Pickled Politics






Family

Comrades

In-laws







Site Meter

Israel exists and will exist. Get. Over. It.


by Al-Hack on 1st November, 2005 at 12:16 am    

Hitler couldn’t have put it better, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown says in the Indy today, and she is - to put it mildly - right on.

On Saturday I speculated why the Iranian President said he wanted to “wipe Israel off the map”. Now I know why: he’s bonkers and completely inept. But let’s allow YAB to put it more succintly:

Hitler couldn’t have put it better. The Führer would have played the audience similarly - a conference of emotive students marking Jerusalem Day, who would readily rise to imagine the glorious obliteration of the Jewish state.

You know the type, furious people like millions of others across the Middle East, disenfranchised and stamped on by their own leaders, who displace their anger by turning their eyes on Israel, lusting for its annihilation in a kind of political pornography which provides temporary relief but can only lead to a greater sense of hopeless impotence and homeless rage.

Of course, you gotta stump up the cash to read the whole shebang but her point is: Israel exists. And it is vital for progressive Muslims to stand up and say so.

To many, including the Palestinians, that would be pointing out the obvious. The Palestinian Authority’s own chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said his comments were “unacceptable” and that the PA itself “recognised the state of Israel”. So why can’t the rest of the Muslim world do the same instead of trying to make things worse for the Palestinians? It’s not like the Arabs have been lining up to help the Palestinians financially, is it?



  |   Add to del.icio.us   |   Digg this   |   Filed under: South Asia, Religion, The World




73 Comments   |  


  1. j0nz — on 1st November, 2005 at 12:20 am  

    Al-Hack for once I agree with you.

  2. Al-Hack — on 1st November, 2005 at 12:32 am  

    Well, pigs will fly!

    [before some twat bans that phrase that is]

  3. Clive Davis — on 1st November, 2005 at 1:23 am  

    MESSAGE OF THE DAY

    Some simple but heartening words from Al-Hack at Pickled Politics:Israel exists and will exist. Get. Over. It.

  4. Fe'reeha — on 1st November, 2005 at 2:20 am  

    I think moderate Muslims accepted that Israel exists a long time ago. The President of Iran, probably, is not a good example of a moderate Muslim.
    The problem lies with the extreme fundamentalists within the Muslim community who have a problem with Israel’s “oppression”, not because it is a “Jewish state”.

    The idea of Zionism is often confused with the idea of anti-Semitism, two totally different concepts. Similarly, the resistance against Israel’s oppressive policies against the Palestinians are also confused by a large majority as a hatred of Jewish people.
    A large number of Westerners, even moderate Jews themselves consider Zionism as a totalitarian movement. And orthodox Jews beliefs as an ordained right on a piece of land also makes moderate Jews uncomfortable, the same way remarks like those of Iran’s President or suicide bombings in Israel make moderate Muslims uncomfortable.
    Yet, there are variations even in orthodox sector. I even interviewed a Rabi once who was part of a chain of rabis around the world, who believe that Zionism was an oppressive and unjust movement, and that Jews and Muslims have been co-existing together since centuries, and they can still do it by living side by side. (Rabi Cohen, Manchester).
    While there is an alarming anti-Semitic factor in extreme Muslim communities (and vice verse, check some Jewish websites with literature on Islam), a large number of Muslims oppose Israeli oppression, “not the existence of Israel”. This oppression is opposed by a number of Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

  5. Fe'reeha — on 1st November, 2005 at 2:23 am  

    Besides, I never can understand why people term Israel-Palestine conflict as Muslim-Jew or Arab-Jew conflict.
    Don’t we have Arab Jews in Israeli Army? Were they not Christian who were stranded in Church of nativity during the siege?
    Also, it is important to realise the existence of a substantial Christian community within Palestine.
    Also, the Palestinian Muslims form a large chunk of modernised Muslims; the traditional followers of Islam are not in majority.

    Once stability in the region is established, if its established, the Muslim colonies will be similar to Turkish moderate Islam followers.
    It is the politics once again, that plays havoc with simple people of a region where innocents die on both sides of the border. The divide in Israel is a political divide, not a religious one.
    Once you enter the region, it is so hard to define black and white areas.

  6. Col. Mustafa — on 1st November, 2005 at 2:42 am  

    You dam skippy, hippy.

  7. Steve M — on 1st November, 2005 at 2:56 am  

    We must rid ourselves of racism - pure and simple. Only then can the truth of any situation emerge.

    Israel is here to stay and will soon, G-d willing, be joined by the Palestinian state. Neither needs to be compared with either Nazi Germany on the one hand or a flock of angels on the other. Both sides have committed terrible wrongs, in difficult circumstances, but actual genocide has not been amongst those wrongs. Let both be regarded through lenses unclouded by racism and let them both be judged as we would judge any other country.

    As for Al-Hack’s piece - for him to write it on as ’sharp’ a forum as PP does more good than he knows. Respect.

  8. raz — on 1st November, 2005 at 5:42 am  

    I believe the Muslim world needs to follow the example of Pakistani President Musharraf, who has taken the bold step
    of engaging with Israel and putting so many decades of mistrust behind them.

    Israel and Pakistani Foreign Ministers in historic meeting

    Musharraf
    address US Jewish community

    Israeli education minister invited to Pakistan

    Also check PakistanIsraelpeace for more good news.

    Really, I’ve never understood why Pakistanis have been so pro-Palestinan, given the lack of support from the Arab world for Pakistan’s position in Kashmir.

    Also, Pakistan and Israel have so much in common as nations, more so than most other countries in the world. Both were formed in the aftermath of major bloodshed (holocaust/partition), both were created as safe havens for a persecuted religous minority, and both have endured 50 years of a life and death struggle against a numerically superior and relentlessly agressive enemy (Arabs/India). Despite these hardships, both nations have shown commendable determination to survive in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. It’s about time these two great nations broke down the barriers of mistrust and engaged with one another. Hats off to Musharraf.

  9. leon — on 1st November, 2005 at 11:46 am  

    Now if we could only get the Isrealies to take the same humanistic attitude toward Palestine…

  10. j0nz — on 1st November, 2005 at 11:53 am  

    Leon, it’s difficult for the Israeli government - unlike the rest of the Middle East - it has an electorate to answer to. No surrender to terror - thats what myself - and most Israelis will be saying.

  11. Judy — on 1st November, 2005 at 12:09 pm  

    Thank you, Pickled Politics, for this well expressed post.

    I do have a problem with the stated PA position. They recognise the state of Israel and a two state solution.

    But they see Hamas as a legitimate political partner, and indeed propose to incorporate Hamas into the PA forces. They explicitly refuse to disarm Hamas. Yet Hamas is totally committed to the Iranian position, and indeed the head of Hamas (Khaled Mashaal, I believe) made a supporting speech at the World without Zionism conference at which the Iranian president spoke. I would love to see the text of that speech. I’d welcome your views on this.

  12. Natasha Ali — on 1st November, 2005 at 12:14 pm  

    What exactly do you mean by “terror”? I would say forcing tanks into civil houses and killing innocent Palestenians is certainly terrorism.
    Isreal ha not only forced natives out of their own country but has implanted a most dangerous concept of religious identity in its own people.

  13. El Cid — on 1st November, 2005 at 12:31 pm  

    He’s certainly shown himself to be a fool because the question arises: while Iran may have an inalienable right to seek to develop its own energy policy as it sees fit, is it in the interests of world security for it to do so at the current time? It’s the kind of thorny dilemma that could lead to a lot more pain in the short-term. I can sense the warmongers in the West grasping for that compelling logic as we speak. The Iranian people wanted to make a statement when they voted him in, but I don’t think it was this one. Clash of civilisations? I hope not. I hope that somewhere in the Iranian leadership is the intellect and flexibility to head the threat off. But I have my doubts. It’s a shame Persia’s wannabe reformers were either culled or emasculated. On that cheery note I would just like to say that I like your website.

  14. El Cid — on 1st November, 2005 at 12:34 pm  

    Natasha.
    I think that deep sense of religious identity that the jews and Israelis have is a function of the centuries of bloody persecution they have been subjected to in Europe, culminating in Hitler’s attempts to wipe them off the face of the earth.

  15. BevanKIeran — on 1st November, 2005 at 12:43 pm  

    I take it Natasha you opposed the creation of Pakistan which “forced natives out of their own country* but has implanted a most dangerous concept of religious identity in its own people.”

    *In both cases there was movement of peoples in the other direction. (800 000 jews living in Arab countries) and the many muslims who were moved and pushed into Pakistan.

  16. Al-Hack — on 1st November, 2005 at 1:26 pm  

    J0nz - the Israelis have the upper hand in politics as well as military in that area. They have to keep the peace process going, otherwise in the long term they end up giving rise to more frustration, anger and thus terrorists.

    Hamas and the PA are not best buddies. The PA has asked the other to obey the ceasefire and stop suicide bombings for months, but the latter thinks its justified because Israel attacks them in response.

    Arafat was always the obstacle. Now he’s gone, Israel needs to deal with the PA, not use Hamas as an excuse everytime. It’s not like only innocent Israelis are dying now, is it?

    Fe’reeha - you make some interesting points, will address… manager…watching… meant to be working… oh crap.

  17. coruja — on 1st November, 2005 at 1:48 pm  

    It would make political sense for Pakistan to develop closer ties with Israel and thus ensure its continued survival and place in geopolitics. Pakistan has always enjoyed a ’special’ relationship with the US (the US civilising/democracy mission doesn’t seem to apply to that particular military dictatorship) and this is just another extension of it.

    Sooner or later the US might have to make a decision whether to completely ditch Pakistan (rather than slapping its hand each time some of its terrorists strike in Indian soil) in favour of wooing India (which they have historically detested, in the hope of allying it against China). It is interesting to see how this particular game plays out as the cold war foreign policy that US still seems to engage in is not really suited to the globalized world. The blacks are getting a little bit more savvy and more importantly they’ve got the bomb.

  18. El Cid — on 1st November, 2005 at 1:53 pm  

    “The blacks?”

  19. leon — on 1st November, 2005 at 2:18 pm  

    “it’s difficult for the Israeli government - unlike the rest of the Middle East - it has an electorate to answer to. No surrender to terror - thats what myself - and most Israelis will be saying.”

    I’ve read reports of IDF troops strapping grenades to dogs and sending them into small hiding places to flush out hiding children. I’ve also read plenty on other barbaric practices; is this what the Islaeli electorate supports?

    (note I’m not supporting suicide bombing either although with so much stacked against them it’s no surprise that some Palestinions resort to that)

  20. Judy — on 1st November, 2005 at 2:22 pm  

    Al Hack- actually there was a terrorist attack in Hadera where 5 Israelis, including an Israeli Muslim were murdered. Many attempts are being prevented every day. Rockets are still being fired. It is not for lack of effort on the part of the terrorist groups… So Hamas is not just an excuse. As the Iranian president’s speech shows, they actually intend to use Palestinian “resistance” eg Islamist terrorist groups to achieve their end of a world without Israel and zionism. I do not think the Israelis are looking for excuses to kill Palestinians. I think the Israeli government is planning further unilateral withdrawals from West Bank sites and there are talks at various levels going on. But I think if we had the equivalent of a Hadera suicide bombing in Northern Ireland with the Irish government explicitly regarding the bombers as part of their political set up, then I think the UK government would also be taking action and making demands that Ireland disarm them. And the real question is, what is the signifiicance of the Iranian call for the Palestinian groups to dismantle Israel, with Hamas there to endorse its aims? Israel banned its equivalent racist party, Kach (which anyway had miniscule support, nothing like that of Hamas).

  21. Steve M — on 1st November, 2005 at 3:06 pm  

    leon, the IDF behaviour you describe is disgraceful, if true. Where did you see these reports?

  22. j0nz — on 1st November, 2005 at 3:07 pm  

    I’ve read reports of IDF troops strapping grenades to dogs and sending them into small hiding places to flush out hiding children. I’ve also read plenty on other barbaric practices; is this what the Islaeli electorate supports?

    Well at least Israeli citizens don’t parade Palestinian intestines down the street like this.

    Actually come to think of it, it’s much worse than that! Israelis steal Palestinian children’s eyeballs!!

  23. j0nz — on 1st November, 2005 at 3:08 pm  

    Damn! Why isn’t there a preview button!

  24. j0nz — on 1st November, 2005 at 3:12 pm  

    ’ve read reports of IDF troops strapping grenades to dogs and sending them into small hiding places to flush out hiding children. I’ve also read plenty on other barbaric practices; is this what the Islaeli electorate supports?

    Personally I think this is a lot of poppycock. But being children makes no difference to Hamas or IJ. They teach kids from a yound age to emulate their terrorist heroes.

  25. T Nathan — on 1st November, 2005 at 3:31 pm  

    I didn’t realise there was a ” friends of Yasmin Alibhai-Brown ” society .

    It is quite tragic to think that a woman who has spent so much labour deconstructing monolithic, ethnic and sexual identities should owe her career to ethnicity and sex. And now has found a new cause.

    As i understand it , she’s an Ismaili , and not a representative islamic spokeswoman. How much influence does she exercise?

  26. El Cid — on 1st November, 2005 at 3:57 pm  

    She’s a Brown too. But what has that got to do with it?

  27. Fe'reeha — on 1st November, 2005 at 4:06 pm  

    Raz,
    You make forceful points but let’s not get emotional.
    Musharraf has not drawn hand towards Israel because he wants good for Pakistan. It’s basically whatever suits “him” to stay as the President of Pakistan.
    Yes, Pakistan and Israel were made in the name of religion……but, er! What religion!
    I think the day Pakistan was divided, the concept of two-nation theory was shattered in all directions.
    You cannot expect people to unite just because they are of the same religion. True, Islam gives us one identity, but do we need one geography to share that identity?

    In Israel, the so called state for Jews, the idea is completely haphazard. For instance if I were a White Jew living in Britain since my birth, for me moving to Israel would be an easier move as opposed to someone who is out of this “genetic breed”. The whole concept of a state of Jews has very serious flaws at its heart, and is shadowed by race and concepts of pure blood.
    Simmilarly in Pakistan, a state made in the name of Islam, has strange scenario. We have the upper class, stiffed lipped Millitary families where religion is a private matter, then we have the moderate who have their own interpretation o Islam and worse we have the terrorists who are actually an outcome of the poverty. And all think they are the best examples of Muslims.
    Today, we have women being married to Quran in rural Sindh, we have women raped in the name of “Islamic jirgah” in Peshawar, and have despicable blasphemy laws, again in the name of religion. Sorry, this is not a true Islamic state, its not even a good moral state we are talking about!
    Good thing about Musharraf is that at least he is honest in one regard.
    While his dictator counterpart Zia ul Haque vowed to change the immoral post Bhutto Pakistan to a complete sharia country (the time when the American backing seeped terrorism in Pakistan under the fraud of Afghan jihad), Musharraf is doing the opposite.
    He realises it would be difficult to make a country which has thousand interpretations of Islam, and almost all wrong, Muslim, so he has decided to convert it into a secular state. Consequently, they are monitoring what is being taught in madrassahs, and are so bent upon making a secular Pakistan that even course books have taken too Islamic literature out.
    Well, at least it is an agenda!

  28. Tanvir — on 1st November, 2005 at 4:38 pm  

    I think hatred for Israel is automaticlaly translated as a call for its destruction. The hatred is justified, just as the hatred for Nazi Germany or Apartheid South Africa (all regimes that Israel has been likened to).

    To all you Israel apologists, lets not forget Israel’s crimes.From its existance it betrayed the very principles and conditions it was allowed to form upon - it massacred and drove out the people living in Palestine and the killings went on for decades,just look at the massacres in Lebanon - its director being the current israeli PM !

    The reason why many Muslim countries boycot Israel is not because they want it to be destroyed, but as a form of protest with regard to its on-going crimes. Should countries sell out just because Israel has existed for a long period of time. What happened to honour and justice?? Should Israel’s crimes have a blind-eye turned to them cos its richj powerful, or its justfashionable now to be pro-israeli?

    The Muslim nations offered Israel recognition and peace, in return for Israel to withdraw to its internationally recognised borders (even this is vastly greater than the portion of Palestine they were awarded by the West originally), and to let back the people driven out of their country.

    This is the general stance of most Muslim countries. Israel can have peace, recognition and even friendship - it just has ot deliver justice to the Palestinians.

    But Israel refuses, instead it wants to buy peace, it can lobby the Americans, who in turn can bull/bribe the world.

    Bangladesh had pressure put on it a few years back, to recognise Israel in return for riches and priveledges both to the nation and its leader. But the country refused. Israel can have recognition and peace, but it must deliver justice. I am so proud of my country for this, it is one of the poorest countries in the world, but its friendship cannot be bought, it didnt sell out to Israel.

  29. Robert — on 1st November, 2005 at 4:41 pm  

    Equally important:
    “Palestinians exist and will exist. Deal. With. It.”

    Can we not simply agree that the fundamentalists, be they Muslim or Zionist, are our real enemy? No matter what they believe, they should not, can not and will not get their way in Israel. I’m pretty fundamental on that point.

  30. Natasha Ali — on 1st November, 2005 at 4:53 pm  

    Good comments Tanvir. But, honestly does it even matter to Israel that Bangladesh does/does not accept her existence? Sadly, Bangladesh is a very small fry.

  31. BevanKIeran — on 1st November, 2005 at 5:19 pm  

    “Just look at the massacres in Lebanon”

    Correct me if I am wrong but weren’t Lebanese Phalangists responsible for the massacre of Palestinians during the Civil War.

    Was there a Muslim boycott of Pakistan when genocide was perpetrated against Bangladesh in the war of Independance? What about the Sudanese and the genocide in Darfur.

    “What happened to honour and justice?”

    Disproptionate focus on crimes by one state or people
    and ignorance of other’s.(who JUST happen to be Jewish) Hmmm …I wonder what that is called?

  32. Vikrant — on 1st November, 2005 at 5:27 pm  

    @raz:
    Both were formed in the aftermath of major bloodshed (holocaust/partition), both were created as safe havens for a persecuted religous minority, and both have endured 50 years of a life and death struggle against a numerically superior and relentlessly agressive enemy (Arabs/India).

    Puhlease cut it out.

    Bloodshed was the aftermath of Partition.

    Persecuted religious minority?? really.. with 1 millenia of Muslim rule, i think its the otherway round.
    Relentless agressive enemy? Holy cow! India has been taking s**t from Pakistan since partition, 1965 & 1999 wars were started by Pakistan and in 1971 India was compelled to intervene with 10 million Bengali refugees on Indian side.

    Look buddy we all have our own perspectives… but this isnt a place to spread your anti-Indian venomous bile.

  33. coruja — on 1st November, 2005 at 5:51 pm  

    It is interesting the Bangladesh is mentioned, it was India that intervened when Pakistan attempted genocide against what was then E. Pakistan - as mentioned in another post. At the time Pakistan had US backing and at the Indian intervention, they invited China to declare war! (The association of Israel with the US together with the above might have something to do with Bangladesh’s attitude towards Israel?)

    Anyway, the hatred of Israel and generally of Jews by Muslims is a recent anti-Semitism isn’t it? Considering the Europeans truly pioneered it.
    It is a cynical and opportunistic ploy to use the Israel-Palestinian problem to further the Islamists cause. Aren’t the Palestinians Semitic people as well?

  34. Vikrant — on 1st November, 2005 at 7:02 pm  

    coruja Pakistan didnt attempt genocide it WAS A Genocide.

  35. Robert — on 1st November, 2005 at 7:05 pm  

    Absolutely. Anti-semitism has become a meaningless phrase as people use it (incorrectly) to mean anti-Jewish or anti-Israel, depending on their world view. These are three very different concepts…. though it appears Ahmadinejad may be guilty of all three!

  36. El Cid — on 1st November, 2005 at 7:11 pm  

    So it’s a bit like “genocide”, “black”, “holy”, “jihad”, or even “ironic”?

  37. Sunny — on 1st November, 2005 at 7:56 pm  

    I remember when I used to live in India… then America was the enemy because it was the ally of Pakistan and the Soviet Union was seen as the great Indian friend.

    Heh, how times have changed. But it’s good. I agree with Fe’reeha in the sense that atleast Musharraf has a broadly good agenda. Moving towards secularism in some way is the best way for Pakistan to survive and build itself (economically, socially and spiritually).

    Al-Hack has raised the Israeli / Palestinian question in a rather abrupt and funny way.

    To be honest though, there is plenty of propaganda on both sides. MPAC published a list of comments that Israelis were meant to have made against Palestinians (which Al-Hack linked to), which subsequently turned out to be rubbish.

    At the same time, there seems to be a lot of paranoia on the Jewish side that all Muslims hate Jews and would like nothing more than the Holocaust part 2. I think thats pure rubbish (of course there are quite a few exceptions like our donkey friend from Iran).

    I don’t agree that Israel is blameless in all this however and do think it has to take the initiative. See this story today in the Guardian for example.

    The Israeli defence ministry has barred foreign journalists from entering the Gaza Strip in an apparent attempt to limit reporting on the killing of Palestinian civilians, the firing of artillery shells and the use of “sonic bombs” to terrify the local population.

    Over the weekend, Israeli air force jets caused two dozen sonic booms, many at night, which human rights groups have described as “terrifying collective punishment”.

    The crossing post at Erez was closed after a suicide bomb last Wednesday in Hadera killed five Israelis. It was reopened yesterday to Palestinians with permits.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1605674,00.html

    Not exactly conducive to peace? What we need is more dialogue, and some way of getting rid of Hamas. They really are a thorn in all this peace business IMO.

  38. Al-Hack — on 1st November, 2005 at 9:18 pm  

    Robert makes sense, listen to the brotha!

    I look at this situation in this way. S’pose Bush made speech saying: “We need to wipe outer-Mongolia off the map.”
    Now I know outer-mongolia ain’t the most happening place or really a big tourist destination, but there would be considerable outrage ’cause, well, we’d like to think we have moved on from genocide. Or at least we try and make a big deal about it these days.

    I see the Arab world was pretty quiet over the Darfur genocide, and Turkey (and the MCB) still like to pretend the massacre of Armenians never happened.

    Those things aside, the “world without Zionism” banner is as funny as “a world without Pakistan” banner carried by the Hindu-right in India.

    Forget about it. Move on. Accept it. And lets start negotiating borders. This is about land, not religion.

    (hopefully no Mongolians were alarmed during the reading of this message).

  39. Mokum — on 1st November, 2005 at 11:03 pm  

    The Mongolians are always alarmed. Living next to Jews or Arabs? Fuhgeddaboutit. Try the Chinese as neighbours. Traditional Chinese maps have a huge hump in the north, not the dip in ours. That’s Mongolia. Existing, not recognised.

    No one is blameless here. The bitterness and the hatred are too deep. The only solution is a separation of the peoples.

    With separation, Hamas can be the first job for the new Palestinian state, as it should be.

  40. Arif — on 2nd November, 2005 at 12:40 am  

    Sadly, my local shop only gets the Independent intermittently, and it wasn’t there today. Usually I agree with Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, but if she really is saying that because Mr Ahmedinejad was playing to a gallery of anger and hatred, that any opposition to the creation of Israel must be similarly motivated, and out of bounds for progressives - then it sounds similarly narrow-minded.

    Because Israel has existed so long, it seems very odd to me for people to still make a big issue of its very existence now, so I can agree with al-Hack that much. But in the sense of opposition to dispossession of people by settler colonialism and opposition to occupation, collective punishments, etc etc - I think it is an important progressive principle not to justify the means of its creation and maintenance as a State. And on the latter score, of course, Iran’s government should also take a long hard look at itself before getting carried away in judging others.

    I don’t have a view one way or another on the existence of Israel, but if we cannot criticise the means of its maintenance or suggest means towards inclusive justice (such as a bi-national State) without being accused of wanting to “wipe it out”, then maybe that’s what it means to be progressive.

    We should not censor ourselves because we fear guilt by association. That’s being a pawn to power. Sometimes we are too vulnerable to speak truth to power, but hopefully it hasn’t come to that here yet.

  41. jamal — on 2nd November, 2005 at 1:02 am  

    Im sure similar things were said to the Aborigines and Arowak indians!

    It should not be accepted unless the proper policies are put into place. Currently they are not and Palestine always draws the short straw in any agreements made.

    Israeli’s will not accept the termination of Israel, so why should Palestine accept the continued existence of Israel, particularly when the Palestiniens are the ones that are suffering over 50 years of oppression and and have been thrown out of the West Bank and other areas with no possibility of return?

    Ive penned a little article on this myself under the title Islamic Jihad

  42. Tanvir — on 2nd November, 2005 at 1:30 am  

    The example of Bangladesh’s refusal to recognise Isreal was used to illustrate how Israel tries to make friends, and why it wont be sucessfull - (continual occupation and oppression). Is the country significant? (I cant answer that, but if it and its 120million consumers werent significant,why would relations with it be pursued)

    Anyway…. as a prominent Iranian politician clarified last week, that his country’s problem is with Israeli occupation not the religion of Judiasim which it highly respects.

    The Israelis always translate opposition to its crimes as anti-semitism.

    As for other issues around the world… the arab league and OIC have discussed the problems in Darfour, and called for peace, pro-Israelis obviously resent so much attention to Israel’s crimes and attempts to divert attention to other problems is understandable, but it wont work. As for Pakistan’s genocide against Bangladesh, the matter is resolved to some extent and the Pakistani President has even come to Bangladesh and shown regret. Would Sharon ever apologise? He direct the massacres in Lebanon - he was found guilty by a court in Israel and attempts were made to try him in courts in Europe.

    No amount of US lobby / pressure is going to make the world forget about Israel’s crimes, and only justice to the Palestinian people will bring Israel friendship with the parts of the world it is isolated from.

  43. Steve M — on 2nd November, 2005 at 1:30 am  

    No loss of innocent life is warranted by Palestine or Israel, however much either may try to justify it. Nevertheless, it is no wonder that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has called for the Jewish state to be “wiped off the map”.

    Nicely penned, Jamal.

  44. Mokum — on 2nd November, 2005 at 1:48 am  

    Israeli’s will not accept the termination of Israel, so why should Palestine accept the continued existence of Israel

    Huh?

    the arab league and OIC have discussed the problems in Darfour, and called for peace

    Yeah, and no UN “interference”. Hmm. Double standards, anyone?

    only justice to the Palestinian people will bring Israel friendship with the parts of the world it is isolated from

    You’d better start boycotting Kuwait too, for starters.

    Wall please.

  45. raz — on 2nd November, 2005 at 1:56 am  

    Fee’reeah

    I believe you have misunderstand. Neither Israel nor Pakistan are theocratic states. They are homelands for people who would face persecution elsewhere. Israeli’s don’t want to be ruled by Arabs. Pakistanis (and latterly, Bangladeshis) don’t want to be ruled by Indians. Israeli’s and Pakistanis both have vivid memories of the bloodshed which preceded their creation (holocaust/partiton) as a reminder of what might happen to them in the future. And they both have a shared history of struggle and adversity in the face of a FAR larger enemy implaccably committed to their destruction (the Arab zealots who would ‘drive Israel into the see’ and the Indian zealots who have never accepted the reality of partition). It is testament to the strength of character of the Israeli and Pakistani people that they have survived and succeeded for so long despite the odds being so heavily stacked against them. These nations have so much in common, it is absurd that they do not have relations with one another. Musharraf has taken a wise and noble decision to engage with the Jewish state (although Pakistan has been maintaining undercover contacts with Israel for many years). Israel is a highly advanced country in terms of economic/academic/technological factors - it can only be in Pakistan’s interests to engage with them. If Pakistan can recognise India - 50 years of hostility and war - it surely can recognise Israel which has no emnity towards it.

    For Jewish posters here - I’ve been a little disappointed that there hasn’t been more reaction to Pakistan’s peace overtures towards Israel. Many pro-Israelis have been crying out for Muslims to drop their hostility to Israel. Now that the only nuclear power in the Islamic world is engaging with Israel, I would think this would be a cause to celebrate for those who have been arguing Israels right to exist. When Pakistan and Israel form full relations - and its only a matter of time -it will be a historic success for peace and a slap in a face to all those Islamic zealots who would like to see the Jewish state wiped off the map.

  46. Tanvir — on 2nd November, 2005 at 1:59 am  

    Why would the jewish state being wiped of the map require violence? Merely justice - that is those people forcibly evicted from their homes and country, being allowed to return home, would wipe the jewish state of the map, as the state would no longe be predominantly jewish.

    I think the Palestinians have been forced to even drop that demand for justice and would probably accept that the evictees be allowed to return to the Palestinian part of Palestine leaving the Jewish state jewish.

  47. Sunny — on 2nd November, 2005 at 2:01 am  

    President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran should not even come into this discussion because he is at a loss of brains. Iran simply wants to extend its influence and to that extend has funded terrorists in Palestine.

    It’s a good thing the grand Imam Al-Sistani in Iraq has called for no retaliatory action against Sunnis otherwise that place would completely in civil war right now.

    Tanvir:
    The example of Bangladesh’s refusal to recognise Isreal was used to illustrate how Israel tries to make friends

    Is Bangladesh is so principled, I’m assuming it does no trade with China either then??

    that his country’s problem is with Israeli occupation not the religion of Judiasim which it highly respects.

    And wiping Israel off the map or atleast getting rid of the country will entail no killing of innocent Jews then? If the President loves Judaism so much, maybe he should consider stop funding terrorists who blow up innocent people in Israel all the time.

    If I was to say I love Islam but attack and kill Muslims (see: George Bush), then I would be a hypocrite. The same applies here.

    the arab league and OIC have discussed the problems in Darfour, and called for peace,

    Wow, called for peace! Well that was certainly earth-shattering wasn’t it. They actually agreed on something to call for peace? Any news on how much of an impact their call had or how much money they contributed for all the dead people and refugees in Sudan?

    Sheesh.

  48. Sunny — on 2nd November, 2005 at 2:04 am  

    Why would the jewish state being wiped of the map require violence?

    Maybe because the Jews in Israel won’t stand for their state to be suddenly wiped off the map and the army will not simply disband and let the Jews be pushed off somewhere?

  49. Opinionated Voice — on 2nd November, 2005 at 2:33 am  

    […] Should Muslims “get over it”. Not in my opinion. I’ve recently been commenting on an article titled “Israel exists and will exist. Get Over It” at Pickled Politics. Not surprisingly, the usual suspects in the pro-zionist segment of the blog community have linked to on the article and are widely commenting on it…. as I have too. […]

  50. Kulvinder — on 2nd November, 2005 at 8:56 am  

    Israeli’s will not accept the termination of Israel, so why should Palestine accept the continued existence of Israel,

    You’re assuming all Palestinians view the land encompassed by Israel as all Palestine.

  51. Steve M — on 2nd November, 2005 at 12:54 pm  

    This thread: and its comments make interesting reading.

  52. Steve M — on 2nd November, 2005 at 12:55 pm  

    Whoops, I haven’t quite mastered that link business. Still, it works ok.

  53. Sunny — on 3rd November, 2005 at 12:13 am  

    Hi Steve,

    An interesting and emotive argument she makes, but neo-neocon does not seem to make the link that much of the hostility to Israel, certainly in non-Muslim states, does not come from the existence of the country but rather its treatment of the Palestinian population.

    In India for example, where Pakistan and the rest of the arab states are generally viewed with some suspicion (their recent agreement with Iran over the oil pipeline aside), there is quite a bit of hostility towards Israel because of its human rights record. This is the impression I got while travelling around, and I was surprised that the Israel-Palestine conflict was being covered so frequently in the national politics magazines.

    Secondly, I’m neither anti-semitic, nor have I ever been anti-Zionist, but I still don’t agree with how Israel treats the Palestinians. Nor do I agree with Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and the rest of course.

    It should be Israel’s initiative to push for peace because it has the international support, the money, the tanks and the nukes. I don’t believe the other arab states really care for the Palestinians either, it just serves as a useful call for “unity” and keeps their population permanently distracted. It is in Israel’s interest to push forward with the peace process instead of creating an apartheid state, yet I despair at how they act sometimes.

  54. Sunny — on 3rd November, 2005 at 12:22 am  

    To Jamal and Tanvir
    You guys say why you should not accept the creation of Israel. I’d like you to honestly ask yourself - is that because of pride or a genuine desire for the welfare of Palestinians.

    Let’s make a few assumptions first (though if you disagree with them, then argue on that).

    1) Israel is not going to be dissolved without significant killings on both sides, possibly a nuclear war.

    2) The Palestinians have largely accepted the existence of an Israeli state. I say that because they recently overwhelmingly voted for the PA rather than Hamas, and the latter does not accept the existence of Israel.

    On that basis - how will things ever change if you don’t accept the existence of Israel?

    Take some examples. India won’t own all of Kashmir, and neither will Pakistan ever have full control of that state. You know they both need to accept that to move on.

    East Pakistan (Bangladesh) will never be part of West Pakistan ever again.

    On the same basis, Russia can say it will never accept the creation of an independent Chechen state. But since you make the assumption that political situations should not change, then you can’t, on the same principle allow the creation of Chechnya.

    Point is, your principles have to be consistent, otherwise anyone can point holes in your arguments and dismiss them.

  55. Tanvir — on 3rd November, 2005 at 3:04 am  

    You need to read the principles i put forward before you assume them and point holes. You make some okay points Sunny, but your adressing stuff I didnt even say! Please try and read something properly before you go off on a rant. Where did I say i did not accept the creation of Israel?? I feel its creation was done through war crimes, but its there now. What I spoke out against is its conintual occupation, and crimes.

    I’ll summarise for your benifit.

    Bangladesh, is just one example of many many states that reject ties with Israel until it delivers justice to the Palestinians, this does not necessarily mean ‘wiping Israel of the map’. This justice has several dimensions (because the Palestinans have been wronged in so many ways) but even if some of them were met it would make a great deal of progress, such as withdrawing from occupied land, and retreating to the internationally recognised borders.

    The Saudis a few years back, proposed Israel withdraw to internationaly recognised borders and it can have recognition, and ties to the Muslim world.

    This is not compatible with the religious ideology and plans for Israel’s existance (she wants all of the promised land…duh!)… so Israel opts for plan B to get recognised by the huge part of the world its isolated from..and that is bullying/bribing with the help of its allies, as I suspect has happened with Pakistan, instead of what it should do - which is the right thing - get out of land that is not Israel’s, and let Palestine be independent, not small pockets of land, land and air locked by Israel.

    Oh…and as for the ridiculous and inapropriate lame comparisons section:
    Where does China come into this?!? Who are they occupying? And Chechnya…Did the Chechens invade Russia, displace Russians and then declare independence?? - they are natives in thier own land, who didnt throw out anyone living there….but being dominated and treated like shit by the Russians. *sigh*..again…diverting from the issue…

  56. Sunny — on 3rd November, 2005 at 3:44 am  

    Well, everyone keeps talking of UN conventions and the need for Israel to listen to the UN, yet people seem to forget that the country was created with the help of the UN too. Plus, Pakistan itself was created by people being chucked off their land, so let’s not get too carried away.

    My point about Bangladesh and China was simply this. If Bangladesh refuses to trade or recognise someone on the basis of their human rights records, then does it trade with China or not? Let’s be consistent here!

    The Russian - Chechen thing was also an analogy, but more for Jamal than yourself. My point was that we have to recognise changing political situations, rather than saying: “well just because it happened 50 years ago doesn’t mean I don’t have to accept the creation of Israel”.

    So Russia should accept Chechen independence in the same way that others (like Pakistan-Bangladesh) have had to accept changing political situations.
    How absurd would be it be for a Pakistani to turn around and say - “well just because Bangladesh has been around for 30 years doesn’t mean I have to accept its independence. It was created through Indian brutality!”

    If the Saudis accept the need to go back to internationally recognised borders - then why don’t they keep saying it and tell off Iran when it says it wants Israel off the map? The Saudis say a lot and do something else.

    As evidenced by the inaction on Darfur.

  57. raz — on 3rd November, 2005 at 5:44 am  

    Excellent points sunny - there is a clear hypocritical standard by many Muslims on the issue of Israel compared to recognising other nations (who often have a far worse human rights record than Israel). Fact is - there are 5 millions Israelis living there and they have a right to their own state and freedom. People need to forget the past and concentrate on resolving the future. Recognising the state of Israel does not mean abandoning the rights of Palestinans any more than recognising Russia or Indian means ignoring the plight of Chechens or Kashmiris.

    I’d make one point however - “how absurd would be it be for a Pakistani to turn around and say - “well just because Bangladesh has been around for 30 years doesn’t mean I have to accept its independence. It was created through Indian brutality!”” - absolutely right and despite the traumatic nature of 1971, most Pakistanis readily accepted the independence of Banglaesh. It took only a few years from 1971 for Pakistan and Bangladesh to form solid relations with one another Nobody in Pakistan questions the existence of Bangladesh. Sadly, it IS absurd that many people in India refuse to accept the reality of Pakistan. Even 50 years on, it’s common to hear Indians complaining about the parition of ‘their’ country. Senior Indian minsters still are quoted of speaking of a Pakistani-Indian union. It’s ironic that despite the fact that India liberated Bangladesh, today Pakistan has better relations with Bangladesh then India does - witness India’s constant whining about terrorism in Bangladesh, regular border exchanges between the Indian and Bangladeshi military which see soldiers being killed and the spectacle of Bangladeshis supporting Pakistan against India in cricket matches played in Dhaka. Not to mention the fact that Pakistan sells arms to Bangladesh which may well be used to defend their country against India. There is a stark contrast between the relations of Pakistan and Bangladesh 30 years on from independence and the relations between India and Pakistan 50 years on from partiton. If Pakistanis can accept the reality of Bangladesh than Indians should accept the reality of Pakistan.

  58. blue mountain — on 3rd November, 2005 at 2:59 pm  

    Sunny writes:

    So Russia should accept Chechen independence ………

    My question is after the independence of Chechnya what if the Yakuts too want independence and Mongolians want union with Mongolia and the chinese who are slowly but surely starting a demographic invasion of Russia demand a country of their own ?

  59. Tanvir — on 3rd November, 2005 at 3:18 pm  

    What you are saying or insinuating is that Israel’s ethnic cleansing should be accepted, just because other nations have human rights abuses, and they hold good diplomatic ties. Thats bollocks.

    Poor human rights ….and poor human rights coupled with evicting people from their own country, keeping them out and occupying more of the little bit they have left are VASTLY different matters…..The Israeli occupation is continually being paraded by its lobbyists and apologists as merely a political disagreement, ignoring the fact that it is illegally occupying land.

    Maybe Israel will take another huge chunk next year, and give back a tiny patch elsewhere, call it disengagement, and 5 years down the line you can call it ‘political change’ and legitimise the theft.

    Do you know what the principles of Zionism are and how it has been implemented in modern times? (…and no the answer isnt JUST : “ if promoted well will get you a proper job in western media'’)

    Why are you making this debate boring, with crappy LAME analogies. Bangladesh doesn’t evict and keep out its natives, nor does Chechnya, you can cloud facts with these weak comparisons but the readers aren’t stupid.

    With the Bangladesh-pakistan analogy, you must think we are stupid. Pakistanis dont turn around and deny Bangladesh’s independence infact no-one in the world contests it was a legtimate struggle, not even the pakistanis. The two issues are so different. Israel was SUPPOSED to be created out of political change, but instead, from day one its creation has been marred by ethnic cleansing, genocide and continual occupation of a part of Palestinine it was not given.

    Israel needs to give up the stolen land. The vast majority of Muslims are never going to let this go until the end of the world. Get over it.

  60. blue mountain — on 3rd November, 2005 at 3:19 pm  

    Chechnians are Turkic people. Mass emigration of Turkish people from North Caucasus to Anatolia took place after the Saljuks and later Ottomans defeated the Greco- Romans decisively and comprehensively.What if now Greece demand that all Turks should leave Anatolia and Constantinopole and settle in North Caucacus.As far as Chechnya is concerned they are unlucky people ..they should have emigrated to Anatolia.

    North Caucasus is inhabited by a large number of ethnic peoples. No one can claim it as their own exclusively.

    As far as independence is concerned..forget it. When Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991 they gave independence to all and sundry including Kyrghizistan but not North Caucasus.Why? North Caucasus is European Russia’s getaway to the most important,exciting and emerging marketplaces China, India and Southeast Asia.They will never let this Strategically important location out of their hands.

  61. blue mountain — on 3rd November, 2005 at 3:30 pm  

    Post no.45 …Raz

    So much for frienship of Israel and Pakistan.

    Remember the ghastly murder of Daniel Pearl ?

  62. blue mountain — on 3rd November, 2005 at 3:36 pm  

    Post no. 59…Tanvir

    Bangladesh doesn’t evict and keep out its natives

    What about the Budhhist Chakmas in Chittagong ?

  63. Tanvir — on 3rd November, 2005 at 4:07 pm  

    Go and do some reading before you chat shit, the Chakmas have never been forced to leave Chittagong! They resent non-Chakmas moving to their locality and want to keep their land ‘pure’. The Bangladeshi government have given them some autonomy in return from them ending terrorism (which is well funded and armed by India)… but the Bangladeshi authorities cant control non-Chakmas buying land of Chakmas….starting to farm there…and then other Chakmas getting pissed off.
    ……..anyways….yet another lame Sunny style analogy unrelated and just incomparable to the fact that Israel is sitting on occupied land, and does not intend to give it up, nor give Palestinians a state with its own borders, sea and air links. I doubt its going to happen in the next fifty years…. but even more frustrating for you Israel apologists, the vast majority of Muslims are not going to forget this injustice.

  64. jamal — on 3rd November, 2005 at 4:20 pm  

    1) Israel is not going to be dissolved without significant killings on both sides, possibly a nuclear war.

    Agreed

    2) The Palestinians have largely accepted the existence of an Israeli state. I say that because they recently overwhelmingly voted for the PA rather than Hamas, and the latter does not accept the existence of Israel.

    Agreed

    On that basis - how will things ever change if you don’t accept the existence of Israel?

    Based on previous examples from elsewhere, there is no real solution. There will always be some that are discontent and agrieved on both sides, therefore fueling some extent of hostility for many years to come. As Israel is the agressor, then to accept Israel is to accfept defeat. What Palestiniens are in fact accepting at present is the best decision in a bad situation where their choices are limited, their acceptance of Israel is far from the desired result. The question you ask is the question asked by many. However it should not be ignored that is over rides the history, oppression and inequality of both the conflict and peace process. As i have said, what Palestiniens are in fact accepting at present is the best decision in a bad situation where their choices are limited, their acceptance of Israel is far from the desired result.

  65. raz — on 3rd November, 2005 at 5:03 pm  

    blue mountain

    What nonsense are you spewing? Do you really think two civilised nations such as Israel and Pakistan are going to let terrorists dictate their national policies to them? Appeasers like you sicken me.

  66. Sunny — on 3rd November, 2005 at 5:49 pm  

    Israel’s ethnic cleansing should be accepted,

    Hey, Pakistan did plenty of that during Partition (along with India) and during their war with Bangladesh. Have you not acceped that and moved on?

    Have you not accepted the English letting millions of Bengalis dying pre-partition in the big famine? Are you going to be selective here?

    Tanvir - I swear analogies go right over your head. I’m not even going to bother with more with you, it’s like talking to someone in a foreign language.

    Jamal: As i have said, what Palestiniens are in fact accepting at present is the best decision in a bad situation where their choices are limited, their acceptance of Israel is far from the desired result.

    Maybe so. But as I’ve asked before, do you want the best for Palestinians or is it about pride? Because the way I see it, Israel isn’t going anywhere, and to constantly hanker for its destruction is just like a silly rallying cry designed to keep Muslims thinking about something else.

    Think about the Kurds for a second. Killed by the Turks and the Iraqis and Iranians. Where is your anger about that? Where is the demand for a Kurdish state? When does Turkey get told off by the Arab league or whatever for its behaviour? Why does Turkey keep hiding its massacre of the Armenians?

    The point is, Muslims are manipulated to be constantly worried about certain issues. If people were consistent, like Arif is for example, I would have respect for the arguments people put forward. Except its the selective usage of data, and the particular focus on a few issues that annoys me.

    1) No anger over the Darfur massacres…
    2) no real Arab help for the Palestinians (the Arabs say: Look we won’t give you much money or our land, but we’ll fly the flag for you!).
    3) The Armenians
    4) The Kurds etc.

  67. Tanvir — on 3rd November, 2005 at 9:42 pm  

    So you’re saying cos ethnic cleansing happned elsewhere, its okay to happen by the Israelis?

    I know why you’re not going to bother with me anyomore, and thats cos I can see through you’re shit. You’re attempt to legitimaise your bias and you support and justify Israeli wrongs throguh ridiculous analogies and comparisons that are nothing like the situation in question. You can see that shit wont work with me.

    You be-little the hurt and resent people feel people of having thier brothers and sisters in palestine being persecuted, by saying they care about thier own pride thats all.

    You probably realise as much as I do you’re being a nob, but your agenda matters more to you.

    “Hey, Pakistan did plenty of that during Partition (along with India) and during their war with Bangladesh. Have you not acceped that and moved on?”

    Wrong can never be accepted. You obviously seem to think after a set periods of time, wrong can suddenly be parades as Okays, for certain purposes, such as wanting to write for a zionist media. You’re analogy is so wrong. Are you joking?? During partion people emigrated from one part of India to another, others were forced to flee their homes out of fear of persecution, noone can accept ethnic cleansing , people don’t forget those killed unfairly…..peace can be made though on mutual agreement. In the case of Bangladesh, peace was made between the countries, Pakistan isnt a rich country that it will pay reparations, but its President went against ego and pride and humbly regreted the excesses his nation carried out, whilst on a trip to Bangladesh.

    In the same way….. Israel can apologise for the genocide in Palestine, the many slaughtered and driven out of their homes. It can then pay reparations. It can get out of the illegaly occupied land and go back to the 1967 borders. Israel has still on-going wrongs…. Its not even that people who feel ‘time nullifies wrongs’ can argue about….cos Israel is still to this day persecuting Palestinians.

    “Have you not accepted the English letting millions of Bengalis dying pre-partition in the big famine? Are you going to be selective here?””

    What has this got to do with driving people out of their homes?!? You seem to just pick random events in history and tell me I have accpeted them so I should accept Israel’s crime! Who are you trying to kid with your crap analogies pleaseeeee tell me. The english are not sitting on Bangladeshi land persecuting its people to this very day is it?!

    Sunny you need to get off your high-horse of “ooo I look at all conflicts equally and nobody else in the world does!” So… there is an article on Israel on the site…of course I will speak out against Israel, in contrast to your apologist stance. But you accuse me of not caring for other conflicts…? How do you know whether I do or not??!

    Why not bring up the other conflicts on this site and we’ll see ?? You have an article on Israel…. And not one on Sudan… then when someone speaks out against Israel you accuse them of being bias and not caring about Sudan. That is ridiculous. You might be able to pull the wool over the eyes of a small number of people who don stop and think about this and they might buy your ‘they are so selective but I am not’ , but to be honest you are yet again chatting shit by saying people are ‘selective’.

  68. jamal — on 3rd November, 2005 at 10:37 pm  

    “do you want the best for Palestinians or is it about pride? Because the way I see it, Israel isn’t going anywhere, and to constantly hanker for its destruction is just like a silly rallying cry designed to keep Muslims thinking about something else.”

    Heres 3 snippets from todays news alone, which is reason enough for the “rallying cry” to continue.

    Israeli soldiers shoot Palestinian boy, 13

    Palestinians hit by sonic boom air raids

    racism at Hebrew University sports center

    I could probably list similar event from the news for nearly every day, therefore causing you to accept that constantly worrying about certain issues is essential. This is the world in which we live and i for one am concerned about many issue including this one. I agree that many will support this famous one but ignore those in dafour, chechnya and ethiopia, but not me. I also know many that dont support and arab governments and are disgusted with the level of support for places such as dafour and Israel, as if it was substantial as it could be then we would have nothing further to worry about. In the meantime it would be a mistake to say that as the Palestiniens and sudanesse are practically helpless, they should “get over it” and accept their fate! This is what Israel wants, as does their supporters.

  69. raz — on 4th November, 2005 at 7:55 am  

    Tanvir, good point about people being selective. For instance, there have several articles about Israel posted to this blog.. Why aren’t there any articles on this site about Indian atrocites in Kashmir? Strange that an ‘asian’ blog would spend so much time on Israel and not address problems closer to home. The Indian army has killed. raped and tortured tens of thousands of people, a far more despicable crime than anything Israel has done in Palestine. Smacks of double standards.

  70. blue mountain — on 4th November, 2005 at 8:59 am  

    Kurds are already independent:

    http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=76733

    Another round of bloodshed will occur when Kurds living in Turkey and Iran demand reunion with Federate of Kurdistan.

  71. Rosa — on 4th November, 2005 at 4:33 pm  

    Al-Hack, thank you for posting this. Sunny, thank you for your patience in dealing with various commenters!

    I quite agree that Israel bears a huge responsibility with regards to the peace process, and I likewise despair of of its behaviour sometimes.

    I also believe that not only does Israel have a right to exist, it is also necessary that it should. I do have difficulty reconciling this with the plight of the Palestinians, but I’m not sure what can be done about this except to hope sincerely for an acceptable two-state solution.

  72. coruja — on 4th November, 2005 at 4:43 pm  

    There’s a very interesting article remembering Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination 10 years ago in everyones love/hate newspaper

  73. Dr. Najmuddin Finkelstein — on 4th November, 2005 at 9:56 pm  

    Israel exists, all right. But:
    The problem is that Muslim nations need Israel to frighten their taxpayers, exactly the way Israel needs Palestinians. Anyway, cheer up - Israel, Shmisrael, who cares?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2006. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.