Pretend for a moment that you are ruler of a mythical state called Gulfistan, and I am your national security adviser. You have asked me to prepare a memo on our strategic situation. Page one:

• Your Majesty, these are good times, thanks be to God. With oil at $100 a barrel, you are awash in cash. You have built mega-projects, you have bought new weapons, you have put us on the map. An American university and a French museum have opened branches here. Our skyline flashes glitz and prosperity. And there is no end in sight to the strong demand for our oil. The developed countries are addicted, and China and India need us more every day.
• We are enjoying this boom under the protection of the greatest power on earth. The United States has built a front line of bases right through the Gulf, and not far from your palace. The Americans are here to protect the oil, and as long as we keep it flowing, we need not fear any enemy.
• But Your Majesty doesn’t reward me with a mansion in Aspen to tell you only good news. True, it never rains in Gulfistan, but you wish to know if I see clouds on the horizon.
• I see two clouds. There is President Bush, who thinks God has placed him on earth to make peace in the “Holy Land,” and bring so-called democracy to the Arabs; and there is President Ahmadinejad, who believes God has put him here to spread his Shiite perversion, and who wants nuclear weapons to turn Persia into a great power.
• These are dangerous men who threaten our security. Your Majesty, wisdom dictates that we not chose sides in their quarrel. We need good relations with the Americans: they are our biggest customers, they will defend us against any foreign enemy, and the weapons they sell us make us look stronger than we are. But we need good relations with the Iranians too. Iran is so close, we can feel its breath on our faces, from OPEC to Iraq. Were Iran to subvert us, by inciting our Shiite minority or encouraging terror, it could burst our bubble.
• Your Majesty, a nuclear Iran is undesirable. The Persians are pushy; nuclear weapons would only make them more arrogant. For a moment, we thought the Americans would bomb them to stop them. A few of us privately urged them to do that. But the Americans can’t make up their minds. Some think Iran should be bombed. Some think Iran has no weapons program. Others share the view of General Abizaid, the former U.S. commander here. “Iran is not a suicidal nation,” he’s said. “Nuclear deterrence would work with Iran.” The Americans would destroy Iran if it touched our oil, which is ultimately their oil. But if Iran is careful, it might get the bomb.
• In this uncertain situation, we should balance America and Iran. On the one hand, let us reassure Iran that we are good neighbors. Tell the Iranians we will oppose aggression against them, and we won’t boycott their business or freeze their assets. On the other hand, let us reassure the Americans that we are good allies. Tell them we will stabilize oil prices and let them build their big bases off in the desert. We must keep Washington and Tehran equally close—and equally distant.
• Your Majesty, the Americans want you to shake the hands of Jews and give a hand to Palestinians, to support the so-called “peace process.” We are fortunate: God gave us all the oil and no Jews. He gave the Palestinians no oil and all the Jews. If you join the “peace process,” the Jew will be at your door, demanding “normalization,” and the Palestinian, as usual, will repay generosity with ingratitude. The wise course is to keep this an American problem. Say you will help, but set impossible conditions; come to their “peace conferences” but make no commitments. True, many of your people are moved by the plight of the Palestinians. But this won’t weigh on us, so long as they blame only the Jews and the Americans. If we avoid commitment, the blame will never fall on us.
• If we are wise, we can keep up this game until Bush and Ahmadinejad fade into history. I, your humble servant, will continue to act as your adviser in these sensitive matters. Perhaps, then, I might be rewarded with that small estate outside London? My youngest wife very much fancies it…

Now obviously I’ve simplified things here. There is no typical Arab Gulf state like Gulfistan—different Gulf states have different interests and different policies. That is why we have Gulf experts.

But this isn’t the place to explore what distinguishes, say, Kuwait from Saudi Arabia. The point I want to make is this:

We all know how little fuel there is right here to keep the Annapolis process going. At this point, Israelis and Palestinians are running on fumes. That’s why Martin Indyk said that most of the fuel for Annapolis would have to come from a grand anti-Iran coalition. But the reality is that the coalition never formed, and now even its premises have disintegrated. Assembling this coalition was bound to be difficult; after the NIE, it has become impossible.

We have been here before. Every few years, a prophet arises to proclaim a new Middle East, including Israel. In the 1990s, peace between Israel and the Palestinians was supposed to turn the Middle East into a zone of economic cooperation—including Israel. Then we were told that Iraq’s liberation would turn the Middle East into a zone of democracy—including Israel. A few months ago, we were told that the Iranian threat would turn the Middle East into a zone of political and military alliance—including Israel.

This latest new Middle East has had the shortest life of them all. Apparently, new Middle Easts just aren’t what they used to be.

art eckstein - 2/2/2008

Well said, N.F.

But I cannot resist the following: Omar's idea that the Greeks who were expelled from Egypt by Nasser were people who weren't being expelled from their homeland (as the Palestinians were) is simply a racist statement on his part. Some of those Greeks had been living in Egypt for 2,300 years, some for "only" 150 years (that is, for five generations).

Presumably Omar views these Christians Greeks as "guests" of the Egyptians, who were then thrown out. But then what about the ARABS? The original Egyptians are the COPTS, who are Christians who are daily oppressed by their occupying Muslim-Arab conquerors. But Omar of course views THAT situation as only natural, given the superiority of Islam.

omar ibrahim baker - 2/2/2008

Teaching the unteachable is a real thankless job and a true waste of time; when the unteachable happens to be a Professor the situation deteriorates further into tragic...however the truth must be said that:
-No Greeks ere expelled from GREECE
-No Turks were expelled from Turkey
-No Poles were expelled from Poland
(All in the context of this and prior posts.)

The PALESTINIANS were dislocated , dispossessed, disfranchised, subjugated from and in their own homeland PALESTINE by aliens.

The PALESTINIANS were supplanted in PALESTINE by imported Zionist aliens who colonized it and still do.
These aliens were selected and approved for admission into the colony to supplant the indigenous Palestinian people according to a single unmitigated racist/confessional criterion : Jewishness!

If a university Professor fails to see the difference all is the pity and sorrow for his unfortunate students!


If an analogy is to be drawn to this criminal colonialist aggression the nearest would be the Boer colonizing of South Africa which, however, never went so far, and so vile, as to DENY indigenous South Africans the RIGHT of RETURN to their homeland whereas Israel did and does to the Palestinians!

Furthermore it should be noted that both states, Israel and pre liberation South Africa adopted and implimented strict racial/racist standards and policies: Apartheid in South Africa and Jewishness in ( the Zionist/Israeli colony) Palestine.
Israel still does!

N. Friedman - 2/2/2008

Omar,

The point here is that your points do not address what I wrote. My position is that, as Professor Eckstein notes, nations are all born in sin. So, whatever the facts are about Israel's birth does not make Israel illegitimate - lest you are saying that all states are illegitimate.

Rather, the issue is how to address the current circumstances where Israel finds itself, in effect, a crusader state (as your former Mr. Arafat described it) and where Palestinian Arabs allow themselves to serve as willing pawns in a Medieval Jihad against that state and where its Palestinian Arab leadership openly vows to commit genocide, if given the chance, against the Israelis. That sort of situation does not leave a lot of good prospects for those involved.

If you want to discuss history, that is fine. If you claim that Israel is illegitimate due to the facts of its birth, that strikes me as a religious argument and it surely is not a serious argument, because, as I noted, all nations are born in sin and no nation requires any justification to exist other than its existence.

So, even if everything you said about Israel were true - which surely is not the case -, such would, at most, be good internal propaganda to stir up hatred among Arabs. But, to note, any rational accounting of the hatred stirred up by the propaganda you mistake as history shows that such has served mostly as a means for Arab leaders to keep their peoples ignorant and to maintain privileges over them. So, every day wasted worrying about Israel, rather than coming to terms with the 21st Century, places the Arab peoples further and further behind the rest of the world.

art eckstein - 2/2/2008

From the last paragraph above, Omar advocates that the 12 million Germans dispossessed from Eastern Europe begin blowing up civilians in Danzig, Warsaw, and Prague; that the Greeks send young men and women into Alexandria and Cairo to blow up nightclubs and schoolchildren, that the dispossessed Middle Eastern Jews who now make up a majority of the Israeli population send their young men and women to kill schoolchildren and religious old people at prayer in Fex, Benghazi, and Baghdad (oh, wait, I guess they don't have to send'em to Baghdad, since Mulsim fanatics are blowing up schoolchildren and old people at prayer already, every murder done in the name of Allah).

The Palestinian complaint of being unique is false. Turning all of Palestinian culture and society into a genocidal death-cult: now THAT is unique. And the reason this occurred is what Omar himself said when confronted with the numerous historical examples of displaced peoples, and peoples victimized by population exchange, in the period 1945-1960: the Palestinians do these terrorist atrocities because they are "more noble" than the Germans, the Greeks, or the Jews who were expelled.

I leave it to readers to make up their minds about whether this is the correct characterization.

omar ibrahim baker - 2/2/2008

Mr Friedman, you ask:
(Re: It exists...so I defend it!! MY POINT IS (#118558)
by N. Friedman on February 1, 2008 at 11:08 AM)

"Would you be happier if your family had lost its home to Muslim Arabs moved to the country by the Ottoman Empire?"

I unequivocally reply : OF course NOT!
I would NOT be happy and I will oppose any body that DISLOCATED, DISPOSSESSED, DISFRANCHISED and SUBJUGATED my people of whatever nationality and religious allegiance he happens to be or profess!

However both of us, Mr. Friedman, realize that your question is both rhetorical and hypocritical in that you consistently but CONSCIOUSLY avoid the root cause of the conflict.
That happens to be, as you surely know by now, that:
Israel came into existence and was established in Palestine as the result of:

a-The forced entry of Jewish immigrants into Palestine against the Express will of (90%) of the indigenous Palestinian people was , still is, an act of aggression

b-Which, the continuous admission of Jewish immigrants against the Express will of the indigenous Palestinian people, was only made possible through the DENIAL of the Palestinian people his right to SELF DETERMINATION

c-That a Jewish small minority (10%) became a sizable minority, pre 1948, with presumed political claims on and in Palestine, through the continued importation of Aliens into Palestine, always against the Express will and continuous opposition of the indigenous Palestinian people, and the ethnic cleansing of numerous Palestinians in their homeland. then a "majority, post 1948 .

d-That that, post 1948, "majority" is maintained and sustained through the continued influx of Jewish immigrants , the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian people AND the DENIAL of the Palestinian people his inalienable RIGHT of RETURN to his homeland.

I would have objected to, opposed and fought, as insistently and consistently, against the perpetrators of these acts of aggression and denial to which ever nationality or religion they belonged to or professed. It has nothing to do with the fact that they, the perpetrators of these heinous acts of aggression, were, still are, Jewish

What you fail to publicly recognize, although I suspect you know deep down in your heart, that any sane, honourable and patriotic person would and should object to, oppose and fight against who so ever DISLOCATES, DISPOSSESSES, DISFRANCHISES, SUBJUGATES his people in their homeland, DENIES them their right of RETURN to their homeland and SUPPLANTS them with ALIENS, of which ever national or religious provenance they, the perpetrators, happen to be!
You ,Mr. Friedman, do or should know that if not for many years past then, at least, by now!

omar ibrahim baker - 2/2/2008

"The "Professor” here is equating, morally, legally and politically, the years (1918-Present) to the years (630-730) and (1400-1700) :ALL AD!
All of which goes to prove my point that Israel is a retrogressive and reactionary creation that DOES NOT recognize that Human kind has progressed and that nation/states no longer evolve and develop out of conquests and colonialist expeditions!

The "Professor" herein denies that such a thing as "Self determination" of a people in his homeland is the criterion of civilized behaviour in modern times ."

The rest of his post is so much hot air and/or fabrication.
Nothing new here!

art eckstein - 2/1/2008

AGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Two mentally disabled women were strapped with explosives Friday and sent into busy Baghdad markets, where they were blown up by remote control, a top Iraqi government official said


The bombs killed at least 98 people and wounded more than 200 at two popular pet markets on the holiest day of the week for Muslims, authorities said.

In both bombings, the attackers were mentally disabled women whose explosive belts were remotely detonated, Gen. Qasim Atta, spokesman for Baghdad's security plan, told state television.

Atta said the women were strapped with dynamite and ball bearings, citing members of the bomb squad. The explosives were detonated via cell phone, he said.

An Atta aide said that people referred to the bomber at central Baghdad's al-Ghazl market as the "crazy woman" and that the bomber at a second market had an unspecified birth disability.

The aide said authorities believe the women were unaware of plans to detonate the explosives.

U.S. military officials referred to the two attacks as suicide bombings, saying both women detonated the explosive devices.


And Omar worries about THE JEWS. What obscene hypocrisy.

N. Friedman - 2/1/2008

Omar,

Again, your argument does not address my point at all. What you write is, logically speaking, irrelevant. Would you be happier if your family had lost its home to Muslim Arabs moved to the country by the Ottoman Empire?

art eckstein - 2/1/2008

1, Some Pakistani today enjoys the property of Indians turned into refugees.
2, Some Pole today enjoys the property of Germans turned into refugees--and they cannot, by law, come back. The same is true in the Czech Republic and Romania.
3. Thousands of Egyptians today enjoy the property of the 300,000 Greeks expelled as penniless refugees by Nasser.
4. China swamped Tibet with Chinese colonists--no one thinks of China as illegitimate.
Saddam swamped Irbil and Mosul with Arab colonists to "Arabize" these towns, throwing out the Kurds--few people want to expell the Arab colonists.
5. The Muslim govt of Indonesia colonized Christian East Timor, and terrorized the Christian population (1965-1999); no Muslims objected, or thought the Indonesian government illegitimate, and when the Timorese finally broke away, Muslim terrorists killed the UN official responsible for setting up the new state, on the grounds that "he had taken lands from Islam."
6. The U.S. swamped the North American continent with colonists, which overwelmed the native Americans--no one except crazies thinks of the U.S. govt as illegitimate.
7. The French govt conquered and absorbed Brittany, Aquitaine, and Provence, and the conquest wasn't concluded until after 1800; French was imposed as the national language on these areas; no one thinks of the French govt as illegitimate.
8. A majority of the Israeli Jewish population, as I have shown and sourced from university sources, comes from Middle Eastern Jews expelled and left penniless by the Arabs between 1948 and 1960. They are hardly "aliens". Meanwhile, Arab Muslims from Morocco to Libya to Egypt to Iraq are enjoying the property stolen from the Jewish refugees. No Muslim objects to this.

Omar objects to nothing except Israel. This is because it is theologically and culturally outrageous that dhimmis should have their own country in what was once Muslim lands, and theologically and culturally outrageous that a bunch of Jews, who have traditionally had no power in Muslilm lands, can consistently defeat Arab armies sent to commit genocide against them.

omar ibrahim baker - 2/1/2008

Mr Friedman
You pretend to , or actually fail, to see "my point"!
In other and fewer words my point is:
1-None of the countries you mentioned as examples for Israeli usurpation of Palestine actually qualify as having an analogous provenance and development in that:

a-None created numerical strength through the import of Aliens as Israel did
b-None adopted and implemented a policy of forced immigration to alter the natural demographic composition of the population of the land in question as is the case of Israel
c-None ended with a different demographic composition that was inherently hostile to the prevalent indigenous demographic composition of the land or ended with a different, and naturally hostile, cultural identity to the indigenous cultural identity as with the establishment of Israel in Palestine.
d-None DENIED any portion of its legitimate indigenous population the right to return to their homeland as Israel DID and still DOES.
d-ALL ended by empowering the legitimate indigenous majority of the country to rule over their native homeland except for Israel.

In other words; there is absolutely no similarity, resemblance or similitude ,as you contend, between the cases of Greek, Turkish and Polish provenance and development into the free independent nation/states of Greece, Turkey and Poland and the case of the Zionist colonialist conquest of Palestine that led to the emergence of Israel in Palestine.
AND your analogy is intrinsically false, fake, void and invalid.

Of equal importance is the conclusion that:

"-CC**** A majority that came into being through the enforced admission of ALIENS is an illegitimate majority whose members partook in a colonialist conquest and as such is NOT entitled to neither political rights nor to any sort of sovereignty over the land they were admitted into AGAINST the will of its indigenous population"

In other words Palestine today, under the name Israel, is as much of a colony ruled over by aliens colonialists as much as was South Africa when it was ruled over, until very recently, by the alien Boer colonialists, and the majority of Jewish Israelis are the Afrikaners .

art eckstein - 1/31/2008

My point is as N.F. says. No state comes into being without original sin. Therefore obsession with israel as if its acts were unique, when the fact is that other states in that period (1945-1955) and before it AND after it have acted in similar and indeed far worse fashion (Tibet didn't ATTACK China, after all, whereas the Arab states DID attack the Jews in 1948, so there is a case for self-defense)--to call israel, as Omar has done, "the crime of the century" (not, e.g., the Holocaust): well, it betrays great historical ignorance and it is intellectually indefensible.

art eckstein - 1/31/2008

The Chinese govt invaded Tibet, consciously destroyed Tibetan culture and deployed hundreds of thousands of Chinese colonists to Tibet, and they now form a majority in Tibet, far-outnumbering native Tibetans. This occurred in 1950, i.e., in the same period as the expulsion of the Germans from E. Europe, the expulsion of Hindus from Pakistan, the expulsion of Muslims from India, the expulsion of Greeks from Egypt, the expulsion of Jews from the Muslim Middle East and North Africa--and the creation of Israel. Does that make the Chinese govt illegitimate?

In the 1980s the govt of Saddam Hussein adopted a conscious policy of "Arabizing" Mosul and Irbil, driving out the Kurds who formed a majority in what had been the chief cities of Kurdistan, and Saddam created a new Arab majority in those cities.. Should the govt of Saddam have been overthrown on those grounds Saddam, Omar--and should the Arabs who were settled in the north and now form a majority in those cities be expelled?

Omar is ONLY concerns with Jews.

N. Friedman - 1/31/2008

Omar,

I do not see your point at all.

You say two different things that amount to saying nothing at all. On the one hand, you seem to think that migration makes the case of the Palestinian Arabs different than, say, the case of the 14 million Indians (Muslim and Hindu) expelled to create modern Pakistan and India. My short response. Those who lost their homes lost them just the same no matter how it occurred.

You also say that it matter that those expelled were the majority in Israel but not, for example, in Greece. My response: see my response to point one.


In logic, what you have posited is akin to tu quoque because the argument casts aspersion and/or praise on a party rather than addressing the argument raised. Such is not a valid form of argument.

Again: it matters not one wit the condition of those who expelled Palestinian Arabs or the situation of Palestinian Arabs before that occurred. If they lost their homes, they lost them.

The one thing that can be said for sure. Palestinian Arabs believe that they lost something because Israel was created. Jews also believe they lost something due to oppression in Europe and in Arab lands. So, there is a dispute. The dispute will go on so long as compromise regarding reasonably legitimate positions is not reached. I see you doing exactly nothing to advance a settlement other than mouth pious nonsense that has no relationship to the historical record and merely suggests that you prefer war to settlement.

omar ibrahim baker - 1/31/2008

Mr Friedman
In your attempt to equate
Israel's "provenance" with some other modern nation/states you state:
-"modern Greece began with the expulsion of millions of Turks."
-"Modern Turkey began out of the ashes of millions of massacred Christians and the expulsion of millions of Christians"
-"Modern Poland began with the expulsion of about a million Germans"

Assuming the historical factuality of your contention(s), which are far from being accurate in many respects, you fail to notice the cardinal weakness and the total fakeness, the inherent falsehood, of the analogy you draw to bolster your argument in that:
1-Greece had then a majority of Greeks dwelling and living in it and still does
2-Turkey was then predominantly inhabited by Turks and still is
3-Poland had then a majority of Poles living in it and still has

Whereas:

A-Palestine, before the beginning of the forced Jewish immigration post WWI, (which was plainly against the express will of its indigenous population) had an overwhelming majority of Palestinians living in it. That majority was composed of Palestinian Arabs, both Moslem and Christians (90%)and a small minority of Jews (10%) who never identified themselves as Palestinian Arabs.

The forced admission of Jewish immigrants AGAINST the express will of the indigenous Palestinian people was a plain act of conquest and aggression.

B-That overwhelming majority was forcedly altered into a simple numerical majority by the forced admission of ALIENS, always against the express will of the majority of its indigenous inhabitants, and the small minority was altered into a sizable minority with pretensions and claims to political rights and sovereignty

C-None of the nation/states you mention imported ALIENS to forcedly transform the demographic composition of the land in question as for Greece importing Greeks or Poland importing Poles as the Zionist movement, then Israel, did import into Palestine

D- None of the nation/states you mentioned i.e. Greece, Turkey and Poland DENIED Greeks, Turks or Poles from returning to their respective homelands. AS Israel did and does DENY the Palestinians their inalienable Right of Return to their homeland.
What do we conclude from these unassailable facts?
The inevitable conclusions are:
AA****Greeks still form, naturally and legally, a majority of the population of Greece and rule over Greece; ditto for the Turks and the Poles in their respective homelands.
Palestinian Arabs are presently, abnormally and illegitimately, a minority in their own homeland Palestine while imported Aliens rule over it

BB****None of the countries you mention imported ALIENS to transform its small minority status into a sizable minority as the Jews did in Palestine while concurrently altering the natural majority status of Palestinian Arabs into a minority through ethnic cleansing and denial of Right of Return

CC**** A majority that came into being through the enforced admission of ALIENS is an illegitimate majority whose members partook in a colonialist conquest and as such is NOT entitled to neither political rights nor to any sort of sovereignty over the land they were admitted into AGAINST the will of its indigenous population.

DD**** Only through the continued Israeli denial of the Palestinians inalienable Right of Return to their homeland does Israel maintain its illegal Jewish “majority”.

N. Friedman - 1/31/2008

Omar,

You write: "ALL AD!"

I am glad that you admit that the events mentioned by Professor Eckstein are all AD.

The point made by Professor Eckstein is that the origins - including modern origins - of countries include all sorts of nastiness. Hence, modern Greece began with the expulsion of millions of Turks. That was in the early 19th Century but continued into the 20th Century. Does that make Greece illegitimate? Modern Turkey began out of the ashes of millions of massacred Christians and the expulsion of millions of Christians. That was in the 20th Century. Does that make modern Turkey illegitimate?

Jordan ethnically cleansed lands under its control of all Jews and made such an issue of law. Modern Pakistan began with the expulsion of millions of Hindus. Likewise, modern India began with the expulsion of millions of Muslims. Modern Poland began with the expulsion of about a million Germans. The same for Czechoslovakia. All of these expulsions were within two years or so of Israel's founding. Are all of these country's illegitimate?

Egypt, as Professor Eckstein has noted repeatedly, expelled hundreds of thousands of Greeks. That was even more recently than Israel's founding. Does that make Egypt illegitimate?

My suggestion, Omar. Come up with a theory which is not entirely ad hoc. Otherwise, you have not made a real argument.

omar ibrahim baker - 1/31/2008

According to Professor Eckstein:

"EVERY "Arab and Muslim state" currently existing in the Middle East and North Africa is the result of the hugely successful Arab and Muslim "marauding, pillaging and ursurping expeditions" of the 630s-730 A.D. Turkey is the result of the "marauding, pillaging, and usurping" expeditions of the period 1400-1700. Iran is the result of the "marauding, pillaging and usurping" expeditions of the Safavids of a slightly later period, and the northwestern third of the country consists of conquered and occupied Azerbaijanis. (Just ask ANY Azerbaijani about this.) …etc, etc”


"Re: It exists...so I defend it!! To F &E (#118533)
by art eckstein on January 31, 2008 at 8:39 AM)

The "Professor” here is equating, morally, legally and politically, the years (1918-Present) to the years (630-730) and (1400-1700) :ALL AD!
All of which goes to prove my point that Israel is a retrogressive and reactionary creation that DOES NOT recognize that Human kind has progressed and that nation/states no longer evolve and develop out of conquests and colonialist expeditions!

The "Professor" herein denies that such a thing as "Self determination" of a people in his homeland is the criterion of civilized behaviour in modern times .

The "Professor" herein insists that the practice of conquest, dislocation, dispossession and subjugation of a people and his sup plantation with the colonialist conqueror IS STILL a VALID model of nation building in modern times.(So much for the often repeated phony allegation of a “democratic” and “progressive” Israel)

This has been my point throughout: that Israel is the intrinsic incarnation of the negation of fundamental human rights and that the colonialist Zionist conquest of Palestine that led to establishment of the racist colony of Israel in Palestine is a THROW BACK to the dark ages where neither human rights nor peoples' right of SELF DETERMINATION in their homeland were known or recognized!

Thanks Prof...Just do not try to take it back!

art eckstein - 1/31/2008

EVERY "Arab and Muslim state" currently existing in the Middle East and North Africa is the result of the hugely successful Arab and Muslim "marauding, pillaging and ursurping expeditions" of the 630s-730 A.D. Turkey is the result of the "marauding, pillaging, and usurping" expeditions of the period 1400-1700. Iran is the result of the "marauding, pillaging and usurping" expeditions of the Safavids of a slightly later period, and the northwestern third of the country consists of conquered and occupied Azerbaijanis. (Just ask ANY Azerbaijani about this.)


Britain is the result of "marauding, pillaging and usurping" expeditions of the English, the conquest and occupation of Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, accomplished with enormous bloodshed, the occupation of Scotland not accomplished completely until 1750, one result being the expulsion or fleeing of hundreds of thousands of Scots to the American colonies, and if you think people have forgotten, you're wrong. France is the result of "marauding, pillaging and usurping" expeditions against Normandy, Britany, Provence and Acquitaine by an aggressive govt situated around Paris (Ile de France); the final conquests occurred only under Napoleon ca. 1800. The U.S. is of course the result of "marauding, pillaging and usurping" expeditions both against the Indians and the American South; the latter was conquered and occupied in 1865; the last Indian battles were in 1890. Modern Russia is the result of "marauding, pilliging and usurping" expeditions that went on for centuries, were repeated in the 1920s under Soviet aegis, military violence that was repeated as late in the 1990s both in the conquered Baltic states and in Azerbaijan.

Omar knows no world history. He knows only one thing, an "Arab grievance", which he endlessly repeats as if it were unique. It isn't. He only reveals his ignorance of the history of states.

I notice Omar doesn't feel any need to talk about the fate of Muhammad Hijazi under totalitarian Egyptian government Muslim bigotry (see my last post before this one)--something that would never happen in Israel. I'm not suprised, of course, given his pathological obsession on "magic, powerful Jews". It's laughable, except that it's tragic.

omar ibrahim baker - 1/31/2008

"Does it not make any difference if an entity, country or otherwise

"existed"(exists) only

as a result of a marauding, pillaging and usurpation expedition? That is as the outcome of a successful aggressive, colonialist conquest?"

"If the continued existence of that entity is dependant on the continued denial( and violation) of its legitimate owners/dwellers of their natural inalienable rights of return to their homeland , of the repossession of their legitimate property and of their self determination in their own native homeland ; is that reason enough to defend it?

"Common and natural law, fundamental legality denies the robber continued possession of the loot...does it NOT??"

A. M. Eckstein - 1/30/2008

Just to expand a bit on N.F.'s point, "We could ask how EGYPT could be allowed to exist given its treatment of the Copts."

August 2007:

Christian convert Mohammed Ahmed Hegazy is in hiding – sleeping in different places each night – after Muslims mounted death threats against him for suing Egypt for refusing to accept his application to officially change his religion from Islam to Christianity on his identification papers.


January 2008: An Egyptian court has ruled that Hegazy has no right to change his religion from Islam to Christianity, and certainly not on his identification papers, since Christianity is earlier in origin than Islam and therefore Hegazy is “going backward”, and since it is the duty of the state to “maintain humans on the right path.”

How can you live with this, Omar--and criticize others? This would never happen in...Israel. To anybody.

Omar's obsessive focus on Jews is therefore hypocritical. And his obsessive foucs on the alleged magic power of Jews to control the world derives not from traditional Islam but directly from Nazi ideology, since traditional Muslim contempt of Jews started from the assumption of their LACK of power. Meanwhile, the kind of injustice that happens to Hejazy and other Christians at the hands of Muslim governments all over the world everyday, this kind of Muslim totalitarian religious bigotry enforced by the state: well, it's not a concern to him. He's more focused on Jews.

N. Friedman - 1/30/2008

Omar,

No nation on Earth asserts a justification for existing. In that regard, all nations are, in fact, like the mafia. Some, like all Arab countries, are more like the mafia. But, that does not mean their existence requires justification.

Were one to demand justification for existing, we could ask how Germany has a right to exist after its crimes in WWI and WWII. We could ask how Saudi Arabia has a right to exist given its treatment of Shi'a and of women and of blacks and its refusal to permit the practice of religions other than Islam. We could ask how Egypt could be allowed to exist given its treatment of the Copts. We could ask how Jordan could be allowed to exist since its basic laws includes a law permitting no Jews. We could ask how the UK has a right to exist after its colonial legacy. We could ask how Belgium could be allowed to exist after the genocide it committed in the Congo. We could ask how Sudan is allowed to exist given its being guilty of serial incidents of genocide. We could ask how Syria is allowed to exist given how it treats Syrians. Etc., etc.

Perhaps, you see my point. This is a nonsense argument you have presented. Countries exist because the hold the means of violence to prevent their being overthrown or conquered. Your approach is, as I see it, the same as that of George W. Bush who decided that Iraq, under Saddam, did not have the right to exist under his set of criteria. Why? Because the country was a serial abuser of the rights of its citizens and to others, violating UN laws on disarming.

So, your theory is one that justifies perpetual war in order to create your system of perfection, whatever it is. But, someone else may have different criteria and may say, for example, that Arab nations are all unjust and should all be overthrown - i.e., they do not have a right to exist because they do not not meet this or that set of criteria.

omar ibrahim baker - 1/30/2008

"My defense of Israel is very simple. It exists."(Re: Facts and Fantasies (#118447) by N. Friedman on January 29, 2008 at 2:18 PM)

The MAFIA exists, is that reason enough to defend it??

Until very recently a heinous racist regime EXISTED and ruled over South Africa...was that cause enough to defend it??

Does it not make any difference if an entity, country or otherwise
"existed" only as a result of a marauding, pillaging and usurpation expedition? That is as the outcome of a successful aggressive, colonialist conquest?

If the continued existence of that entity is dependant on the continued denial of its legitimate owners/dwellers of their natural inalienable rights of return to their homeland , of the repossession of their legitimate property and of their self determination in their own native homeland ; is that reason enough to defend it?

Common and natural law, fundamental legality denies the robber continued possession of the loot...does it NOT??

Natural law and fundamental legality , I assure you, will ultimately prevail, and the looter will be forced to give up the loot!
The pity is the huge suffering that that will inflict on both the marauder and the rightful , legitimate owner!

The MAFIA exists, Apartheid existed is that, was that reason enough to defend them??

N. Friedman - 1/29/2008

Omar,

You have me conceding things I never conceded nor do I believe to be of any significance.

My defense of Israel is very simple. It exists. That is the only defense any country on Earth offers and it is the only one Israel ought offer. However, I am willing to discuss your tendentious presentation of history.

First, Israel has three groups of Jews. One is, as you say, Jews who lived in Europe. Two is, as you do not often mention, Jews who lived in the country all along. Three is Jews who came from the Arab regions.

You contend that Arabs did not boot out any Jews. You can say that except... it is not true. There were Jews in Jerusalem which all lost their homes during the 1948 war. There were also Jews in Hebron who were pushed out after Arab riots in the 1920's. There were also Jews who lost their homes in Gaza and in what you call the West Bank. In fact, all Jews in the lands which came under Jordanian and Egyptian control after the 1948 war were expelled or killed - with no exceptions. I believe that was roughly 40 to 80 thousand people.

In Egypt, there were pogroms which led to Jews fleeing. These were not instigated by Israel - unless you are saying that the Israelis led Arab gangs of thugs!!! There were also Jews who were pushed out of Iraq, beginning with the Farhud of 1941 in which as many as 400 Jews were massacred (and Iraq admits to 187 such deaths in the massacres). All told, about 1 million Jews lost their homes in Arab lands, with the former owners' property stolen by Arab governments.

These things happened whether you admit to them or not. Even the Iraqi government admitted to the 1941 massacre.

But again, that is life. Just like what happened to Palestinian Arabs. Jews moved on. Arabs decided to make the issue one of honor and revenge - the latter being a loathsome motive. As a result of such stupidity, Arabs have caused their own problems and have made everyone else miserable, as if non-Arabs forced Arabs not to resettle Palestinian Arab refugees. Grow up, Omar. The dispute could be settled in an hour with minimal good will on your side in which one realizes that Arabs are not the only people who suffer.

art eckstein - 1/29/2008

A reasonable source on the refugees from Muslim lands and their descendants constituting a majority of the Israeli population is the article by Yoni Yovnah of Ben Gurion University in the highly respected British left-wing political journal New Statesman, 31 October 2005.

omar ibrahim baker - 1/29/2008

"Is all of your history this faulty?"
(Re: Facts and Fantasies (#118410)
by N. Friedman on January 28, 2008 at 2:30 PM)
Cheap try Mr Friedman ; my sentence IS:
"One has only to consider their names, and look up their lineage, to find out:etc etc"

You chose to ignore:
"and look up their lineage"
Cheap, very cheap Mr Friedman!

omar ibrahim baker - 1/29/2008

Mr. Friedman
They, Arab Jews, were NOT "kicked out"; they chose to migrate, to displace themselves, under "pressure" MAINLY from ZIONIST and Israeli circles.
In Egypt the Mossad(?), or another Israeli security organ, bombed the Cairo Synagogue and the Jewish community club(?) to frighten and coerce Egyptian Jews into migrating.

The whole thing was disclosed by the LAVON affair.

Lavon, if I remember correctly , was Ben Gurion’s (Israeli ) Minister of Defense, or a high official , that instigated the whole "terrorist" campaign against Egyptian Jews to force to migrate to Israel.
The same thing was repeated under different forms in other Arab countries.
Unfortunately ,and except for the very few ,Arab Jews chose NOT to integrate in the societies in which they lived although, to preserve their own distinct cultural identity, they had their own schools, social clubs, community centers etc and houses of prayer and they PROSPERED IMMENSELY generally attainting a standard of living much higher than their compatriots.

Just look up the names of, say, Chikurel, Shemla and Sidnawi of Egypt to find out how well they prospered in Egypt as an example.

Unfortunately these and many many other Arab Jews, sadly a majority, never chose to belong to their native land BUT CHOSE to throw away their allegiance , NOT to their NATIVE LAND as duty bound by universal standards, but to allay with the marauding and pillaging enemy that invaded and colonized Palestine .

EQUALLY UNFORTUNATELY is that this, their, behaviour was NOT ATYPICAL but consistent with the general behaviour that characterized a general mode of behaviour all over the world!!
(Which goes a long way to explain the universal JEWISH problem of non allegiance and the resultant ostracization and discrimination; as you, I suspect, well know?
The irony of the whole situation is, however, that this Jewish problem was much less acute re ostracization and discrimination but as acute and flagrant re nonallegiance in Arab and Moslem countries than in the WEST.)
Both Dayan and Gur are the descendants of non Arab, non Oriental Jewish/Zionist colons and, as such, the son of an ALIEN is an ALIEN!!

RE Ebban do you contend that he is of Arab or Oriental descent????

However the good thing about your post is that you concede that:

-The early invaders, the colons, the so called “pioneers” and the leadership of the Zionist movement, inside and outside Palestine, was composed, overwhelmingly, of ALIENS.

-That the ruling establishment in Israel was, in the early formative stages, composed exclusively of non Arab and non Oriental Jews; and still is, predominantly, and as such it is composed of ALIENS as far as the indigenous population of the land and the region is concerned.

All of which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the RACIST conquest of Palestine was undertaken and IS presently still maintained by ALIEN colons in no way different from the Afrikaners , the Boers, colonists of South Africa except that Zionist Racism is religiously, confession ally based while the equally abhorrent South African racism was colour based.
(I have no recent figures re the lineage provenance of the present population of the Zionist colony of Israel although I suspect with the Russian influx it is back to the predominantly ALIEN i.e. neither of Arab nor oriental.
Perhaps the learned “Professor” will do something useful, for a change, and provide us with such figures.)

HOWEVER; the IRONY ,the ABSURDITY and the CRIMINALITY of the whole situation is that any body with real or false JEWISH pretensions can go to and dwell in Palestine EXCEPT its native , legitimate and indigenous people : the PALESTINIANS.
That, I promise you, will NOT endure and racist provenance will NOT remain the criterion for admission into one’s homeland.)

N. Friedman - 1/28/2008

Omar,

On your telling, no Jews were displaced from Arab lands. The scholarship does not agree with your view. Some Jews did leave voluntarily. Most were terrorized (e.g. in Egypt and Iraq) and many were driven out - the same way you accuse Israel of driving out Palestinian Arabs, since most Palestinian Arabs also left, using your definition, voluntarily. Be that as it may, the majority of Israel's Jewish population is from Arab lands, however that came about. And, they certainly had the right to make a life for themselves as something other than second class citizens - which is, on the friendliest telling, the most any Arab state ever offered.

Now, it is true that ben Gurion was from Europe. However, deriving that from his name is not possible since his birth name was not ben Gurion. Nice try.

Abba Eban is not from Europe, by the way, and his birth name is not Abba Eban. Moshe Dayan was born in what is now Israel, in Kibbutz Degania Alef near the shores of the Sea of Galilee. That makes him a native. If you refer to Mordechai Gur, he was born in Jerusalem. Again, he is a native.

Is all of your history this faulty?

omar ibrahim baker - 1/28/2008

Not a single Jew was kicked out from any Arab and/or Moslem country. Unfortunately most of them chose of their own free will to disown the countries in which they lived and prospered for centuries and join their East European brethren in their colonialist project and marauding designs.
As a matter of historical fact Syria FORBADE Syrian Jews from emigrating any where, suspecting that they will ultimately go to the colony of Israel.
Only recently and under intense Western pressure Syrian Jews were allowed to migrate from Syria.
(The New York Times had an article on the subject recently).
Further more Arab Jews were invited to RETURN to their "native " land; some did to Morocco , Tunis and Libya (?).
The overwhelming majority of Jewish early settlers, the " pioneering" colons, was composed of Jews of mainly East European provenance .
One has only to consider their names, and look up their lineage, to find out: Ben Gurion,Weisman,Magnus, Jabotinsky, Sharrett, Begin , Dayan , Ebban, Gur.
Until very recently the leadership of Israel and the Zionist movement was composed, exclusively, of Ashkenazi Jews ie Jews of Western (non Oriental, non Arab) lineage.
Only recently very few Sephardi (Arab and Oriental) Jews were allowed into the Israeli ruling establishment; they are still a very small minority.
Arab and Oriental Jews are the predominant element of the Israeli underclassrs ; as such they were also victims of the western born Zionist movement that lured them away from their native lands to join their colonialist project.

art eckstein - 1/28/2008

The MAJORITY of the Jewish population of israel consists of refugees from MUSLIM lands, not from Europe--they were kicked out of Muslim lands between 1948 and 1960. So the population of Israel can hardly be said to be "ALIEN" to the Middle East.

What is "alien" is the fact, outrageous to Muslims, that people of dhimmi status have their own state where they rule themselves and actually dare to defend themselves from genocidal Muslim attacks.

In the same period of the 1950s, the Egyptian government kicked out 300,000 Greeks from Egypt--a tragedy of ethnic and reliigous cleansing which Arab propaganda has managed to bury, as it has managed to bury the fact of the expulsion of the 850,000 Jews from Muslim lands: that is, 100,000 more refugees than were involved in the Nakbah. Those refugee Jews from the Middle East lived in horrid and squalid refugee camps in Israel throughout most of the 1950s.

But let us not be bothered by actual facts.

omar ibrahim baker - 1/28/2008

When dealing with the Middle East situation and particularly the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and the IRAN issue great care should be exercised to distinguish between facts and fantasies; between thinking and wishful thinking.

The facts of the matter are:

* The universal Arab perception is: that the predominant objective behind the US opposition to a nuclear Iran is the American desire to maintain Israel's regional monopoly of nuclear technology and nuclear armament.

*Though fully realizing that a nuclear Iran would greatly enhance its prestige and influence in the region , a negative development, it is equally realized that this enhanced status will be, primarily, at the cost of Israel's standing, influence and power; a welcome positive development that minimizes, overrides and eclipses the negative aspect of Iran's enhanced standing and increased influence.

*The dominant Arab perception of the over all situation is that IRAN, although sometimes abrasive and domineering, is, nevertheless, an INDIGENOUS, legitimate state with legitimate interests with whom the Arabs can reach a mutually acceptable modus vivendi whereas Israel is an illegitimate ALIEN implant with territorial expansionist designs, illegitimate interests and regional domination ambitions.

*The Shiaa /Sunni divide is a fact that, at least re Israel, endangers both factions ( minimally in Palestine and South Lebanon) that can be dealt with due mutual respect for the legitimate interests of both; considering that no irreconcilable , UNSURMOUNTABLE , problems divide the two factions and that both the state and the indigenous populations that embrace it are indigenous and legitimate dwellers of the region .
Whereas Islam/ Zionism (i.e. political Judaism) is a conflict that strategically pits both factions jointly against Zionism and its ALIEN state and adherents, over their (present and for the foreseeable future) irreconcilable respective claims on Palestine.

The rest are fantasies and wishful thinking as a careful study of prevailing and ascending public trends, and the increased awareness of Arab officialdom of these trends, would indicate!