A thought about Israel.

[jbg]

Well, given most of the Palestinian Authority's budget came from the Americans (NOT, interestingly, all those rich Arab states which have been crying cocodile tears for the Palestinians all these years), I suppose people will expect it's the Yanks' responsibility.

Which again raises the question no one likes to deal with: How would an independant Palestine be anything less than a festering, poverty-stricken backwater? They have no money, no industry and no resources. The West doesn't give the kind of money it does now to independant nations except in special circumstances. And I think it highly unlikely Arab states would offer much more than a "graduation gift" to the new state, followed by a big zip.

I'm not so pessimistic. Keep in mind that wherever the Arabs go, they're productive, honest, industrious and peaceful. By contrast, wherever people of the Hebraic faith have any influence, you have violence, corruption, waste, and disorder.

[jbg]

The point is both sides feel under threat and oppresed and if you want to continue to depict this as only one good guy and ne bad guy go watch WWE wrestling.

Not really. One gets much UN assistance, and guess where the money goes? Into corruption and killing. In the other one, the desert blooms, a high tech economy develops, and such military aid as they do get goes to the military, not to Swiss bank accounts.

[Higgly]

The Queen of Jordan is a Palestinian

Mythology of ignorance?

Queen Noor was born Lisa Najeeb Halaby a daughter of Najeeb Halaby, a former CEO of Pan-American World Airways, one time head of the Federal Aviation Administration, and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, and his first wife, Doris Carlquist. She has a younger brother, Christian Halaby, a composer and guitarist, and a younger sister, Alexa Halaby (a University of Pennsylvania squash champion who was a bridesmaid at the 1986 wedding of Maria Owings Shriver and Arnold Schwarzenegger). She was born in Washington, D.C..

http://www.answers.com/Queen%20Noor

You are sloppy Higgly......

Right. Hussein is dead. His wife (Noor) is no longer Queen. His son is King and his Palestinian wife is queen.

Get your facts straight.

[Higgly]

Why? You thhink without Israel they would have become liberal democracies? If before the creation of Israel, Jews were forced to live in ghettoes, wear identifying clothes etc....you think that would have changed?

And did this happen in Palestine? Provide your reference.

[Higgly]

Spit it out Higgly. Why so angry and sick and tired. what have Israelis ever done to you? Is there someone kosher in your life you are angry at?

Well you know Rue, I have been reading about this in the newspapers since I was knee high to a grasshopper. Governments have made decisions based on the Israeli version of events. People have died and lost their homes - many, many people.

In a democratic country, we all have a right to our say, and that right is based on accurate information about what has happened on the ground.

When I think that I have been lied to, and I think that my government is making decisions based on mythinformation, than it is my right and my duty, as a member of the democratic electorate, to speak out.

If you have verifiable sources to refute me, Rue, I welcome you to the debate. If not, then stand aside for those who might.

[Higgly]

I welcome anyone debating this issue and providing information to counter what I stated.

First of all Rue, you are a shotgun. Your statements are not focussed. One could waste many many afternoons dealing with your mythinformation. Your excursions into the dhimmi laws are a case in point; and then there is your assault on the French...

We have dealt with specific statements you have made. Many of them are unsubstantiated and not worth wasting our time on.

[jbg]

Well you know Rue, I have been reading about this in the newspapers since I was knee high to a grasshopper. Governments have made decisions based on the Israeli version of events.

Yes, a country with a free press and objective courts is certainly more to be believed than an absolute dictatorship or monarchy with only "Islamic" education for their people.

People have died and lost their homes - many, many people.

Because of the belief in the truth of Israeli reports?

In a democratic country, we all have a right to our say, and that right is based on accurate information about what has happened on the ground.

And you have the right to be wrong. No one will behead you for exercising that right. More than can be said for the countries you champion.

[Higgly]

Because of the belief in the truth of Israeli reports?

Right. In July of 1954, we have the 'Lavon Affair' or otherwise known as 'the Mishap'.

Ben Gurion had decided that he had to destabilize the Nasser government of Egypt and Israeli agents were sent into Egypt. They planted bombs in mailboxes and tried to blow up movie theatres (gee, does this sound familiar?).

The secret agents were caught by the Egyptians and put on trial. Ben Gurion appealed to Nasser to ask that the death penalty not be applied. In the previous year, a cabal of Moslem extremists had been caught and all put to death.

The Egyptian courts sentenced 2 of the 9 Israeli plotters to death. One committed suicide in prison.

Ben Gurion cried foul, saying that he had been betrayed and that the Israeli terrorists had been framed. He went public with this opinion. The Israeli electorate believed him.

[Higgly]

Yes, a country with a free press and objective courts is certainly more to be believed than an absolute dictatorship or monarchy with only "Islamic" education for their people.

OK jbg. Why is it that all reporters based in Israel during the 1982 attack on Lebanon had to have their copy approved by the IDF?

[Higgly]

And you have the right to be wrong. No one will behead you for exercising that right. More than can be said for the countries you champion.

When was the last time the country of Palestine beheaded someone?

[Rue]

A couple of things...

First, there is actually a website www.dhimmitude.org , though I cannot vouch for whether it is completely unbiased, it does seem to present the information truthfully. Linked from that website, I found what seems to be a quote, " the acceptance of the Jizya establishes the sanctity of their lives and property, and thereafter neither the Islamic state, nor the Muslim public have any right to violate their property, honor or liberty " which seems to indicate property rights, but it doesn't specifically mention land... Of course, the law in theory and the law in practice seem to be quite different animals of late anyway.

Second, what are the laws in Israel pertaining to the military and non-Jewish citizens? Someone mentioned that Arabs cannot be part of the military, so I was wondering about the legal justifications for that. While it may seem impractical, I have wondered a few times of late whether the IDF and Mossad could use Muslim soldiers and agents, if they could be satisfied by their loyalty to the country. There is no reason the carrot approach can't be tried on individuals...

Muslim Israelis and Christian Israelis are allowed to join the Army and some have but unlike Jewish Israelis, they are allowed to exercise the option NOT to join. Israeli Jews must be in the army between the age of 18 and 65, unless they ask for a religious exemption which is what the ultra-orthodox do since these ultra-orthodox Jews do not believe Israel should exist yet.

Here is the prolem. If you are a Muslim or Christian Israeli who is not in the Israeli reserve, its a major problem. Since everyone in the reserve is given a security check, the reseve status is really the way prospective employers decide whether to hire you or not. So if you are a Christian or Muslim Israeli who didn't go into the army, you don't have security clearance and that is a barrier to getting work. It is not that you are a Muslim Israeli or Christian Israeli, it is that you don't have the security clearance and unfortunately since Israel is in reality in a constant state of war against terror, that security clearance is the be-all end all when it comes to getting work. That is why Muslim Israelis and Christian Israelis often

try move to other countries.

Legally a Muslim Israeli or Christian Israeli has identifical rights to land ownership, schooling, medical care and the constitution and case law has entrenched this equality and enforced it in decisions.

There have been Muslims who have joined the Israeli army including Muslims from Yugoslavia resettled in Israel as refugees from the civil war with Bosnia, Serbia and Albania.

Now the information you quote on dhmittude is correct. So the point you see I am getting at is this-yes if you are a Christian or Jew in a Muslim country you can use land, but you do not have the same right to it as a Muslim and you pay a tax for it a Muslim would not. That is a huge difference. So its misleading to say

Jews or Christians can own land in the Muslim world, unless you take the time to go the next step and understand what the conditions are placed on your land or business.

As I also stated, in certain countries, such as Jordan, a Jew can not be a citizen of the country. In Iran, yes there are Jews, but many were tortured or abused after the Shah was thrown out. The Shah was accused of being a Zionist lacky, so all Jews after the Shah was thrown out, were automatically assumed to be Shah supporters and enemies of the state. Their life since that time has been one of persecution, second class citizenship, and open condemnation by the goevrnment and its numerous cleric councils. Iran has also openly killed and persecuted Bahaiis, Zorostreans and Christians.

If you then bother to look at the laws of all Arab League Nations at this time, as well as Idonesia and Malaysia, you can see as Islamic religious concepts and the state have become blurred since there is no

seperation, discriminatory laws have emerged making Jews and Christians second class citizens and not able to enjoy the same rights to land.

[Higgly]

If you then bother to look at the laws of all Arab League Nations at this time, as well as Idonesia and Malaysia, you can see as Islamic religious concepts and the state have become blurred since there is no

seperation, discriminatory laws have emerged making Jews and Christians second class citizens and not able to enjoy the same rights to land.

Well Rue, that is good busy work for you. Comparing and contrasting the laws of each and every Arab League nation along with those of Malaysia and Indonesia. Report back when you have a clue.

[Rue]

Spit it out Higgly. Why so angry and sick and tired. what have Israelis ever done to you? Is there someone kosher in your life you are angry at?

Well you know Rue, I have been reading about this in the newspapers since I was knee high to a grasshopper. Governments have made decisions based on the Israeli version of events. People have died and lost their homes - many, many people.

In a democratic country, we all have a right to our say, and that right is based on accurate information about what has happened on the ground.

When I think that I have been lied to, and I think that my government is making decisions based on mythinformation, than it is my right and my duty, as a member of the democratic electorate, to speak out.

If you have verifiable sources to refute me, Rue, I welcome you to the debate. If not, then stand aside for those who might.

See the way it works Higgly is this. If you make clearly a subjective opinion statement that you have been lied to, but I have no idea who you claim lied to you or what you claim they presented to you is a lie, your remark that I must prove you wrong is silly.

So for example, you make yet another subjective statement that "Governments have made decisions based on the Israeli version of evenbts." What does that mean? What governments? What policies? Are you referring to Libya's, Egypt's, Iran's, Syria's? Are you referring to the United Nations which has clearly been openly bias against Israel? Are you referring say to the Canadian government and Stephen Harper, who just yesterday at the Francophone summit had to go back and challenge the other nations into rewriting their statement about the latest Lebanese conflict because it made no mention of Israeli victims and Harper had to remind everyone to remain neutral?

Are you referring to the European Union, France, Russia, China, the non aligned nations, the Arab League,

Cuba, North Korea, who have all condemned Israel and come out openly bias against Israel?

Just who do you refer to and what policies?

See until you become clear and specific, you sound just like another person with a chip on their shoulder and hard on about anything that doesn't shit on Israel or Jews.

Now you keep telling me to prove you wrong. If it is your subjective feeling it is not up to me to prove it wrong just point out to everyone else you are simply expressing subjective, unsunstantiated feelings based on preconceptions none of us can understand.

What I have done in my responses is to avoid your personal subjective feelings and stick to historical facts and I again invite you to attack, chomp, destroy anything you think I have said that is wrong with

something other then your feelings.

[Rue]

I welcome anyone debating this issue and providing information to counter what I stated.

First of all Rue, you are a shotgun. Your statements are not focussed. One could waste many many afternoons dealing with your mythinformation. Your excursions into the dhimmi laws are a case in point; and then there is your assault on the French...

We have dealt with specific statements you have made. Many of them are unsubstantiated and not worth wasting our time on.

Sounds like a lot of name calling to disguise the fact that you don't know how to counter what I have said. I also want you to point out what I have said about dhimmitude that is wrong or where I have as you state have committed an "assault on the French".

Higgly stop with the name calling and debate what I have said.

[Higgly]

See the way it works Higgly is this. If you make clearly a subjective opinion statement that you have been lied to, but I have no idea who you claim lied to you or what you claim they presented to you is a lie, your remark that I must prove you wrong is silly.

See ya Rue. All the best.

[Rue]

Here is an exerpt from the Egyptian scholar Bat Ye'or on dhimmitude. I enclose this so we can deal with issues other then Higgly's personal feelings; (full text can be found at http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/by_lecture_10oct2002.htm)

Characteristics of dhimmitude

The basic element of dhimmitude is a land expropriation through a pact: 'land for peace'. The vanquished populations of territories taken during a millennium of jihad were ‘protected’, providing they recognized the Islamic ownership of their lands, which had now become dar al-Islam, and that they submitted to Islamic authority.

The vanquished peoples are granted security for their life and possessions by the Muslim authority, as well as a relative self‑autonomous administration under their religious leaders, and permission to worship according to the modalities of the treaties. This concept of 'toleration' is linked to a number of discriminatory obligations in the economic, religious and social fields. There are different opinions among the jurists concerning which transgres­sion of these obligations can be considered as breaking the protection pact (dhimma), and what sanctions should be applied.

The first 'right' is the right to life, which was conceded on payment of the jizya (Koran 9:29), a poll-tax paid with humiliation by the dhimmi.. The refusal to pay the jizya is considered by all jurists as a rupture of the dhimma, which automatically restores to the umma its initial rights of war ‑ to kill and to dispossess the dhimmi, or to expel him, because he has therefore returned to his former status of being an unsubjected infidel.

Hence Abu Yusuf wrote in his book on the kharaj (land tax) that it was not allowed for the governor to exempt any Jew, Christian, or other dhimmis from the jizya: “and no one can obtain a partial reduction. It is illegal for one to be exempted and another not, for their lives and belongings are spared only because of payment of the poll tax." 9

Protection is abolished if the dhimmis rebel against Islamic law, give allegiance to a non‑Muslim power, refuse to pay the jizya, entice a Muslim from his faith, harm a Muslim or his property, or commit blasphemy. The moment the pact of protection is abolished the jihad resumes, which means that the lives of the dhimmis and their property are forfeited. Today, one finds Islamists in Upper Egypt who kill and pillage Copts, because they argue that these dhimmis have forfeited their 'protection' as they no longer pay the jizya.

The Baha'i religion is not protected even today in Iran. In 1994 two Muslims kidnapped and killed a Baha'i. The Islamic court held that as the Baha'is were "unprotected infidels... the issue of retribution is null and void". 10 This means that an infidel has no human rights, unless he is protected by Islamic law.

In the context of its time, the protection system presented both positive and negative aspects. It provided security and a measure of religious autonomy, but in a legal context of discrimination. These rules, mostly estab­lished from the eighth to ninth centuries by the founders of the four schools of Islamic law, set the pattern of the Muslim community's social behavior toward dhimmis."

Dhimmitude is deeply entrenched in the culture, religion, mentality of all Muslims. So when people who have no clue about the Muslim world talk about democratic secular states what they do not understand is the Muslim world has a wide spread form of apartheid and discrimination completely anti-thetical to our notions of democracy and land rights.

So this is not a matter of Higgly being upset with a world wide bias in favour of Israel. It is in fact about a system of discriminatory laws based on Sharia law.

If you want to see what happens when you are not Muslim under this system of law please got to;

http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/by_lecture_10oct2002.htm

I deliberately provide examples of non Muslims who are not Jewish so I won't upset Higgly any further with my pro kosher tendencies.

[jbg]

Right. In July of 1954, we have the 'Lavon Affair' or otherwise known as 'the Mishap'.

Ben Gurion had decided that he had to destabilize the Nasser government of Egypt and Israeli agents were sent into Egypt. They planted bombs in mailboxes and tried to blow up movie theatres (gee, does this sound familiar?).

The secret agents were caught by the Egyptians and put on trial. Ben Gurion appealed to Nasser to ask that the death penalty not be applied. In the previous year, a cabal of Moslem extremists had been caught and all put to death.

The Egyptian courts sentenced 2 of the 9 Israeli plotters to death. One committed suicide in prison.

Ben Gurion cried foul, saying that he had been betrayed and that the Israeli terrorists had been framed. He went public with this opinion. The Israeli electorate believed him.

First of all, the firebombings were of empty theatres and libraries. No civilian casualties were intended. Second of all, Nasser had sworn the destruction of Israel. Given that Israel had, effectively, no allies willing to commit troops to its defense (and even the US has never used its troops in aid of Israel) Israel could not sit helpless while the surrounding countries plotted its demise. Remember, Israel was invaded by Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Transjordan on May 15, 1948, its first day of existence.

[Rue]

Oh and since Higgly feels I am assaulting France (that's a good one viva La France) lets really do discuss France foreign policy; here are some exerpts from Olivier Guitta, a French scholar, written in the Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2005, Volume X11, no.4, which can be found at www.meforum.orh/article/772. And no Mr. Guitta is not a Zionist, Jewish or pro Israeli.

"The French approach to the Middle East changed after the Israeli victory in the 1967 Six-Day war. President Charles de Gaulle began to espouse the decidedly pro-Arab policy that continues to the present. According to the news magazine Le Point, de Gaulle explained, "The Arabs have for themselves their numbers, space, and time."[13] His was a Machiavellian calculation. He pursued what he saw as a long-term strategy: sacrificing good ties with Israel in order to win the good will of the more populous and oil-rich Arab world. Subsequent French leaders, both from the Left and the Right, adopted his policy. As early as 1974, for example, the conservative president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing established relations with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), despite its involvement in terrorism, including the murder of Israeli athletes at the Olympic Games in Munich in 1972 and the assassination of the U.S. ambassador to Sudan in March 1973.[14] The secretary general of the Quai d'Orsay helped set up the PLO office in Paris.[15]

The French approach to anti-Western figures and revolutionaries extended to provision of safe-haven to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the most prominent opponent to the Iranian regime of the pro-Western Mohammad Reza Shah. Khomeini used his time in France to engage the Western media and broadcast calls for revolution. The French approach backfired this time, however, for after reaching power, Khomeini sponsored terrorism on French soil—for example the wave of bombings in Paris in 1986, which killed eleven and wounded 275 and the 1991 assassination of Shahpour Bakhtiar, the last premier under the shah.[16]"

and;

"The Chirac administration's support for the Assad regime is not only limited to public gestures. The French government has reportedly sold weapons systems such as self-propelled howitzers equipped with night vision gear to Syria.[67] As in the case of Iraq, there are lingering questions of Syrian payments to French politicians. Many French politicians join associations and charitable boards both for financial and political gain. The board of the L'Association d'Amitié France-Syrie (France-Syria Friendship Association) boasts among its members former prime minister Raymond Barre, former secretary of state Claude Cheysson, and 2007 presidential hopeful Nicolas Sarkozy.[68]

So why did Paris join with Washington on September 2, 2004, to cosponsor U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559, which demanded the withdrawal of Syrian troops occupying Lebanon and the disarmament of militias? The left-of-center daily Libération suggested the temporary unity was because the murder of former prime minister Rafik al-Hariri forced Chirac temporarily to choose between Arab friends.[69] Hariri described Chirac as "my best pal" shortly before his death.[70] Some French papers have reported that the Lebanese billionaire contributed to Chirac's 2002 reelection campaign.[71] Chirac rewarded his friend by helping the Lebanese government avert bankruptcy. For example, in November 2002, he put together the Paris II conference, in which European leaders, Saudi officials, and representatives from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank worked to extend credit to Lebanon. Chirac helped the Lebanese government win $4.4 billion of international credits.[72] But the February 14, 2005 assassination of Hariri forced the French hand. According to one French diplomat, "Before, all we did for Syria was because of Hariri; now everything we do against Syria is because of Hariri, again."[73] Now that the Syrian troop withdrawal is complete, Chirac may again embrace the Syrian president. Quay d'Orsay has not fully accepted U.S. concerns regarding Syrian support for Lebanese Hezbollah, for example.

Chirac has long embraced Hezbollah. Former U.S. senator Bob Graham (Democrat, Fla.), relates how, upon arriving in Damascus in July 2002, he saw an Iranian cargo plane on the tarmac. He asked a U.S. diplomat what it might be carrying. The embassy aide replied, "Probably arms and ammunition, other military equipment for Hezbollah. This is the primary point of delivery."[74] Such matter-of-fact concerns regarding Hezbollah's commitment to violence did not factor in Chirac's decision to embrace the group.

Prior to the 9-11 terrorist attacks, Hezbollah had killed more Americans than any other terrorist group; it still has the distinction of having killed more Frenchmen than any other terrorist group outside of the Algerian war for independence because of its bombing of the French marine barracks in Beirut and subsequent kidnapping of sixteen French citizens. Nevertheless, in October 2002, Chirac invited Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah secretary general, to attend the Francophone summit in Beirut. Their meeting bestowed legitimacy upon the group, whose raison d'être disappeared upon the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon two years before. The French government has continued to resist calls not only from Washington and Jerusalem but also from some within Europe to label Hezbollah a terrorist organization,[75] preferring instead to categorize the group as a "social" organization.[76] The one concession the French government has made to other Western governments has been to ban Hezbollah's Al-Manar satellite channel in December 2004.[77] The move came under tremendous pressure from French politicians and public alike, outraged at the station's flouting of French laws banning anti-Semitism.

Chirac's consistent support for Hezbollah has won him the group's favor. In April 2005, Nasrallah published a commentary in the Beirut daily As-Safir in which he welcomed a French role in Lebanese reconciliation and declared that the "Lebanese do not like to see France held hostage to the savage and aggressive American hegemony."[78] "

De Gaulle made it crystal clear when France decided to become pro-Arab in 1967, that he felt France should side with the more populous side and the side with the oil. Those are his words in speeches you can find on the internet.

France has openly funded and aided Syria, Iraq, and Iran and it positioned itself to try build pipelines in all these countries and Afghanistan.

But Higgly please, move to France and embrace the Chirac doctrine. You certainly won't be sick and tired there. No one in France supports Israel. You will feel right at home there. You can live with the Muslim French citizens who feel they are loved and embraced by the same French government.

No hippocracy there. No opportunism there. Its all good. France Good. Israel bad.

[jbg]

I welcome anyone debating this issue and providing information to counter what I stated.

First of all Rue, you are a shotgun. Your statements are not focussed. One could waste many many afternoons dealing with your mythinformation. Your excursions into the dhimmi laws are a case in point; and then there is your assault on the French...

We have dealt with specific statements you have made. Many of them are unsubstantiated and not worth wasting our time on.

Sounds like a lot of name calling to disguise the fact that you don't know how to counter what I have said. I also want you to point out what I have said about dhimmitude that is wrong or where I have as you state have committed an "assault on the French".

Higgly stop with the name calling and debate what I have said.

I'm an attorney. We have an expression:

1. "If the facts are against you, argue the law;
   
2. If the law is against you, argue the facts;
   
3. If the facts and the law are against you, pound the table."
   

I think you understand my point.

[Higgly]

I, for one, don't.

Who is the 'you' in "I think you understand my point."

[Remiel]

I don't believe that many in this country are all that fond of de Gaulle to begin with... I think his whole thing with " Vive le Quebec libre " was the same sort of manipulative bull... He just wanted to sell weapons and other things to the Quebecois, he didn't really give a damn about them.

[jbg]

I, for one, don't.

Who is the 'you' in "I think you understand my point."

The earlier iteration of that post, which I saw when it was posted, shows that you clearly understood it. I give you a bit more credit.

[Rue]

I, for one, don't.

Who is the 'you' in "I think you understand my point."

The earlier iteration of that post, which I saw when it was posted, shows that you clearly understood it. I give you a bit more credit.

Hey jbg I figured out your initials, jewish bad guy!

[Borg]

I'm not so pessimistic. Keep in mind that wherever the Arabs go, they're productive, honest, industrious and peaceful. By contrast, wherever people of the Hebraic faith have any influence, you have violence, corruption, waste, and disorder.

I hope you had your tongue firmly embedded in your cheek when you wrote this.

I thought it was quite funny!!

Borg

[M.Dancer]

I'm not so pessimistic. Keep in mind that wherever the Arabs go, they're productive, honest, industrious and peaceful. By contrast, wherever people of the Hebraic faith have any influence, you have violence, corruption, waste, and disorder.

What did I say to you about using humour?