I suppose that, at this point, the question is how to fund the Palestinians without the money ending up in acts of terrorism.More generally, the question is how to fund X without X’s leaders / warlords / pimps pocketing the cash.

     by Loxias on March 1, 2006 at 7:34 am

It’s a very tricky question, but I’m confident the EU won’t manage to solve it.(Like the new look, by the way)

     by Michael M. on March 1, 2006 at 9:18 am

This is me being rather cynical: It’s called exporting democracy - If US presidential campaigns are funded by soft money, if Italian prime minister owns most of the state’s electronic media and abuses it for pre-election battle, if Russian president is tackling "terrorists" instead of corruption, if Slovenian prime minister is talking to his buddies on how to take over Mercator and Delo, then it is not surprising that some freedom-fighter-turned-glutton does not have any misgivings about diverting some aid funds to his Swiss bank accounts. Afterall (cynicism par excellence) - what is a billion dollars? How much did all the Enrons of the world cost? And now - a billion (hehe) dollar question: How much did several key players of Slovenia’s fight for independence make by operating secret funds needed to finance independence?

     by pengovsky on March 1, 2006 at 10:41 am

Very well said, Michael!!BTW, I really don’t understand why everybody (that means: most Europeans) take it for granted that the EU should fund the so-called "constrution of the Palestinian statehood"?

     by Luka on March 1, 2006 at 10:53 am

Nice work there. We live in a world of hypocrites and pussies. Of course it’s all a matter of opinion and argumentation at this point in time about exactly what the EU should be doing etc etc.

     by JS on March 1, 2006 at 10:57 am

@Luka: Perhaps the answer is hiding in the fact, that One of the earlies resolution by the Security Council (dating back to 1948) called for creation of two states: Palestinian and Jewish state. Fact of the matter is that two countries exist. But one (which has built its statehood also with wast ammounts of US money) is occupying parts of another - which has yet to build its statehood. The EU sees its opportunity to curb its influence in Middle East by heavily supporting the Palestinian authorities.Don’t get me wrong, I’m not on the Palestinian side here. In fact, I’m not on anybody’s side. It’s just that it’s all geopolitics. Who controls  which territory (financially or otherwise). And there are no good guys in this game.

     by pengovsky on March 1, 2006 at 1:44 pm

Of course, to the citizens of Europe, the greater danger is still the Polish plumber. So no wonder that the new Eu member get less funds than Muslim terrorists. EU is a pathetic institution with no brains, no balls and no goals.Kill it now. USA uber alles.

     by crni on March 1, 2006 at 1:57 pm

EU is a pathetic institution with no brains, no balls and no goalsEven Scarface understood that "All I have in this world is my balls, and my word, and I don’t break ‘em for no one, jou understand?"

     by Michael M. on March 1, 2006 at 2:33 pm

He also said, "I always tell the truth. Even when I lie."I don’t trust any of ‘em! They all have their own agenda fueled by self-righteousness and/or just plain greed.  But what’s the alternative: follow the peacehiker?

     by Susan on March 1, 2006 at 4:49 pm

Actually, EU is indeed an ambitious project, born out of historical necesity rather then greed or self-righteouseness. The problem is, that the current leaders somewhat lost sight of the ultimate goal and are trying to compete in to many disciplines at the same time.

     by pengovsky on March 1, 2006 at 5:23 pm

I’ve always said that the EU and the Euro were a silly fad. This is only further proof.

     by Katja on March 1, 2006 at 6:00 pm

Peng, what is the ultimate goal?

     by crni on March 1, 2006 at 6:12 pm

The ultimate goal? World domination. I mean, obviously!

     by Alex on March 1, 2006 at 6:24 pm

<i>EU is a pathetic institution with no brains, no balls and no goals.Kill it now. USA uber alles.</i>I say get the entire EU leadership guillotined and institude me as a dictator

     by CCfly on March 1, 2006 at 6:56 pm

Pengovsky: "One of the earlies resolution by the Security Council (dating back to 1948) called for creation of two states: Palestinian and Jewish state."Yes, resolution which was rejected by all arabic countries.  "But one (which has built its statehood also with wast ammounts of US money) is occupying parts of another - which has yet to build its statehood."Hhm, and why no Palestinan state was established after 1949 (Israel occupied the territories only in 1967)? Was it not because other Arab countries occupied the zone (without much protest of the Palestian élite)? Or do they want a state established, payed and secured by others?  "The EU sees its opportunity to curb its influence in Middle East by heavily supporting the Palestinian authorities."That’s exately what I am against.

     by Luka on March 1, 2006 at 10:05 pm

Luka: BTW, I really don’t understand why everybody (that means: most Europeans) take it for granted that the EU should fund the so-called “constrution of the Palestinian statehood”?

Because the Palestinians deserve self-determination and are denied it. More practically, because the current conditions are A. in the long-term unsustainable, and B. have for a half century served as the bloody-shirt rallying cry for first Arab-nationalist and then Islamist extremism, both of which I’m sure we could all use less of.

     by Senix on March 2, 2006 at 1:42 am

@Senix:So the things are like this: keep civil und justified dissent (like Tibet or Western Sahara) and no-one will give a shit about you. But create a massive bloodshed, kill civilians, export unstability to the whole region, and we will come running to support you, ’cause we’re afraid you will do even more damage. That’s a really great message to "stateless" nations around the globe, now isn’t it?

     by Luka on March 2, 2006 at 2:03 am

i don’t believe slovenian economical situation is as bad as palestinians’…the fact they’re not european and they have bad leaders doesn’t seem a good enough reason for me to let them starve. 

     by emmanuel on March 2, 2006 at 9:00 am

Europe’s always been prone to qucik-fix pacifist solutions, so they do what they know best - give away money in attempt to sweep all the nasty stuff under the rug… it never works though.

     by freddie on March 2, 2006 at 6:49 pm

You are all insane. I didn’t know that carniola.org is an agent of AIPAC. pengovsky: "Perhaps the answer is hiding in the fact, that One of the earlies resolution by the Security Council (dating back to 1948) called for creation of two states: Palestinian and Jewish state."This is a joke, right? Would you recognise the "right to exist" to a few thousand Croatians settling around Novo Mesto? By my count the USA has vettoed around 35 UN resolutions urging Israel to respect the International Law and withdraw to the 67′ borders.  January 28, 2006: Hamas wins — The terrorist group Hamas wins Palestinian parliamentary elections. The group is on the EU’s list (pdf) of terrorist organizations. According to Article 2 of the EU’s common position (pdf) the European Community "shall ensure that funds, financial assets or economic resources… will not be made available, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of persons, groups or entities listed in the Annex." (i.e. Hamas)Did you know that in the 70′ Hamas and other religious extremists were directly supported and funded by the Israeli intelligence services to destabilise the secular Palestinan authority. It is very well documented. Of course the Arafat government was corrupted and that’s why Hamas won. That, and they bulit schools and hospitals. I could go on and on…. but it relly blows my mind when I hear such nutcases like Luka and pengovsky with their perverted views. 

     by marbit on March 2, 2006 at 7:20 pm

 Luka:So the things are like this: keep civil und justified dissent (like Tibet or Western Sahara) and no-one will give a shit about you. But create a massive bloodshed, kill civilians, export unstability to the whole region, and we will come running to support you, ’cause we’re afraid you will do even more damage.The Polisario Front may have shown admirable restraint, but I would not quite characterize their actions as "civil dissent," unless your definition of civil dissent involves rocket launchers. As for your point, human nature being what it is, violence gets more airtime than sit-ins. But it does not guarantee that anyone will "come running to support you"; there are lots of vicious conflicts that get hardly any attention whatsoever (Uganda, Myanmar, Colombia) and peaceful protests that garner lots of external support (Ukraine, Lebanon). In a better world, attention would be paid to and aid rendered to stateless nations regardless of acts of violence done in their name. You seem to differ with me on this, though, so let me ask you: if a faction of disgruntled Tibetans started blowing up trains in downtown Beijing, would that morally require us to ignore the plight of their countrymen and withold support from the cause of a free Tibet?

     by Senix on March 2, 2006 at 10:04 pm

Senix: "If a faction of disgruntled Tibetans started blowing up trains in downtown Beijing, would that morally require us to ignore the plight of their countrymen and withold support from the cause of a free Tibet?"Not at all (as I continue to show simpaty towards the Basque cause, although I find ETA’s action an abomination). However, the difference here is clear: Hamas has won the elections and taken control of the Palestinian institutions. If they recounced all violent action, recognize the State of Israel, maybe (I say maybe) I’d think about not taking away all financial support from them.And besides, I judge every case individually. So: not only is Israel not China (although a substancial part of European opinion leaders seems to think otherwise), but also Hamas is far from being the honourable Polisario Front (BTW: long live!)- even such a fascist organization as ETA seems a children’s gang compared to Hamas. And about the "democracy-argument." The fact that Palestinans elected Hamas is not a moral justification of any kind. All it means is, that they want them in charge. . Very well: but every free decision comes with a cost- you have to accept responsability for it. It’s their right to choose their leaders: but they should be prepared to accept the consequences (one of which is: from now on, start pying for your own institutions, ‘casue we ain’t doing it any more).

     by Luka on March 3, 2006 at 12:45 am

Marabit: "Did you know that in the 70′ Hamas and other religious extremists were directly supported and funded by the Israeli intelligence services to destabilise the secular Palestinan authority."Yes, I did." Of course the Arafat government was corrupted." I did know that, too."That’s why Hamas won. That, and they bulit schools and hospitals."I wouldn’t make such quick assertios, but yes, I’m aware how Hamas works. I guess it’s very similar to the "hesbollah", "Party of God"- concept (as described by Bruno Étienne in the book "Radical islamism")BTW: I find it a compliment being called a "nutcase" by someone with your ideas (if one can call them that way). I realize my views can seem "perverted", if seen from the standpoint of "hate, ignorance and evil" (as Chaim Herzog put it back in 1975).

     by Luka on March 3, 2006 at 1:02 am

Freddie, who are you an agent for? I looked up your assertion about Israel funding Hamas and it doesn’t look very well documented to me. There’s a UPI article that gets referenced a lot that has all kinds of assertions from "unamed officials" and various ex-CIA types. Not exactly convincing.However, I did find a link that sliced and diced the UPI  article: emperor.vwh.net/letters/stehly.htm. So tell me Freddy, you seem to object to the state of Israel. Seems reasonable to me that 600 million Arabs can make room for 6 million Israelies (especially considering most of these countries kicked out their jewish population between the 1920s and 1950s). If this isn’t reasonable, why not?  

     by Al on March 3, 2006 at 1:09 am

@Al: I’m afraid the assertion that Israeli secret services helped to finance Hamas in the mid-70’s is very plausable (although not proven). Back then, islamism was not a important political factor (the Islamic Revolution happend only in 1979). It’s more than probable that some sectors within the Israeli Government thought a religious party would help to neutralize the hegemony of Arab Nationalism; which was (being an aggressively pan-arabic, laic and pro-socialist movened) threathening not only Israel, but also conservative Arab governments (particulary the Hashemitic Monarchy).However, this has no value as an argument. At the end of 1920’s, Hitler’s NSDAP recieved some funding by (naive, stupid and short-sighted) Jews. Does this mean that Jews were responsable for the Holocaust? At the beginning of the Spanish civil war, some conservative Basques (expecially from Navarre) sided with Franco. Does this in any way justify Francoist massive repression of Basque culture and language after 1937?  From 1934/5 to 1941, Yugoslavia was (due to necessity and bad judgement) a political and economic ally of Nazi Germany. Does this justify Hitler’s criminal invasion of the country in 1941?

     by Luka on March 3, 2006 at 2:04 am

Luka:
However, the difference here is clear: Hamas has won the elections and taken control of the Palestinian institutions. If they recounced all violent action, recognize the State of Israel, maybe (I say maybe) I’d think about not taking away all financial support from them.

Is your moral support for the Tibetans contingent on their offering only nonviolent resistance to forcible Sinification, and on their retroactively recognizing the legality of Mao’s invasion and annexation?

     by Senix on March 3, 2006 at 2:36 am

Senix: "Is your moral support for the Tibetans contingent on their offering only nonviolent resistance to forcible Sinification, and on their retroactively recognizing the legality of Mao’s invasion and annexation?" Not at all; I’m not a fanatic supporter of non-violence. I’d support them, if they chose to fught. But blowing up busses and killing civilians is not miliraty fight: it’s terrorism.As to the second part of your question: Dalai Lama’s position is a wise and tactic one- but of course I, as a friend of Tibet, would rather see all Chinese people moving out and Tibet independent. But I’m afraid your questions are missing the point: you see, I don’t make parallels between those two cases, because I find them completely different. And if you’re still interested, I’ll tell you also what do I base my judgenment upon.

     by Luka on March 3, 2006 at 3:34 pm

But I’m afraid your questions are missing the point: you see, I don’t make parallels between those two cases, because I find them completely different. And if you’re still interested, I’ll tell you also what do I base my judgenment upon.OK, I’m listening.

     by Senix on March 6, 2006 at 7:57 pm

Senix: "OK, I’m listening."Hhm, where should I start. Maybe with the fact that Tibet never threathened the existence of China and the Dalai Lama (contrary to some other Nobel Price winner) said "all Chinese should be thrown to the sea". China attacked a peaceful country (with an ethnically and culturally homogeneous population) and annexed it. Israel occupied the territories in 1967, after being attacked by Jordan (and did not annex them, except East Jerusalem).Israel gives a large cultural autonomy to its citizens of Arabic origins (they make up about 10% of the State). They have all civil righs (OK, almost all: they are not allowed to serve in the Army) and, in the case you didn’t know, Arabic is the second official language of the State of Israel. Regarding the occupied territories: there’s a clear security reason for the continued occupation. For almost 40 years, Israel lived under constant threat by its neighbours, who repeatedly launched attacks on the State. Between 1949 to 1973, Israel followed the "territory for peace" policy. It started to settle Jews on the occupied territories only in mid-70’s, giving up any hope for a stable peace. (BTW: I’m against those settlements and I hope the Israelis will pull out: as they finally did from Gaza).And last but not least: while China doesn’t even admit the existance of a Tibetan people (as subject to self-determination), Israel never denied the Palestinian’s right to have a state of their own; the 1948-Security Council Resolution (urging for two separate states to be established in Palestine) has always been considered valid by Israel (while Palestinians recognized Israel’s right to exist only in the early 1990’s; and now, due to Hamas’ victory, even that delayed recognition is in danger).Still don’t see the differences in the both cases?

     by Luka on March 7, 2006 at 4:51 pm

Oops, mistake: I hope it’s clear it should be wtitten: "The Dalai Lama never said that  "all Chinese should be thrown to the sea" …

     by Luka on March 7, 2006 at 4:53 pm

Hhm, where should I start. Maybe with the fact that Tibet never threathened the existence of China and the Dalai Lama (contrary to some other Nobel Price winner) said "all Chinese should be thrown to the sea". The Dalai Lama is a member of a pacifist religion. His countrymen, however, took part in a (eminently justified) revolt against the Chinese in 1959. Had it been sucessful it would have threatened the existence of China–if China, analogous to Israel, consisted entirely of territory wrested from the Tibetans, as Israel consists (except for the city of Jerusalem with its unbroken Jewish tenancy) almost entirely of territory expropriated from ethnic Arabs.China attacked a peaceful country (with an ethnically and culturally homogeneous population) and annexed it. Israel occupied the territories in 1967, after being attacked by Jordan Being attacked by Jordan might have given Israel the right to retaliate against and occupy Jordan. It did not give it the right to occupy terrritories that were neither historically, legally nor by UN resolution part of Jordan and had been themselves under Jordanian occupation. This is as illegitimate an act as the victorious European powers punishing the losers of WWI by taking their overseas colonies for themselves.(and did not annex them, except East Jerusalem).Israel has been annexing them, de facto if not de jure, just in small digestible pieces. And it would have likely annexed all of it legally had it not been for the fact that this might eventually necessitate giving the Palestinians the same citizenship and voting rights it eventually granted to the Israeli Arabs, or rather to the remnant of Israeli Arabs who were not expelled from their homes in 1948.Israel gives a large cultural autonomy to its citizens of Arabic origins (they make up about 10% of the State). They have all civil righs (OK, almost all: they are not allowed to serve in the Army)20%. And I’m under the distinct impression that Israel does allow Arabs to serve, they merely do not conscript them. Further, cultural autonomy is not the same thing as self-determination, which has a political component.and, in the case you didn’t know, Arabic is the second official language of the State of Israel. That’s nice. I believe Tibetan is official in the TAR too.Regarding the occupied territories: there’s a clear security reason for the continued occupation. For almost 40 years, Israel lived under constant threat by its neighbours, who repeatedly launched attacks on the State. Between 1949 to 1973, Israel followed the "territory for peace" policy. It started to settle Jews on the occupied territories only in mid-70’s, giving up any hope for a stable peace. (BTW: I’m against those settlements and I hope the Israelis will pull out: as they finally did from Gaza).The current concensus, even among much of the Israeli right, is that the settlements contribute noting to Israeli security, and are indeed a drain on such resources. Furthermore, occupation and expropriation are not the same thing; 1970’s-era Israel deciding to appropriate Palestinian land for housing after finding itself unable to barter it for concessions from its neighbors was an act of convenience, not necessity, and certainly not mandated by security needs.And last but not least: while China doesn’t even admit the existance of a Tibetan people (as subject to self-determination), China admits the existance of a Tibetan ethnicity, at least as subject to a theoretical, Soviet-style pseudo-autonomy. However fake this may be, it is something more than  "a land without a people for a people without a a land."Israel never denied the Palestinian’s right to have a state of their own; Half a state of their own, you mean. the 1948-Security Council Resolution (urging for two separate states to be established in Palestine) has always been considered valid by Israel It certainly has. Then again, if the UN Security Souncil passed a resolution tomorrow partitioning the contents of your wallet between us, I would consider it extremely valid too.(while Palestinians recognized Israel’s right to exist only in the early 1990’s; and now, due to Hamas’ victory, even that delayed recognition is in danger).It should be. The spectacular corruption and total unwillingness to condemn or oppose terrorism aside, the worst thing Arafat did was to recognize Israel. It was an act of betrayal of the Palestinan people by their leader akin to the Dalai Lama returning from exile to his palace in Lhasa in exchange for affirming eternal Chinese sovereignty over Tibet and endorsing the 1950 annexation.  Palestinian recognition of Israel should have been contingent on a contemporaneous Israeli recognition of a Palestinan state. In the meantime, the proper moral response to the Israeli or any other occupation is obvious; a complete boycott of the occupying power, coupled with nonviolent resistance and civil dissent–protest marches and the like. The fact that the Palestinians have failed to do this and instead resorted to disgraceful terrorist violence does not legitimize Israel–its relevant misdeeds mostly predate Pal. terrorism.Still don’t see the differences in the both cases?I see many differences. Some of them have a moral bearing; some do not. The Tibetans have reacted with far more restraint and humanity to the injustice done them than the Palestinians; unlike you I mostly  consider this to be to the Tibetans’ credit rather than the Palestinians detriment. Israel is not China, not even close; in fact I would say that Israel has mounted the most humane and tolerant campaign of ethnic disposession the world has ever seen. But the difference is one of degree, not of kind. The Palestinians in 1948 were no less deserving of self-determination than the Tibetans were two years later.

     by Senix on March 7, 2006 at 11:59 pm

I actually read your anwser and I even found it resonable, but then, as always: "If the UN Security Souncil passed a resolution tomorrow partitioning the contents of your wallet between us, I would consider it extremely valid too.The spectacular corruption and total unwillingness to condemn or oppose terrorism aside, the worst thing Arafat did was to recognize Israel."It’s sad, but I realized it’s always impossible to debate with a pro-palestinian. You can start a conversation on the principle "Israel ha s the right to a safe existance and the Palestinians have the right to a- territorrially integrated- State", but eventually the pro-palestinian advocate always ends up dening Israel right to exist (or at least its legitimacy). That is the basic argument why Israelk acts as it acts. They would immediately return to the boundiaries of 1967 (besides the Holy City, of course), if they could be sure that that will bring peace. But it won’t. Because the Palestinians want the destruction of Israel. And I believe any sane country would defend its existance, don’t you think. As a Slovenian leader put it after WWI.: "I’m sorry, but we are not prepared to commit suicide in order to please anyone."

     by Luka on March 8, 2006 at 3:33 pm

Mistake again: it should be written: "except the Holy CIty, of course"

     by Luka on March 8, 2006 at 4:27 pm

It’s sad, but I realized it’s always impossible to debate with a pro-palestinian. You can start a conversation on the principle "Israel has the right to a safe existance and the Palestinians have the right to a- territorrially integrated- State",I would agree with that.  but eventually the pro-palestinian advocate always ends up dening Israel right to exist (or at least its legitimacy). Funny, I don’t recall saying that. All I proposed was a simple analogy; that conclusion is all yours. Strange that anyone would think that questioning the moral legitimacy of acts surrounding a state’s founding is the same as claiming a present-day state does not deserve to exist; I am unaware of a single state on Earth that is is not located on land taken violently and usually unjustly from others. Do you believe the fact that the early Slovenes violently conquered the Romanized Celts means Slovenia is an illegitimate state? Israel is in no way unique here, except perhaps in that it didn’t get around to doing this sort of thing until around when it was starting to go out of fashion among other advanced countries, and that it did it much less violently than almost any other nation. The fact that a blunt observation of the way it gained the real estate necessary to becoma a nation invites heated accusations like "you don’t believe Israel has a right to exist!" is, I think, odd. And a little defensive.You seem to also have overlooked that "the worst thing Arafat did was to recognize Israel" was followed shortly by "without insisting on simoultaneous reciprocal recognition of Palestinian statehood."  I would be interested to know how you can characterize this statement as a denial of Israel’s right to exist; I think such an arrangement would be eminently fair. Why do you think it wouldn’t?But since it is the wallet thing that seems to offend you, let me propose a more direct analogy. It is 1918. For some reason, the Great Powers do not create the SHS Kingdom, but instead place Slovenia under a international mandate, to be administered by one of the Powers; let’s say France, or maybe Britain; I don’t care which. Over the next twenty years the Mandate Power permits–in the face of vehement local opposition–mass immigration of a unjustly disposessed people of your choice; White Russians? Refugees from Soviet Central Asia? Armenians? Again, I don’t care. By 1948, ethnic Slovenes number >60% of the population, and the mandate expires. The UN allots everything north and west of Ljubljana to the minority population for its own state. If you prefer, we can make the year 1991 and the persecuted minority Kurds or Tibetans or Southern Sudanese. Either way, I take it you would presumably be out on the streets with a sign reading "Take Nova Gorica too, please"? OK, well, Nova Gorica wasn’t there yet in 1948, but you get my point. You seem strangley offended that the Palestinians weren’t bubbling with enthusiasm when faced with this scenario.That is the basic argument why Israelk acts as it acts. They would immediately return to the boundiaries of 1967 (besides the Holy City, of course), if they could be sure that that will bring peace. They might have done so in 1967; they will not now, not with 5% of their population living in permanent settlement blocs outside the 1967 boundaries.But it won’t. Because the Palestinians want the destruction of Israel. Unfortunately they do. A sincere inquiry: in their circumstances, what would you want? And I believe any sane country would defend its existance, don’t you think. As a Slovenian leader put it after WWI.: "I’m sorry, but we are not prepared to commit suicide in order to please anyone."Sanity (in the form of self-interest) and morality are two different things. The Chinese settlers in Tibet will not leave to please anyone either. It is sane of them, but it is not moral.

     by Senix on March 9, 2006 at 4:48 am

I usually don’t debate Israel’s legitimity to exist, but I’ll make an exeption this time.YOur analogies show that you’re not very familiar with the actual historic circumstances. Firts of all, Jews started moving to Palestine already during the Ottoman Empire. In fact, most of present-day Israel (exept part of Gallile and the costal region around Jaffa) was uninhabited desert. The firts settlers legally bought the land from turkish nobles and established new cities that didn’t exist before (Tel Aviv, Western Jerusalem, Beersheba, etc.). When the British got the mandate over Palestine in 1918, they certenely didn’t encourage Jews to settle in (the Balfour declaration remained a piece of paper); they did in fact allow more settlers to come, but not at the expence of Arab-inhabited land (every piece of land was legally acquired- we have to know that most of the land in modern-day Israel had (according to Turkish civil law) no owner. The Jews didn’t move into someone other’s home or occupy cities built by others (as, just BTW; Slovenes did in the case of Koper, Izola and Piran: should we move out?), they created a fertile land out of the desert.Even after 1945/46, Jews were not allowed to move to Palestine (this is one of the most shameful chapters of British history- the camps of Cyprus). When they were finally allowed to move in, they’d settle in Jewish areas (the areas that the Jews wreched out of the desert). When in 1948 the Security Council voted the resolution to establish two states in Palestine, it actually recognized the existing status. In fact, according to the resolution, more than half of the present-day State of Israel was assigned to the Arab state. The Jewish state was given only aproximately 10.000 km2 of desert (without all the old cities and even without Western Jerusalem that was built by Jews outside the Old Town). The Arabs refused this more than justified solution and attacked Israel by a tremendous numerical superiority. Israel managed to defeat the much stronger invador and occupied a much large proportion of land. Most Arabs voluntary fled (since they obviously thought they’d return soon) and only a small proportion of them was actually expelled by Israelis- (Anyway, a substantial proportion of Arabs remained and they were given all civil rights, while no Jew was allowed to stay in Jordan-occupied Jerusalem and for 20 years all Jewish holy places on the West Bank were closed to the public)And last, but not least, two arguments you will probably find ridiculous, but are important for my judgment: the Jews didn’t settle to a foreign land (as if the Armenians or Kurds would settle in Nova Gorica), Palestine was their aintient land that they had been forced to leave. And secondly: the Arabs inhabit an enormous part of the earth (which they, just BTW, conquered in a much more cruel and unjustified way than the Jews gained Israel), so the Palestine Arabs could have well integrated in neighbouring Arab societies (as Germans from Poland did after 1945 or Italians from Istria after 1947 or Geeks from Smyrne after 1922 etc.), but the Arab countries instead put them into filthy refugee camps, and nade them impossible to continue a normall life, only to perpetrate their hate towards Israel and use them as a human weapon. (And just as an information: it’s true that around 600.000 Arabs left Israel after 1949, but don’t forget the Jews that were expelled from Arab coutries: they were around 300.000)

     by Luka on March 9, 2006 at 2:26 pm

I usually don’t debate Israel’s legitimity to exist, but I’ll make an exeption this time.[grits teeth] I tried to point this out politely earlier, but perhaps I was being insufficiently blunt. I will repeat slowly: I… am… not… denying… Israel’s… right… to… exist. The moral failings of Theodor Herzl and the generation of 1948 are not the fault of contemporary Israelis. The whole "Sins of the fathers unto the seventh generation" idea is not something I endorse. I would be unuterrably glad to see a rapid and amicable bipartite settlement, but for the moment Israel deserves only one thing from the Palestinans: an end to terrorist violence agaist Israeli civilians. Anything more–recognition, normal relations, trade–should be contingent on a South-African-style truth and reconcilitation process, during which several embarrasing things about the founding of Israel would be bound to come up. (That would be a good opportunity for a Palestinian apology to the victims of their suicide-bombing tantrums, too.) Of couse, if the cult of the Immaculate Conception of the Jewish State is too vital to allow this–fine. YOur analogies show that you’re not very familiar with the actual historic circumstances. Firts of all, Jews started moving to Palestine already during the Ottoman Empire. Neither are you. The Jews never "started" moving to Palestine; there was a Jewish presence in ther region, concentrated in Jerusalem, throughout the last 1500 years, since the period of Byzantine sovereignty.In fact, most of present-day Israel (exept part of Gallile and the costal region around Jaffa) was uninhabited desert. The firts settlers legally bought the land from turkish nobles Turkey was an occupying power at the time. It cannot have sold what it did not own. How much validity would you observe in a public-lands-sale contract issued by the PRC governor of Tibet?and established new cities that didn’t exist before (Tel Aviv, Western Jerusalem, Beersheba, etc.). When the British got the mandate over Palestine in 1918, they certenely didn’t encourage Jews to settle in (the Balfour declaration remained a piece of paper); they did in fact allow more settlers to come, but not at the expence of Arab-inhabited land (every piece of land was legally acquired- we have to know that most of the land in modern-day Israel had (according to Turkish civil law) no owner. Oooh. Ottoman civil law. It even sounds just and impartial. Just like Turkish prisons.The Jews didn’t move into someone other’s home or occupy cities built by others (as, just BTW; Slovenes did in the case of Koper, Izola and Piran: should we move out?),Be serious. Entire Arab villages were razed in 1948. Houses are being demolished on a regular basis and the land beneath them extrajudicially seized even now. And no one is living in a refugee camp today because Slovenes conqured the bay of Piran a thousand years ago. If there were, Slovenes would be obliged to at the least invite them back in, if not move out themselves. they created a fertile land out of the desert.True. I believe the GNP of Tibet has increased greatly since 1950, too. This is an observation without moral significance–like saying "I could make better use of your garden than you."Even after 1945/46, Jews were not allowed to move to Palestine (this is one of the most shameful chapters of British history- the camps of Cyprus). When they were finally allowed to move in, they’d settle in Jewish areas (the areas that the Jews wreched out of the desert). When in 1948 the Security Council voted the resolution to establish two states in Palestine, it actually recognized the existing status. In fact, according to the resolution, more than half of the present-day State of Israel was assigned to the Arab state. The Jewish state was given only aproximately 10.000 km2 of desert (without all the old cities and even without Western Jerusalem that was built by Jews outside the Old Town). 55% of Mandatory Palestine, in spite of a 2:1 Arab majority overall. if the Arabs had consented, they could have used their massively higher birthrate to increase their vote and choose an Arab goverment within a decade or two, then merge the two states into one united Palestine. They never were very smart. Would you have approved of such a development, by the way? it seems a lot like what the Jews did pre-1948, after all.The Arabs refused this more than justified solution and attacked Israel by a tremendous numerical superiority. Israel managed to defeat the much stronger invador  Numerically stronger. Israelis had a much-better trained paramilitary, many having served as volunteers in WWII. The only Arab power to have anything resembling a modern army was Transjordan, also the only one to come close to holding its ground.and occupied a much large proportion of land. Most Arabs voluntary fled (since they obviously thought they’d return soon) and only a small proportion of them was actually expelled by Israelis- (Anyway, a substantial proportion of Arabs remained and they were given all civil rights, while no Jew was allowed to stay in Jordan-occupied Jerusalem and for 20 years all Jewish holy places on the West Bank were closed to the public)And last, but not least, two arguments you will probably find ridiculous, but are important for my judgment: the Jews didn’t settle to a foreign land (as if the Armenians or Kurds would settle in Nova Gorica), Palestine was their aincient land that they had been forced to leave. If I replaced Armenians or Kurds with some long-wandering Noricum-ese, would that change things? Besides, Palestine was the Palestinians’ ancient land too; the period of Arab tenancy of the Holy land (600 AD-present) is comprable to the cumulative periods of Jewish control 1500 BC-100AD minus the Babylonian Exile)And secondly: the Arabs inhabit an enormous part of the earth (which they, just BTW, conquered in a much more cruel and unjustified way than the Jews gained Israel), [snort] Not the first time they gained it. Have you read the Book of Joshua? The promised land was not won in a game of baccarat.so the Palestine Arabs could have well integrated in neighbouring Arab societies (as Germans from Poland did after 1945 or Italians from Istria after 1947 The duty of resettling refugees should properly fall to those who made them refugees in the first place. Unlike the Germans and Italians, the Palestinans were fighting to keep what was then still their own country, not trying to conquer someone else’s., but the Arab countries instead put them into filthy refugee camps, and nade them impossible to continue a normall life, only to perpetrate their hate towards Israel and use them as a human weapon. The Arab states have been very cynical about this. However I suspect the hate in the camps is entirely authentic.(And just as an information: it’s true that around 600.000 Arabs left Israel after 1949, but don’t forget the Jews that were expelled from Arab coutries: they were around 300.000)Actually you lowball both of these figures–close to a million Jews were expelled from Arab countries immediately after 1948, and the Palestinian numbers were higher than you cite too.  However, this sort of debate is, as you said, somewhat irrellevant. We do not agree on a fundamental moral framework; therefore the entire substance of any arguement that follows is hollow. Thank you for your civility and time, though.

     by Senix on March 10, 2006 at 3:43 am

Senix: "However, this sort of debate is, as you said, somewhat irrellevant. We do not agree on a fundamental moral framework; therefore the entire substance of any arguement that follows is hollow."I’d say we in fact DO agree on on a fundamental moral framework (which made this -more useless than irrelevant- debate possible in the first place), but we obviously don’t share the same optic on the subject (and we have slightly different information about the facts). And in political issues, judgement always crucially depends on what you actually want (and what you want comes from your personal preferences, which are in a way beyond ethical discussion)."Thank you for your civility and time, though."You are welcome.

     by Luka on March 10, 2006 at 6:33 am

There are worst things than Slovenia-Croatia disputes.

     by ipe on March 10, 2006 at 10:58 am

Off topic:

Sandmonkey readers, Palestinians are supposed to be a seperate aincient people with a long history and culture that is preceeds the Jewish people. If so, there must be an encyclopedia of Palestinian history somewere with Palestinian stories and, perhaps, a forgotten Palestinian language, and perhaps some unique Palestinian customs, all cenetered around the land of Israel, the Palestinian home land. If any of these claims are true, there must be a strong Palestinian history (not Arab, Palestinians are a seperate people) in Jerusalem.

The basic history of the Jewish people is verifiable throughout the world. Is there an equivilent which prooves that there is a “Palestinian” people. Some people refer to the Philistines, however I believe that the name “Palestinian” used by people today, is just that, a name. I do not see any proof of a long Palestinian history stretching right through the ages.

Basic Jewish History:
www.jewishhistory.org.il/

Where is an Aincient Palestinian equivilient?

     by Steven on April 28, 2006 at 8:54 pm