Peace is possible in the Middle East but not while the state of Israel exists. The role of Israel never was to be a safe haven for Jews. It has always been there as an imperialist boot on the neck of the Arab masses. If Israel were not a threat it would have no reason to exist and would not be propped up by the U.S.

The only chance for peace is a Democratic Secular Palestine.

Les Slater:

I will say this as nicely as I can. You should go an do a little research into how Israel became a state. Remember it was just after the mass murder (holocaust) of Jews in World War II. Israel is a safe haven for Jews suffering persecution around the world, which was a great fear of theirs then but isn't so much of a problem in today's world.

I fully agree with Israel in concept and principle. But by the same principles the Palestinians are now entitled to a viable state after Israel's mass expulsion of them in the 1948 Nakba.

Liam Bailey,

I do know a little how Israel became a state. I do know about the holocaust too. I also know a little about the complicity of Zionist leaders in the holocaust.

One of the connections was David ben Gurion (father of State of Israel) who apposed any project that might save Jews from extermination because it would take the Zionist project off the table.

Sir Ronald Storrs, the first British military governor of Jerusalem, explained that the Zionist "enterprise was one that blessed him that gave as well as him that took, by forming for England 'a little loyal Jewish Ulster' in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism."

What was Britain's main concern with the Middle East at the time? The U.S. picked up the mantle after WWII. What is the U.S.'s main concern in the Middle East? In both case it is oil. Neither country gives a fuck for a safe haven for Jews. Don't forget that it was the U.S. that tried to deny the holocaust while it was taking place and refused to provide a safe haven for Jews.

The only solution is for a Democratic Secular Palestine where Jews, Arabs and all others can live in peace.

Les Slater

Les,

The only solution is for a Democratic Secular Palestine where Jews, Arabs and all others can live in peace.

You don't seriously think Jews and Arabs will ever live in peace together, do you?

"You don't seriously think Jews and Arabs will ever live in peace together, do you?"

Yes. The Jews in Israel are pawns of imperialism. So are the Arabs. Imperialism is the enemy of both and when that is fully understood by both sides then there will be a basis for Jews and Arabs solving this problem together.

It is also extremely important that the U.S. working class understands this too. The U.S. is blamed for much of the problems in the Middle East for its support of Israel. It's more complicated than that but some of the terrorism against the U.S. is done in the name of avenging the Palestinians. This is bullshit but the U.S. government is using the excuse of this terrorism to attack our democratic rights.

To believe that Jews and Arabs will live together in peace one day, even if the imperialist governments of the world are eradicated, you have to believe in the inherent goodness of humanity.

I believe just the opposite. For proof, I offer the entire history of mankind.

Individuals can be all the good things: kind, generous, honest, peaceful, etc., and often are.

Humanity as a whole is incapable of living in peace, and never will, no matter what kind of political system is in place.

You are just a pessimist, Clavos. Choose the light!

True, Chris, I am.

One good thing about being a pessimist: all the surprises are good ones.

"I believe just the opposite. For proof, I offer the entire history of mankind."

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.


In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.

Les,

Communist rhetoric aside, the point is: there has always been a struggle; humanity has not and will not live in harmony with itself.

You say:

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.

Again, you're right from a purely practical standpoint. I guess the difference between you and me is that you see a day when we WON'T have such antagonisms in human society; I don't. As you yourself have pointed out: even as the fundamental structure of society has evolved, we have always arranged ourselves into heirarchies.

I know that communism believes that if we get rid of the classes somehow, struggle will cease. I have two objections to that idea: first, if classes are eliminated class struggle WILL cease, agreed. Second, a new tension and consequent struggle will arise; it may not be class based, but it WILL happen.

We humans are a scrappy lot, and some of us ALWAYS want to dominate the others; you can't eliminate that. Maybe it stems from our early days, when we had to fight just to survive, I don't know, but it's as powerful a drive in a significant portion of the race as sex, and I believe there's no sublimating it.

nothing never changes including fundamental human nature

nothing never changes including fundamental human nature

Seven words in place of my 100+.

Well said, troll.

oops...just as I hit the "publish" button, I saw the "n" in front of what I thought was "ever."

I disagree, obviously,but well said, anyway, troll.

"even as the fundamental structure of society has evolved, we have always arranged ourselves into heirarchies."

Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other -- bourgeoisie and proletariat.

From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.

The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.

The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production was monopolized by closed guilds, now no longer suffices for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed aside by the manufacturing middle class; division of labor between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labor in each single workshop.

Meantime, the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacturers no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionized industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, MODERN INDUSTRY; the place of the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.

Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.

We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.

Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance in that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association of medieval commune: here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there taxable "third estate" of the monarchy (as in France); afterward, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general -- the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative state, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors", and has left no other nexus between people than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment". It has drowned out the most heavenly ecstacies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom -- Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers.
The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation into a mere money relation.

The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigor in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man's activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former exoduses of nations and crusades.

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real condition of life and his relations with his kind.

The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.

The bourgeoisie has, through its exploitation of the world market, given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of reactionaries, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.
The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it forces the barbarians' intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.

The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilized ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.

The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralized the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralization. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class interest, one frontier, and one customs tariff.

The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalization or rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground -- what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labor?

We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organization of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.

Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted in it, and the economic and political sway of the bourgeois class.
A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past, the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that, by their periodical return, put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity -- the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed. And why? Because there is too much civilization, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand, by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.

The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.

But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons -- the modern working class -- the proletarians.

Who wrote that, Les?

Karl Marx and Freddy Engels. Cut and pasted straight from the Communist Manifesto.

the line about the "electric telegraph" is a dead giveaway...

[insert all the usual Objections to the thinking and observations of the "Manifesto"...add some unsuspected praise for a couple of astute bits, then some criticisms not usually spoken]

Les,

I thought so, but am not familiar enough with it to readily recognize it.

jaz sez:

the line about the "electric telegraph" is a dead giveaway...

As is this one:

The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years,...

Au contraire, Clavos is all too familiar with it.

I'm beginning to suspect that he is a communist. Perhaps an agent provacateur sent to discredit Traditional Conservative US political stances.

We already know that he is a unapologetic welfare deadbeat and that he is Against Our Troops. What more does it take?

Perhaps Dave Nalle, whose rightwing credentials can hardly be doubted, should ban Clavos from BC as a leftie threat. Dave has already called for treason charges against a senator for proposing a constitutional amendment, surely this small task is within his capabilities. And also politically palatable.

Well, Dave?

Can I keep my Bentley?

I hope I can; one is nobody in Miami without a Bentley...

"To believe that Jews and Arabs will live together in peace one day,... you have to believe in the inherent goodness of humanity."

The Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics lists the number of Arabs within Israel in 2006 to be 1,413,500 people or 19.8% of the Israeli population.

So, what is the rationale for saying Arabs cannot live together in peace with Jews?

Bliffle, you are currently about sixty centimetres over the line of what's acceptable personal commentary with regard to Clavos. If you get to one metre, I shall be compelled to take action...

But Christopher, no one takes anything Bliffle types seriously, though his comments are marginally better than quoting the Communist Manifesto, granted.

Dave

Wrong again, Dave; Clavos did and complained about it in the comments space. I thought about it and decided to give the Bliffster a modest heads-up.

For your further information, I try my best to give all commenters the same consideration, regardless of who they might be. This is their space after all.

What a mess in hand for the US government! Very provocative piece, I must say. keep it up. But the key thing is this: the world is changing, while the old world mentality remains strong, which may underlie all the difficulties in getting the right things done in any part of the world. How much has the world changed? A brilliant book pinpoints some key global issues: China and the new world order: how entrepreneurship, globalization, and borderless business are reshaping China and the world, by a Chinese reporter george zhibin gu. It shows the deeper things about our changing world, both the developed and developing nations.

"But Christopher, no one takes anything Bliffle types seriously, though his comments are marginally better than quoting the Communist Manifesto, granted."
- Dave (Vox Populi) Nalle

"Johnny, have you noticed how nobody likes Billy?"
- A typical 4th-grade playground bully.

Addressing this particular section of the article:

"The Arabs too, being of Sunni faith, are seeking to unite against the possible domination of the region by Shiite Iran, and my enemy's enemy being my friend, a peaceful alliance with Israel may not seem too distasteful. Therefore negotiations, for perhaps the first time, should stand on firm ground, with all parties wanting the talks to find a resolution to the conflict. Nonetheless, negotiations will be difficult."

Not only will the negotiations be difficult, but maintaining the peace when the status quo changes. Iran is a threat to the Sunni world now, but what happens if Iran is no longer a threat? Persian influence has collapsed before. And the radical Arabs (those in power) haven't been known to...keep their promises concerning Isreal. Or the UN.

On another tangent, wasn't the "Democratic Secular Palestine" a imperialist boot in the neck of the Arab masses? Does anyone else remember Imperial Rome?

Finally, conflict is a necesscary requirement of humanity. Evolution of any sort requires conflict, and as technological and economic history shows, new innovations in the world of technology are almost always a result of research by expansionist powers. War is how we grow, conflict our maturing process, struggle the pinnacle of human interaction. If this sounds bleak to you, it is. Welcome to life.

Interesting discussion!
Back to the beginning: "Israel" was planned a long time before the Genocide of European Jews (along with the the Genocide of an even greater number of non-Jewish Poles, other Slavs, Gypsies and all the other "untermenschen"). The early Zionist colonists were buying land from absent landlords and expelling the Palestinian tenants: Theodor Herzl had suggested (in his diary) to "discretely send the penniless peasants over the border"!
The indigenous Palestinians had every right to reject UNGAR 181 suggesting to give away 55% of their country to their Zionist invaders (who were a minority); and if these want a durable peace in this part of the World, they must choose between one only truly democratic Palestine/ "Israel" or two states which would accommodate respectively and proportionally the 10 million+ Palestinians and the 5/6 million (?) immigrant Jews. Liam Bailey must know that the only injured people are the Palestinians, descendants of all those who passed through that land since times began, and who lived in harmony together before the Zionists decided to "return", as if these could prove that any of their ancestors had ever set foot there: The Jews, like the Christians and the Muslims are mainly descendants of converts and/or of mixed marriages. What is more, none of these have had the monopoly of suffering over the centuries (e.g., remember the Crusades?).

Servant

"Finally, conflict is a necesscary requirement of humanity."

Homer's Iliad gives a glimpse of human struggle during an earlier day. It was a time of much lesser technique in warfare than today. It was also a society of much less productivity. Wealth was created by crude means and there was not enough to go around. The very wealthy just took what others produced. This was a big part of the battle of Troy and other battles that were referred to. The other side of it was Helen.

As far as I know there has not been a major war over a woman in recent times, maybe a murder now and then. Likewise modern world scale warfare has not been a means of direct plunder by those directly on the battlefield. At least it is minor compared to the larger stakes.

It is however, a means of imperialist plunder for markets and resources. This is not in the interests of the vast majority of society. It benefits only a small layer of capitalists.

"Evolution of any sort requires conflict, and as technological and economic history shows, new innovations in the world of technology are almost always a result of research by expansionist powers."

This has been true. Today much research is military research and much useful technology has come out of it. But it is no longer necessary. All wars before the advent and muturing of capitalism were because there was not enough productive capacity to satisfy the needs of all mankind.

Today there is enough potential productive capacity to satisfy not only the necessities of life but also for confort, leisure, travel and general culture for all humanity.

The problem with capitalism, at least since the latter part of the 19th century, is that it is unstable. Markets are saturated and overproduction occurs. Not that the production is not needed but can not be made profitable left to the capitalist market system. The capitalists have sought to get out of this predicament by using military to redevide markets and resources in their favor. This has two positive consequences for capital, the winners get more favorable world conditions, and production for war materiel gets the economies going.

It is the capitalist system that stands in the way of production for human needs. All kinds of research and even friendly competition (struggle) can and will move society forward with the end of the capitalist system.

Concerning CJL's post:

A few things I would like to know about your post (yes, I know I'm paraphrasing):

One, how do you reconcile that "the only injured people were the Palestinians" with "no one has a monopoly on suffering"?

Two, if "all Jews, Muslims, and Christians are decendants of converts/mixed marriages", why do you say the land belongs to the Palestinians?

Three, buying land from landlords and evicting tennents is legal, if immoral, so why don't Zionists have a right to the land?

Four, please provide at least some evidence that only Palestinians rightfully occupied the land!

This really is a fun discussion, as I just turned in a project on Zionism and international relations for my 11th grade history class, and I am looking to refine my debating techniques.

Les writes:

It is the capitalist system that stands in the way of production for human needs

As I study twentieth and twenty first century America, I see capitalism as the source of, and force behind, production.

But accepting, for the sake of argument, that the above statement is true, if capitalism is substituted for another system, where will the production come from? Absent the motivation of profit, what will be the incentive for production?

Just as a point, Clavos, ideological fervor can be utilized for that purpose. Never going to happen, but still.

Clavos,

"Absent the motivation of profit, what will be the incentive for production?"

Production is not some supernatural phenomenom. It takes tooling, rescources and workers. It takes a design, a production plan, and makes products.

Capitalism is not going to overturned instantly. It will take time and struggle. The working class has already, and will more so as the struggle advances, take more and more of the capitalist's perogatives away from him. Already the union closed shop is a taking away of some of the capitalist's property rights. There will be much more. If the capitalist still wishes to make profit he will continue production.

At some point, well all along, the capitalist will feel threatened. He will violently resist. At a certain point we will overcome the resistance and make our own decisions on what, and how much, to produce.

The only profit required will be that more is produced than consumed. Some of the excess will go to enhancing the productive capability.

Liam--Don't write any more articles about the Middle East, please.

You just don't know enough about the history of the area.

Israel was founded because the British, who had the Palestine Mandate (term for colonial exploitation of the area by the WWI winners) saw there were no resources there to be exploited and gave in to the Zionist TERRORISTS because they needed to put their manpower and materiel into fighting Rommel in the deserts of Egypt.

Israel has no interest whatsoever in peace--and even if it did the US would not allow it. Folks still hate Jimmy Carter because he mediated a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt. Folks in the US that is.

It's been tried, Servant. Failed every time.

Ideological fervor is not widespread. The vast majority of people are not that engaged.

Ideological fervor is also evanescent - not a solid foundation on which to build an entire society's means of production.

Concerning moonraven's post:

Please do not attack Mr. Bailey or any others for not supporting your worldview. Israel does have an intrest in peace, as there have been several overtures made by the Israelis while Arab terrorists were consistantly not acting like peacemakers. Unless, of course, you advocate peace through oppression, in which case you should clarify your language. Also, people in the US don't hate President Carter, they elected him to the highest office in the nation.

Concerning Les Slater's post:

The only way to accomplish such a vast consumption of resources is, inevitably, war. You are right in saying that production is not supernatural, but you fail to mention how the workers will be motivated (ideology doesn't work)or how workers will successfully revolt against the powerful capitalist agenda if they are so busy fighting they cannot work.

capitalism's already dead - it just hasn't realized it...

socialism's here (that which States can tax they own/control - including labour...that's you and me) ...but no one has come up with a new motive for production that Clavos asks about...theories of 'maximized social utility' have not produced any efficient measures that can supplant 'maximized profit' to rationalize production

thus the State continues to rely on the capitalists to keep things going

getting to a 'higher level' of socialism (a la Marx) is the challenge at this point

Moonraven:

You're analysis is clouded by your own judgmentalism, as mine used to be. I have come to realize that if I want to make it in journalism I need to report the facts, not my interpretaion of what the facts mean. I had been trying this for a while but my bias, formed from my interpretation of the history of Israel was creeping in. As I am, clearly from your comment, now managing to write in a more balanced fashion, I will continue to write about the Middle East and anything else I see fit.

I believe in myself. I have the ability, the --ever growing-- knowledge and now the balance of detachment to go far in journalism. Or maybe I'll just stop it all now because you say so?

I think not.

Servant: you say the Arabs have not been known to keep their promises concerning Israel, but that is not true. Israel now has normalized relations with many of the states that frequently attacked in the past. The states Israel doesn't have a good relationship with now have never made any promises. If you are referring to the Palestinians, yes they have broken promises to stop violence in the past, but only in response to some serious provocation in Israel's breaking of its promises.

Again, as for what will happen if Iran is no longer a threat, I don't know, I'm a journalist not a clairvoyant. As I said to Moonraven I report on the facts. But, as you're asking: I believe the current growth of Iranian influence and its potential to dominate the region could be a kick-start for an agreement that should have been reached a long time ago. If an agreement is reached, I don't believe Iran's withering as a threat will make all concerned sacrifice the mutual and many benefits of a region with normalized relations, hence expanded trade possibilities and freedom of export movements, to go back to an environment of mutual mistrust and strangulation. Do you?

Servant:

1. I did not attack Liam. I politely asked him not to write any more articles about the Middle East because his historical infrastructure is deficient. BTW, so is yours.

2. Show me one example of behavior indicating that Israel wants peace. If you can do it, I will personally nominate your for the Nobel Peace Prize.

3. US voters elected Carter BEFORE he negotiated the Israel/Egypt peace deal. After he did that, they voted him out. Recently, when he published a book about APARTHEID in Israel he was vilified by influential US zionists in the US press.

Liam:

Cut the shit. As a longtime jornalist in the US and professor of the same subject, I can tell you that facts include historical detail, which you are lacking.

Reporting on the kid on the corner being blown to smithereens by the homemade bomb he's carrying is not the same as giving an analysis of the historical conditions and events that put the bomb under his shirt and him on the corner.

I find it hard to believe from your comments on other articles of mine: stating that Israel should be de-countrified that you are a journalist and professor, if you are you are obviously not a very good one. Why hide behind a nickname, at least I have the courage of my convictions sufficient to use my name, and proudly at that.

Liam writes:

I find it hard to believe from your comments on other articles of mine: stating that Israel should be de-countrified that you are a journalist and professor, if you are you are obviously not a very good one.

Quoted for truth.

My apologies, moonraven. I was wrong in insulting you.

On your challenge of finding Jewish peacemaking, here are a few examples:

One, PM Sharon's unilateral plan to withdraw from the Gaza strip.

Two, the Palestinian minority is still represented by the only democractic government in the region.

Three, Israel has maintained a consistant record of not waging offensive wars.

Personally, I did not see anything but praise for Carter's book, and although I personally disagree with his choice of words. This may be just me though, but I say it anyway.

Historical detail is hard to use simply because which data you select in any report is already unconciously determined by your biases.

Servant,

"The only way to accomplish such a vast consumption of resources is, inevitably, war."

Who says we have to consume those resources? Are resourses inherently for war?

Are you realy asking how are we goin' to employ the workers that produce the war equipment and supplies? People now are living on products that are not produced for war. If we did not produce the products for war we would not need as much labor. Why not reduce the workweek and split the consumption of the rest of the resources like we were before.

Military products have no positive societal value. The only value they have is to the capitalists and their profits.

"...you fail to mention how the workers will be motivated (ideology doesn't work)..."

A pay check.

"...or how workers will successfully revolt against the powerful capitalist agenda if they are so busy fighting they cannot work."

Revolutions are always disruptive. Historically, when one system is replaced by another on a higher plane, production is put on a more efficient level.

We had a two revolutions in this country, one against the British Crown and the second against the slavocracy. They were not only both becessary but brought an increase in the wealth of the country.

Concerning Les Slater's post:

But neither of those two conflicts were a conflict between labor and buisness!

"Military products have no positive societal value. The only value they have is to the capitalists and their profits."

Medicene, automobiles, computers, railroads, food preservation, etc. No value, eh?

Production was not put on a more efficent level after the revolt of the Goths (workers) in Rome (capitalists).

Resources are there to provide for the eternal struggle of natural selection.

Liam:

I first posted on this site last September using my name.

Immediately the peanut gallery started googling and posting information on the threads which invaded my privacy.

So I stopped using my name.

If that's not good enough for you, up yours.

Israel SHOULD be de-countrified. It was founded on the basis of terrorism and it has continued its terrorist behavior.

I am not writing as a journalist on this site, but commenting on folks' articles and on others' comments.

You, however, are pretending to do so. And I am telling you that you are missing one of the fundamental Ws of basic journalism--the WHY.

You are not going to be able to understand the WHY until you study the history of the region you're writing about THOROUGHLY. You appear to be just re-hashing others' opinions.

That may be the sorry state of journalism in many countries--especially in the US, where NYT reporters just invent the news, but it is not being progfessional.

Thank you Clavos, Moonraven is obviously looking for a U.S. proffessor and journalist on google to pass himself off as.

Moonraven:

What a load of crap. If the "peanut gallery" were putting things on threads that invaded your privacy, but that they found on google, it was already in the public domain -- your the professor-- how is that invading on your privacy?

Anyone who read your name and wanted to find out about you could have googled you anyway. If you want to be respected as a journalist you don't snipe at others in the same profession from behind nicknames.

Now: I do not need to justify myself to you. My views being different from yours does not detract from my knowledge. If you're prejudice towards my level of historical research, which you have know way of knowing about is anything to go on, you're journalistic attempts --if they even exist-- will be heavily prejudicial and biased. Good luck to you with that.

If I ever have to submit an article to you I will justify myself to you, until that day your opinion means as much to me as the name Moonraven. NOTHING!

Servant:

You must be kidding. Israel has invaded its neighbors several times since it was made a country.

Sharon's crimes against humanity in Lebanon--for which he was even put on trial in his own country--those were just walks in the park?

Why do you suppose that it has received the huge stack of UN Resultions against it since 1948? Were those awards for playing nice with its neighbors?

Where is there evidence that the withdawl from the Gaza Strip was anything beyond a ploy to justify taking those Jewish settlers and having them invade more West Bank areas?

Israel is a democratic government? Since when? And since when has it REPRESENTED Palestinians?

Palestinians have their own government, Servant.

And what do any of your 3 pieces of shit passing for evidence have to do with ISRAELI BEHAVIOR INDICATING IT WANTS PEACE--which was my challenge to you?

Historical data about what happened before one's lifetime might be hard to use because history is written by the winners. But I was born before Israel was made a country.

That does not mean that you can just make something up and have it pass for historical context.

moonraven, the "why" is always subjective. Unless, of course, it is God's "why"; but that's a matter for the theologians.

You are being pointlessly crude, and haven't yet posted on other people's comments, only bashing Mr. Bailey.

Please explain "why" Israel is founded on terrorism, and what your operational definition for terrorism is. I have a distinct feeling that your definition for terrorism is "Zionism", and wish to clarify your thought. For pity's sake, I am a minor and I speak more civily than you, so please clean it up...

The working class in neither this country nor elsewhere in the world has an inherent interest in supporting capitalist imperialism.

The working class becoming more aware of itself (class consciousness), and politically stronger will disassociate itself from, and fight, the wars being carried out in imperialism's behalf. This will set the record straight for the workers and peasants that are bearing the brunt of imperialism's boot, that we are on their side. This will cut across those saying that the fight against imperialism should include terrorist attacks on the American people.

The American working class has no inherent interest in supporting Israel. What sympathies there are for Israel are based on lies. Part of the working class's struggle against imperialism will be to cut off all military aid to all countries. In that context the Israeli Jews will begin to see a Democratic Secular Palestine in a more positive light.

The U.S. will still be the Great Satin but there will be a distinction made between the American workers and the capitalist government.

I apologize to all for my opposite use of the apostrophe in my last post, please remove where they appear and insert where they do not. That's what happens when I get steamed up.

Liam:

Just for your info, I am a WOMAN. Women are quite capable of agressively defending their positions and telling off whiners like you.

They invaded my privacy by posting information that was not relevant to anyof the topics that were being discussed. Posting the AGE of someone, and commenting on the person's publications of poetry are not germane to anything that has ever been a topic on blogcritics since I have visted the site.

Your telling me that I must be a bad journalist because I--who spend part of every year at different universities in the Middle East as a consultant--have indicated that you have missed the WHY of historical context in everything I have read of yours on this site is simply a personal attack.

I did not, however, attack you personally when I asked you politely to stop posting because you are not up to speed in the history of the region.

I was simply stating the obvious lack of historical context in your writing.

If you were one of my students I would also point out your shortcomings as a writer.

And I find it very significant that you question my academic and professional background just because I have criticized your writing.

That seems very immature and markedly unprofessional of you.

Apologies for duble posting, but I didn't see moonraven's most current post.

The fact that Sharon was put on trial in his own country suggests that they are commited to peace.

The UN has consistantly shown to be anti-Israel, as it is dominated by its adversaries. I wrote a paper on this subject, and was stunned by the implications of the historical data, not my personal bias. Israel has a democratic government since they...umm...are democratic. Thats a fact, I don't know why you would dispute it. Where is your evidence for your claim regarding the West Bank invasion? Israel never started those wars, which is why they are defensive wars, despite any territorial gains.

My evidence shows a trend of emphsized democracy for the region in attempts to settle regional disputes. And I did not make it up.

Moonraven:

Again you are displaying a lack of intelligence that would surely prevent you from being a professor, except maybe a professor of bum and bluster.

It doesn't matter what they were posting, it wasn't private if it was on the internet, so they're posting of it on BC surely wouldn't have scared you out of putting your name to your words.

In your original post you said, as a long time journalist in the U.S. and a professor of the same subject...

What subject, journalism in the U.S. the history of Israel, the history of the Middle East, the history of Middle East politics????

For arguments sake, if you are a professor, please explain what is missing in the historical context of all of my articles that you have read?

And if my writing so lacks, why do you keep reading my articles?

Servant:

I suggest that you read the history of the Palestine Mandate.

If you are not willing to educate yourself, why are you even giving your opinion on a topic you know nothing about? Are you just bored and have nothing else to do?

Try googling, for example, Zionist Terrorists in the 1930s and 1940s. On Yahoo I just found more than 30,000 entries on that. Sure, some of them are going to be biased--but it is YOUR responsibility to sort through the information and come to a RATIONAL conclusion about how Israel came about.

I already told you, in a very boiled-down form, how that happened.

If you do not thinkl what I wrote sounds right, don't just give me a pile of shit and non-responses to my challenges. DO THE WORK of finding out.

Concerning Les Slater's post:

I doubt the Islamofacists will let the West be if we socalize. Didn't help France much. Very short response, sorry, but I will refain from commenting on this topic until the personal arguments are over. It is really very irritating

Servant,

"But neither of those two conflicts were a conflict between labor and buisness!"

Nor did I say they were. Only the socialist revolution will be a conflict between labor and capital. It was the point that revolutions in general are disruptive.

"Medicene, automobiles, computers, railroads, food preservation, etc. No value, eh?"

None of these are military products. Guns have societal value too but not when used to murder during a robbery attempt. To the extent that those items quoted above are used in imperialist plunder they do not have societal value.

"Resources are there to provide for the eternal struggle of natural selection."

That is a reactionary statement. Selection these days has much unnatural in it. Capitalism's making enourmous profits making both sexes insecure has severly distorted our ability to make any 'natural' selection.

Moonraven:
The fact that you tell Servant to research the Palestine mandate, then suggest he do so by googling Zionist terrorists in the 1930's and 40's shows that you are utterly biased on the subject. To research the Palestine mandate, wouldn't it be a better idea to perhaps, google "the Palestine mandate".

By googling something that does not start off biased, then you have far less of a job sorting out the bias in the search results.

Liam,

As I mentioned to you a number of times privately, I'm not interested in your agreeing with my point of view - but I did ask that you seek more balance in your pieces about my neck of the woods.

I still do not agree with your views - but I must congratulate you on moving to a more balanced approach to the issues. The criticisms coming your way in the comments section are proof of this. That you would be criticized from BOTH sides of the aisle is one very important indication of balance in your writing. You are getting very close to the fulcrum.

Kol hakavód - all honor to you.

Having said this, I would ask you to research more thoroughly the articles you write.

Two pieces ago (or perhaps three), you talked about a softening of Israeli attitudes. I asked you who was softening - who these Israelis were. Eventually you returned an answer - the only people who expressed this view, whom you understood to be "softening" were Ehud Olmert, the head of the cabinet, and Tzipora Livni, his foreign minister. You then pointed out that many people will not speak their views, save on condition of anonymity.

You are, of course, correct.

So, in essence, what you said in that piece a while back is that Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni softened their attitudes in connection to a certain issue in attempts at peace-making. Israel didn't change its mind, two officials of the State's government did. There is a world of difference between the two.

Marthe Raymond (moonraven) is correct about you not having the depth of knowledge you need to write about events here. Mind, I come from the opposite point of view as hers. I'm not complaining about your point of view here. Nor am I saying that you should not write on this subject, or any other subject you desire.

You have a very good grasp of the basics, and in writing a story for a British newspaper, you would avoid many of the dumb errors that appear in the mainstream press. And with each succeeding article, your grasp of the subject seems better and better.

But the example I gave above is indicative of what I'm talking about. Israel is not a democracy, except in the notional sense. But it is not a monolithic dictatorship either. It has a weak, sycophantic leadership that is divided, and culpable to control from the outside. Tracing these elements of foreign control, plus the internal conflicts that exist in the ruling elites in Israel is very important to comprehending what is going on here. Much the same can be said for Egypt, Lebanon, and for the "countries" of Jordan, Iraq and Syria. Any analysis written about this region has to contemplate these divisions and possibilities of outside control.

So, in the end, I'm not suggesting that you not write articles on this subject. You only improve in doing something by continuing to do it. I'm suggesting that you take a breather and read a few books on the issues, and try to absorb in your gut (Robert Heinlein would have said "to grok") some of the emotion being felt here along with some of the issues.

In the meantime, I encourage you to write articles about ways that Arabs living in this neck of the woods can develop economic self-sufficiency. Arabs here can always benefit from their own efforts to develop a self-sufficient economy independent of Israel.

Give me a holler on e-mail, and I'll send you a list of books if you want me to.

Servant:

You say "my evidence". I don't see any evidence of yours on this thread. Are you hiding it in your wallet, or what?

Sharon was put on trial because there was such an international outcry (not to mention bombings of Jewish businesses in Paris in September of 1982--one of which I was down the street from at the time it happened).

Obviously, nothing came of it or he would not have been elected Prime Minister. He would be still in jail. DUH!

Where is the logic that says going through the motions of making someone accountable and then letting him off is EVIDENCE of a commitment to peace?

My challenge stands: Show me ONE piece of BEHAVIORAL EVIDENCE that Israel is committed to peace.

Even if you were such a class magician that you could do that, there are MILLIONS OF PIECES OF BEHAVIORAL EVIDENCE that Israel does not want peace.

Israel is the kept boy of the US government. Even though there are quite a number of Israelis who DO want peace, the Israeli government is not going to ever bite the hand that feeds it by making peace.

Les,

You still have not responded to my question:

If we remove the incentive of profit, what will be the motivation to invest the capital required for the facilities, tools and raw materials necessary for the workers to produce?

Yes Ruvy, you are on the opposite side of the debate to Moonraven. But you are just as biased. Neither of the two of you know anything about my historical knowledge of the subject. Ruvy, you're example does not display that I lack historical knowledge. And I have written a few articles on the effect outside influence has on Israel's decisions. Most notably: Does U.S. support prevent Israel from committing to peace? Published on Desicritics, AMIN, and the Palestine Chronicle, before I joined BC.

Liam:

Saying I am lacking intelligence is making a personal attack. It is not based on facts at your disposal. It is also a clumsy attempt at an ad hominem argument on the order of "You are wrong because you have a small penis". I have these ad hominem exchanges with a few folks on this site: Nalle, Clavos and a couple of others because they started with them--along the lines of "You are a Leftist, so you are wrong" and "You are older than I am, so you are wrong".

If you want our level of interaction to be like that, I may or may not accommodate you. But if you are asking me to read your pieces as serious journalism--and then refusing to provide the WHY of basic journalism--and also refusing to study thoroughly the history of the region, then your attacking me with ad hominems is WAY out of line.

As for my journalistic background in the US (I have not lived in the US since 1993), I wrote for a number of years for Seattle newspapers and magazines--even wrote about sports in the 1970s and early 80s--and by the middle 80s limited myself to a bylined column about film (with emphasis on how film reflects the poltical realities of the time) for the Albuquerque Journal (which I stopped writing in 1993 for obvious reasons). I have also taught writing (composition, literary criticism, journalism, techical writing and creative writing) since 1968 at the university level.

My other academic specialities are perhaps not relevant to this argument we are having.

But frankly, one doesn't have to be a professor of journalism and writing to tell you the same criticisms which I have made of your writing--that it lacks historical data and contextualization. Your opinion is not contextualization--nor does it substitute for historical information.

I have read several of your articles for, again, the OBVIOUS reason: I spend part of each year in the Middle East. I can go anywhere on the planet that I choose to, so I believe it is fair to assume that I spend most of my time in Latin America and the Middle East because I have a number of interests in regard to those regions.


To Servant I mentioned TWO distinct approaches--one which would mean RESEARCHING, not GOOGLING--and the lazy person's shortcut method: GOOGLING Zionist terrorists.

That gives him or her two choices to get him or her started. It is not my responsibility to sort through the stuff that comes up and determine which pieces are biased and in favor of whom. That is his or her job.

Your behavior has been consistently defensive and abusive towards my polite request that you not write more pieces about the Middle East until you study the historical context of present events.

I believe that you owe me an apology.

Saying I am lacking intelligence is making a personal attack

Says the queen of personal attacks.

I have these ad hominem exchanges with a few folks on this site: Nalle, Clavos and a couple of others because they started with them

A lie she has perpetrated (stupidly) more than once before.

"Stupidly" because it's all easily verifiable in the BC archives, which are accessible to everyone.

Liam:

You are missing the point that both Ruvy and I are making about it being YOUR responsiblity to provide the historical contexts for events so that a) folks can understand WHY they have happened and b) you have credibility.

Why should we or anyone else automatically assume that you have studied the region in depth?

Especially here on blogcritics where the majority of the articles are nothing but propaganda and the majority of those for the right wing--and which are based close to 100% on uninformed opinions by folks who think if they see something they wrote in print they have been ordained experts.

I am biased, sure--I have DECIDED CONSCIOUSLY to but my emotional bias where my interests are--and that's on the side of the Arabs.

But I have never said on this site or in any public venue: "I am right because I support the Arabs and not the government of Israel".

And, FYI, although I appear to know considerably more about the Middle East than you do, I do not pass myself off as an expert on the region--NOR DO I WRITE ARTICLES AND BOOKS ABOUT IT.

For a start you did not ask me not to write on the Middle East till I had researched the history. You told me not to write because I didn't know the history.

Next, you still haven't given any examples of what you find lacking in the historical contextualization of my articles.

Then, it wasnt an ad hominem. I said you lacked intelligence because you were trying to defend your saying that people posting second hand info off google was invading your privacy, by explaining what the second hand info was: I explained your gaff with:

"It doesn't matter what they were posting, it wasn't private if it was on the internet, so they're posting of it on BC surely wouldn't have scared you out of putting your name to your words."

Can you blame me for being defensive. Who is Moonraven to tell me what to write about?

You say I am attacking you personally, how could I when I didn't know who you were? because I say your lack of intelligence is not on facts at my disposal, it was on facts at my disposal, the comments I have read from you on this thread and others.

Unlike your rash comment that started all this, ordering me not to write because I lacked historical knowledge. If I lack so much in my knowledge, give me an example, mister professor. If you can't give me a valid example this discussion is over.

Clavos:

Yes, I am more highly skilled at making personal attacks than you are. But then, that might just be because I am a highly skilled person, in general.

And that perhaps you selected the wrong person to attack right from the get go.

Or that you simply like suffering.

It's not for me to decide.

Explain to me how I am passing myself off as an expert. And, how can you say you know more about the Middle East than me, a: you don't know what I know, and b:, there is nothing of yours in print or online that we can verify your claim.

If you are as intellectual and knowledgeable of these subjects as you are vain, then you probably do know more than me.

Anyway: I would hope you do, you are what, at least twice my age.

Still no examples, and I'm sick and tired of arguing with someone who should be displaying the civility of maturity, but is displaying quite the opposite. Next time you are looking for kicks, try clitoral stimulation, I am outta here.

Expect to be completely ignored from now on... unless you are making a genuine criticism of my work, based on examples of the text of said work. Not your differing opinions to mine, biases or prejudices.

Drawing from my knowledge of Dungeons & Dragons, lacking intelligence is not a personal attack, because intelligence is a quantifiable, indisputable stat determined by 3d6.

My advice would be to seek out a chaotic neutral wizard who can brew a potion of intelligence and shut up your critics.

"Wormwood, wormwood."

"The lady female doth protest too much, methinks."

Liam:

I think this discussion is probably over anyway, because a) you continue to refer to me as a male, when I have indicated that I am a female and so have other people. Your "mister professor" epithet is meant to be insulting.

Your comments defending your calling me stupid do not make sense. Even if you had my IQ results in your hand they would still not be legitimate arguments to suuport your claim that you write well. You say you couldn't be personally attacking me because you don't know me--yet call me stupid????? That is logical?

I will answer that: NO, it is not logical.

You insulted me--when I asked you POLITELY to stop writing articles without historical context--which was NOT a rash comment, but a request.

I am not going to write your pieces for you, but historical contextualization is explaining the historical process that led to the current events being a logical outcome of previous events--a thread going through the commentary that shows what Hegel called the "action of the spirit in history", or which reflects a different form of historicism which shows WHY events are probably unavoidable.

Let's look at your piece:

In your first paragraph of this piece you violate this writer's respect for grammar and syntax, as the last two sentences should have been combined into one. That immediately put my on alert to your being a beginning writer.

The last sentence of your second paragraph does not have to do with the other elements in the paragraph, and it is an unsupported opinion.

Your third paragraph is 100% opinion, with no historical data to suport it.

Paragraph 4 does not even make it clear WHICH occupation you are talking about. It LOOKS syntactically as if the Iranian Shiites are the occupiers.

Paragraph 5 makes no sense at all.

Paragraph 6 begins with another opinion that is not supported by historical or present facts.

Paragraph 7 implies Iran is the problem for Israel that must be "stood up against". Where did that come from? Where is the evidence that Israel "craves" peace? This is not acceptable journalistic writing, Liam. This is the language of propaganda. And Iran, BTW, is not an Arab country.

Your two concluding paragraphs are 100% pie in the sky. Where is there any evidence that what you have described in the previous 7 paragraphs leads to this conclusion? I don't see any.

In fact, everything I know about the history of the reason makes your final statements laughable.

I hope that was TEXTUAL enough for you, Liam. Yours is a piece that would be a complete rewrite in a classroom.

I may well be twice your age--but in this case it is not something to be ashamed of. In my 62 years I have EDUCATED myself. And I learned how to be a good writer when folks were helpful enough to tell me when I started writing that my writing was not up to snuff.

When you receive whatever the British equivalent of the Pulitzer Prize is, please let me know. I will not take back one word of my criticism, but I will toast you--and the sorry state of journalism--with a vintage bottle of Vueve Cliquot.

Maybe not as vintage as I am, but nevertheless top drawer.

Clavos - #63

"If we remove the incentive of profit, what will be the motivation to invest the capital required for the facilities, tools and raw materials necessary for the workers to produce?"

from my #33

"At a certain point we will overcome the resistance and make our own decisions on what, and how much, to produce.

"The only profit required will be that more is produced than consumed. Some of the excess will go to enhancing the productive capability."

Part of the value of the products produced will be used to pay the workers. Other parts will be used to buy raw materials and new tooling. Another part will go to research and design. Another part to the general well being of society.

This will not be on a factory by factory basis. It is productive society, as a whole, that has to meet these requirements. As I said abve: We decide.

Liam, I want to publicly encourage you to continue to write insightful articles like this. Experience will teach you to just ignore cranks like Moonraven. Her obnoxious is mostly internally generated and is in no way your responsibility. Those of us with open minds who are genuinely concerned about the situation in the Middle East appreciate your efforts.

Dave

Nalle,

Who lives part of each year in the Middle East--you, or me?

If I were a crank I would not even respond to your semi-literate posts.

[Edited]

Oh, and for the record, Nalle: WHAT insights does Liam have about the Middle East situation that he shared with us?

Name even one.

Liam -- I see age as possibly a distinct advantage here. Younger people may think their version of history cannot be challenged, and instead of paying attention to those with experience, they insist that their novel versions of history are complete and accurate.

Of course, it doesn't always work that way...

I can think of at least one loud-mouthed exception.

So, based on this series of comments, we can all conclude there will be no peace in the Middle East, as there is not even peace in the discussion. Case closed, wrap it up, everyone go home.

Moonraven: In your first paragraph of this piece you violate this writer's respect for grammar and syntax, as the last two sentences should have been combined into one. That immediately put my on alert to your being a beginning writer.

The last sentence of your second paragraph does not have to do with the other elements in the paragraph, and it is an unsupported opinion.

If you read this article published, as I submitted it to AMIN, you will find I have it merged into one sentence, and that, the last statement of the second paragraph was the first line of the third paragrpah, which is the paragrpah supporting the statement.

Your third paragraph is 100% opinion, with no historical data to suport it.

That statement proves it is you who lacks knowledge: If the Arabs had accepted the partition plan istead of going to war, they would have had all the land they want now, plus that lost in the 1948 war, therefore, what I say is true, they would have had far more land than they now would settle for happily.

Paragraph 4 does not even make it clear WHICH occupation you are talking about. It LOOKS syntactically as if the Iranian Shiites are the occupiers.

Paragraph 4 doesn't need to make it clear who the occupiers are, as the first three paragrahs make it absolutely clear which occupation is being discussed. What do you do in your articles, continually repeat yourself?

Paragraph 5 makes no sense at all. and you called me immature. In the same vain as your complaints about my first two paragraphs, don't you think, ex Reuters World Desk editor Roger Choate, who edited this article would have picked up on the paragraph if it made no sense?

Paragraph 6 begins with another opinion that is not supported by historical or present facts.

I take it you are referring to: "Israel cannot grant full rights of return because that would drastically change Israel's demography, and it would no longer be a safe-haven for the world's Jews."

In which case, what are you talking about? Every Middle EAst writer and academic I have read and spoken to knows that what I say is true. Israel can't and won't grant right of return for Palestinian refugees, because the influx of Arabs into Israel would make them predominant, and Israel would no longer be a Jewish state, thus, no safe haven against persecution of the world's Jews. Israel would also have a lot less room to accomodate its law of return, giving any Jew in the world who wants to move to Israel a fast-tracked visa.

Paragraph 7 implies Iran is the problem for Israel that must be "stood up against". Where did that come from? Where is the evidence that Israel "craves" peace? This is not acceptable journalistic writing, Liam. This is the language of propaganda. And Iran, BTW, is not an Arab country. It comes from widespread reports that Israel is in existential fear of Iran, and is planning to attack if neccesary. As well as many statements by israeli leaders on stopping Iran's enrichment, by force if neccesary. FYI, I know that Iran is not an Arab state and have made it clear in this very paragraph:

to stand up against Iran. The Arabs too, being of Sunni faith, are seeking to unite against the possible domination of the region by Shiite Iran.
Also, in this paragraph I have not said Israel craves, I said: If Israel craves normalized relations with all surrounding Arab states and the Palestinians within, this is the ideal offer for them. Try reading more carefully before criticizing. Maybe if you did paragraph 5 would have made more sense?

Your two concluding paragraphs are 100% pie in the sky. Where is there any evidence that what you have described in the previous 7 paragraphs leads to this conclusion? I don't see any.

For your dimwittery I will break down my conclusions.

"That said, if an agreement were to be reached on the Saudi initiative, Israel and the surrounding Arab states should enjoy a future of security and peaceful coexistence." The agreement secures normalized relations with all Arab states, in return for which the Palestinians get their state with east Jerusalem as its capital, and land returned equivalent to that taken in 1967 pending an agreeable land swap, the refugees would have a home in the new state or agreed compensation and Syria would get back the Golan heights. That is the thing with the Saudi initative, the hard things is getting the agreement, if it is reached, everyone getting what they want would see that they maintain the peace.

"Negotiations could secure an agreement on the wall being torn down after an agreed period of Israeli security."

If ISrael were to live in security from the Palestinians, it would have no excuse for the wall, and the international community would see it torn down before it scuppered the miraculous agreement.

"With circumstances bringing all Arab states together in seeking an agreement with Israel, and Israel now eagerly seeking unity with the Arabs, it's now or probably never."

I have explained this, the Sunni Arabs seek unity in the face of Shiite Iranian domination of the region, and Israel seeks peace from its Arab neighbours to concentrate on the Iranian threat to its hegemony, and if Iran gets nuclear weapons, the threat to its dwindling emmigration numbers.

Is that clear enough for your Monnraven.

Two more things: how am I still referring to you as a man when I said: "the next time you want kicks try clitoral stimulation"? A statement I stand by.

And Whereas I have a chance of getting a Pullitzer, you certainly do not!

Don't go home. Sit quietly and learn.

Learn what? That no one ages well?

The land granted to the Jewish State by the United Nations is contained in UN Resolution 181 (II), dated 29 November 1947...

The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern) Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Transjordan. It includes the whole of the Hula Basin, Lake Tiberias, the whole of the Beisan sub-district, the boundary line being extended to the crest of the Gilboa mountains and the Wadi Malih. From there the Jewish State extends north-west, following the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.

The Jewish Section of the coastal plain extends from a point between Minat et Qila and Nabi Yunis in the Gaza sub-district and includes the towns of Haifa and Tel-Aviv, leaving Jaffa as an enclave of the Arab State. The eastern frontier of the Jewish State follows the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.

The Beersheba area comprises the whole of the Beersheba sub-district, including the Negeb and the eastern part of the Gaza sub-district, but excluding the town of Beersheba and those areas described in respect of the Arab State. It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron sub-district boundary line to Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.

According to international law, what was taken by military force does not belong to Israel.

Liam hang in there. Keep writing.

She has no business making such censorship requests.

I am not making censorship requests.

If someone with an editor's position on this site were doing his job, this article would have been sent back--just as I would not have given it a passing grade in Journalism 101.

Liam is hopeless, because like a lot of wet-behind-the-ears writers, he think he knows it all, that he doesn't have to document anything and that anyone who tells him he is not a hot shit writer should be attacked to the death.

He even has the nerve to shoot from the hip and defend his bad writing--saying that he doesn't have to make things clear.

In a situation that has historically been the tinder box that the Middle East has been, documentation and very careful attention to detail is absolutely necessarily.

And listening to folks who have more knowledge and experience goes along way to improving as a journalist.

But not our Liam--at 23 or whatever he is, he's going to tell us how it's done.

He hasn't been paid a nickel for this garbage, but he's sure he will get a Pulitzer.

God save us from boors like you, Liam. Your a good target for a johad just because you don't know what you're writing.

I, like Pontius Pilate, wash my hands of you and turn you over to YOUR people--whoever they might be.

JIHAD

Don't let international law (George Bush doesn't) stand in yourway, nor history, nor conventions of documentation, nor plain old common sense.

Just flash your ass out there and keep making a bloody fool of yourself.

"According to international law, what was taken by military force does not belong to Israel.

I will repeat here what I said commenting on a different article. It is more apt here, especially in the light of comments like those found above, italicized.

Marthe Raymond (moonraven) wrote, "As a Native American I am in a position to respond to Mark (Schannon's) racist question.

Give the country back to us, but in the condition it was in when you took it--without cars, pollution, ticky tacky houses, etc."

I was not always so fortunate to have a roof over my head. One Saturday afternoon, while laying on my coat on the grass in a park in St. Paul, an Indian came over to me and said, "get off my land!".

The Indian was drunk and I was sober, but I understood that the liquor had freed him to say what his heart meant, and what Marthe so clearly articulated above. The Europeans came to America, committed genocide against the native population, drove them from their homes and introduced liquor, syphilis, cholera and a shitload of evil habits, along with the pollution, cars and ticky tacky houses.

But Mark noted, "It's (referring to the creation of this country and its borders) a done deal. And it's more than a distraction to bring it up, I find it unusual that the rule of behavior for the human race (I stole it, you can't take it back, it's now mine) apply to everyone but Jews."

Let's put it this way. If you damned goyisher savages can steal land and commit genocide, so can we, and you are no better than we are. It is clear what kind of savages you are from the way you firebomb cities, use napalm, and bomb innocents. We took land that was ours to begin with, and it is now ours by your shitty rules of goy kill goy - the right of conquest. And we did not commit genocide, while you goyim have continued to do so even after you saw the degeneracy of the savagery of the so-called "civilized" Germans - good white Christians - good Christians my ass.

None of you (except perhaps Marthe Raymond) have the moral standing to tell us that we have no right to our land.

You can either live by your rules of savaqery - which means that so long as we can hold on to this country by whatever means, foul or fair, it is ours. Or you can live by OUR rules of civilized behavior, something you have never done, and respect the word of G-d and OUR rights to this country.

Who am I to say this? I am a Jew who has a gun, and who knows how to fire it. That is all the legitimacy I need.

DAMN YOU ALL, THIS IS MY COUNTRY. YOU WANT A PIECE OF IT, COME WITH YOUR GUNS AND TAKE IT! OTHERWISE, SHUT THE FUCK UP!

My final comment in this lifetime to Liam:

Keep mistreating your readers by calling them dimwits and that Pulitzer will be in your pocket by sundown.

Little boy SERVANT has a lot to learn:
1) The Palestinians are the people who were in...Palestine when the Zionists decided to "return" there. The Palestinians (mainly Muslims, but with Christian and Jewish minorities) lived happily together until the invasion and are the ones undergoing occupation and trying to be free (as did the French under Nazi occupation).
2) Palestinians = the people of Palestine, who have been living on that land for many centuries, the descendants of all those who passed through.
3) How can one argue with someone who finds Injustice...normal?
Grow up, little boy!

You know, the time may come when someone does win a Pulitzer for writting a good blog.

Dave

Stop drooling, Dave.

#88... "I was not always so fortunate to have a roof over my head."

That helps explain your contempt for the law.

But it doesn't excuse it.

As MOonraven has made no further attempts to justify her [Edited] rants with solid examples from the article text, let comment #80 stand as me making my article perfectly clear to her warped and badly biased mind. In the case of paragraph 5, if she explains how she feels it doesn't make sense I will simplify it for her stupidity.

Yapping on about me listening to people who know more. So far she hasn't proven she knows more, only that she has twisted the same facts I know into her warped and twisted little mindset, which my new, cold detachment doesn't chime with.

BTW, Moonraven: I don't call all my readers dimwits, only the ones who display vanity and ignorance. And the only person making a fool of themselves is you my dear, a 62 year old who really should know better, and should probably have spent the last few hours with family. You could go tomorrow.

You say you are on the Arabs' side. Well, MIFTAH: The Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Dialogue and Democracy saw fit to publish it, as did the Arabic Media Internet Network linked #80, two sides who might just be a little more on the Arabs side, and perhaps knowledgeable in their affairs than even you.

Goodbye, and good luck to you.

Thank you for your comment Alessandro Niccollo, and Matthew T Sussman, you really made me laugh.

To Dave Nalle, it is certainly more likely to win a Pullitzer for writing a good blog in the coming generation, than to do so writing for the Wichitaw Times, wouldn't you agree.

And from now on I will ignore Moonraven, who should really be called black hole, for sucking people into endless slanging matches, senility and immaturity in one person, that's gotta be worth experimenting on, right?

MBD,

Worth repeating for emphasis - especially to you.

Let's put it this way. If you damned goyisher savages can steal land and commit genocide, so can we, and you are no better than we are. It is clear what kind of savages you are from the way you firebomb cities, use napalm, and bomb innocents. you goyim have continued commit genocide even after you saw the degeneracy of the savagery of the so-called "civilized" Germans.....

That illustrates your contempt for law and human decency - but excuses neither.

And you wonder why a Jew would curse out a camera crew violating his Sabbath on his land in his country? And you have the audacity to dare get insulted?

[Edited]

Ruvy,

You could have saved yourself a lot of time just writing this instead of your last two posts:

I am changing the world, and the way everyone was brought up is now wrong. TWO WRONGS NOW MAKE A RIGHT!

GET A GRIP MATE!

Liam,

You say I should save time on posts by saying

"I am changing the world, and the way everyone was brought up is now wrong. TWO WRONGS NOW MAKE A RIGHT!

GET A GRIP MATE!"

I'm speaking my own point of view now, not the view of someone attempting to guide you to more balanced or better writing. Two distinct and different things...

But you have come forward towards more balanced writing and I do appreciate that.

We Jews have survived in your world of goy kill goy - survival of the fittest, strongest and meanest bastard under the sun. We've done it despite every single generation being filled with those who would exterminate us and blacken our name before G-d and Man. These have been both Christian and Moslem - Jew-hatred appears to be an equal opportunity persuasion.

We already "got a grip" - and, with G-d's help, we got the land.

As for "two wrongs make a right" - those are the basic operating rules of the "olám hashéker" the world of falsity that grips us all so ruthlessly. They are the rules the present "world" function on. I'm not changing anything. I'm just dispensing with the Sunday school bullshit and finger waving. All I'm doing is saying the truth up front.

Ms. Moonraven - Your comments on this thread refer to a considerable journalistic background as well as Middle East knowledgeability. Wouldn't you like to consider submitting an article on the subject to BC?

Sincerely,
Roger Choate
Intl Political Editor

Roger,

I've invited moonraven (Marthe Raymond) to submit pieces as well. According to what she has written in response to me regarding those invitations, her participation, were it to come at all, would come with a price - David Nalle's head on a platter.

So, at this point, you should probably regard her as a lively commenter.

It's a convenient excuse for her to avoid exposing her ignorance and rhetorical weakness to direct criticism. Based on her comments we can all imagine what kind of drivel she would produce as an article. I can understand why she would be reluctant to expose herself that way.

Dave

Why is that then Dave? It doesn't stop you...

You see Christopher, I've learned to mask my personal weaknesses with excessive reliance on facts, and that gives me a sense of security when posting my crazed rantings. Plus I've got a dedication to the truth which overwhelms any personal shame or embarassment.

Dave

Cheap shot, Rose.

I should think that an editor would hold him/herself above such petty nonsense, if for no other reason than that you represent the management of the site.

It's one thing to respond to an attack; quite another to initiate one...

Clavos, quoting MR: "I have these ad hominem exchanges with a few folks on this site: .. "

Not just on this site

"You see Christopher, I've learned to mask my personal weaknesses with excessive reliance on facts, and that gives me a sense of security when posting my crazed rantings. Plus I've got a dedication to the truth which overwhelms any personal shame or embarassment."
- Dave Nalle

"I swear I wasn't playing pool with Lampwick."
- Pinocchio

Clavvy, re #104;

I diametrically disagree.

At least Dave writes articles and defends his positions, Christopher. Whether we agree or disagree with him is irrelevant.

It's easy to do all the attacking with a feign sense of superiour knowledge. I agree with Mr.Choate. Let'see what you got, Moonraven.

Dave, based on your #103, I take it back, you do have a sense of humour. Your claim that you base your work on facts and a respect for the truth, when you clearly have both a dogma and an agenda, is the funniest thing I've heard this week. Mind you, it is only Tuesday.

Clavos, that's nonsense I'm afraid. Dave clearly has an agenda and strong political views that no more allow him to be objective on political topics than say Ruvy is on matters "spiritual".

I don't represent the site owners anyway. They are quite capable of speaking for themselves, as I do. Furthermore, I didn't attack Dave personally, I attacked his claim, which I find entirely untrue and unsupported by the evidence of his postings.

Alessandro, also entirely incorrect I'm afraid. Dave writes from his political perspective, which, when he's not making his entirely false claims of writing based on facts, he admits to be coming from a right of centre perspective.

Agreeing or disagreeing with him is utterly relevant, particularly when he claims to be non-dogmatic, which is nothing more than a shoddy attempt to justify his highly subjective political point of view.

The only true thing this self-professed elitist wrote in response to my charge is that his sense of