If I were an Arab leader I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal. We have taken their country, It is true that god promised it to us. But why should that interest them. Our god is not theirs.There is anti semitism,Hitler and Aushwitz but that was not their fault. They see only one thing. We have come and stolen their country. Why would they accept that
David Ben Gurion
I’ll use your first definition, since it contains a list of countries. I’ll devide the list to several categories.
-
In this category I’ll include:
Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, and United Arab Emirates
I claim none of these countries is a democracy. If you disagree, let me know which country you think is one. -
Cyprus and Turkey.
From wiki of the Middle East:
Also, from wiki on the history of the ME
Also, Colombia University Press Encyclopedia defines the ME as:
Bolding mine. Note: not all of Turkey.
So, these two countries are indeed democracies, but are not an integral part of the ME.
-
Iraq
Under Saddam? No. Now / in the future? Who knows. -
Israel.
A democracy. -
Lebanon and Yemen
“Emerging democracies”. Going in the right direction, but not quite there yet.
Lebanon:
Key-roles are pre-stated according to ethnic groups.
Election held since 2000.
My conclusion: young democracy, not stable yet.
Yemen:
From US Department of State report on Yemen
Bolding mine.
This report from 2005 is titled “Building Democracy in Yemen”. One does not build what is already there.
My conclusion: Yemen is on the way, not quite there yet.
I would also like to link to this map showing electoral democracies in he world.
So, is Israel “the only democracy in the ME”?
Up to a few years ago – yes.
Now – not quite, but surely the most stable one.
In the future – who knows? I. for one, hope the answer would be negative.
Sevastopol,
I don’t know how anyone with an honest bone in their body can call my statement “misguided”. The fact of the matter is that the PLO and Arafat never formally recognized Israel, in spite of their willingness to discuss it during negotiations. They never followed through, as evidenced by your own cite. Your continuous and willful distortions of the truth make your posts here worthless and are a mockery of the stated “fighting ignorance” credo of these boards. Frankly I wonder why you even bother to post, since your posts are, as far as I can tell, almost universally ridiculed as dishonest, uninformed and ignorant. This is a prime example. A halfhearted nod towards recognition of Israel that isn’t followed up ( and in fact, from your own cite, it notes that the official PLO position that the charter has never been amended ) is presented by you as a formal recognition, when it is nothing of the sort, and you go on to classify the assassination of Rabin as the work of a “Jew terrorist”(was John Wilkes Booth a terrorist? Was Hinkley? Was Lee Harvey Oswald? No, they weren’t, but Yigal Amir is suddenly a terrorist, even though his actions were condemned not endorsed by the right wing in Israel of which he was a part). You claim that because of the assassination, Israel “turned aggressive” with absolutely no evidence that they did so because of Rabin’s death and not because of a change in governments. In short, your posts are the feverish wet dreams of an Anti-Semite and not based upon anything resembling reality at all.
You had a nice polemic going up until the end. Do not speculate on the nocturnal emissions of other posters, particularly as an insult.
[ /Moderating ]
I’m sorry Tom. I wasn’t aware of that rule or I wouldn’t have used the term, and I didn’t mean that as an insult, I meant it in the sense of a personally gratifying fantasy of the subconscious run wild, not bounded by reality or fact.
Puzzler we are agreed that Turkey is part of the Middle East, according to the standard definitions.
If you wish to argue the standard definitions are wrong, fine by me. I for one am all for excluding countries with a strong showing in the Eurovision Song Contest and a stretch of Mediterranean coast.
What more need be said?
I note that Tomndebb has moderated Weirddave’s posting and accurately called it polemical. I’ve no wish to provoke him to further loss of composure and I have supplied adequate evidence for interested people to look further and make up their own minds.
On a final note, in my committment to evenhandedness, I did include the ‘controversy’ over the Palestinian Charter the Wiki article alludes to. However it is the weakest part of the article. Where the evidence of acceptance of Israel is documented, dated and quoted, the claim there is a ‘controversy’ is born from:
“So what?” has to be the response. What do 1999 Ministry of Information reports have to do with anything? What evidence is there of these ‘leading Palestinians’ making any such statements.
There might be a word of two for that type of behavior as well.
Yes, your own cites show you’re lying. Now people can make up their mind as to why.
So that’s what if feels like to laugh until you cry.
You mean the ‘fact’ that it was never actually ‘changed’?
Or perhaps that Arafat’s ‘actions’ in turning to deliberate terrorism as a political tool suggest something about the ‘veracity’ of your claims?
But I’m sure that if Israel created a law to commit them to a program of genocide upon the Palestinians, and then they said they’d change it, or said in various documents that they had changed it, but never actually changed it and continued initiating violence, you’d congratulate them on their peaceful ways.
Yeah…
Well, that and the fact that the document was never actually changed.
Don’t let facts get in the way of lying.
Nothing.
The Palestinian Ministry of Information has nothing to do with Palestinian Information.
Likewise, the fact that Arafat’s resume, in Arabic, deliberately left out Wye but the English resume kept it… that means nothing.
Don’t trouble yourself. I’m sure we could all write some smarmy lies ourselves and pretend you posted them.
Though I am glad we have you to show us the truth.
Tell us more about how Arafat was eager to live in peace.
Hrm… Wye River was in 1998… in 1998 Arafat mentioned how his strategy was to use a strategic truce to plan for war. Coincidence?
But of course.
So……. It was Turkey you were referring to all along. You know, you could have just say so, rather than pointing vaguely to a general direction saying “it is there, go look for it”.
Okay. Turkey being a democracy in the ME.
I have already pointed that Turkey in not fully in the ME. I’m sure even you will agree that a country who borders (among others) Bulgaria, Greece, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan to be in the ME.
As I also stated, Turkey itself is reluctant to be identified with the ME.
From Turkey’s MFA official site
Now, Turkey is generally a democracy. However, as the NewYorker pointed out, not everyone agrees it’s a full democracy:
Some more about these so-called “interventions” (pre-1997) may be found here
So, Turkey is semi-democracy that is partially in the ME.
Agreed?
Now, regarding the PLO charter.
The “weakest part” of your site seems to point that both Israel and the Palestinians don’t agree that the charter was changed:
But since you know better, I’m sure you can easily point me to an official cite of the amended charter.
That is, unlike Pateh’s official site (Fateh is PLO major party) that quotes the unchanged constitution.
And unlike PLO un site that lists the chrter from 1964, then the charter (amended) from 1968, the mentions the decision to change the charter (that was votes for 3 or 4 times), but no amended charter. The unfulfilled decision states:
Note: since 1993, the charter was not actually changed. (well, maybe 13 years is not long enough to actually erase a few articles, and actually vote on a new, amended charter…)
Your turn.
Earlier in this thread I mentioned that blaming bad PR for failure to sell one’s ideas on the Middle East was self-defeating, and indicated that Israel’s enemies had numerous organizations and vast resources to get their message across. To which Sevastopol in his inimitable way replied:
There was an illustration of these resources in today’s (8/22) New York Times. A full-page ad in the front section addressed to “His Excellency George Bush”, containing photos of Lebanese casualties, made the argument that Israel should be regarded as fascist (as opposed to Islamic fascists). The ad was sponsored by something called the Al-Kharafi Group.
If you Google “Al-Kharafi Group”, you discover that it is a large multinational contracting firm based in Kuwait, run by Nasser Al-Kharafi, who is listed as one of the fiftiest richest people in the world (net worth is reportedly something like 5.7 billion dollars).
This represents just one of the many lobbying efforts against Israel being heard from in recent days. And yes, I’d say the Al-Kharafi family’s power and money constitute “vast resources”.
So the people who mutter darkly about Agencies and Israel Lobbies should take a good look at who’s organizing and bankrolling efforts on their side.
Or maybe it’s an even better idea to drop the conspiratorial nonsense and concentrate on facts and ideas.
Awh, you just hold that view because your mind is warped according to a pattern that is likely to have an external cause. 
Non-warped minds don’t let no steenkin facts get in the way of agreeing with sev.
Cite?
It seems to be from Nahum Goldmann’s Le Paradoxe Juif, but it’s in french, and out of print. I can only find a french PDF and I’m not fluent, at all. I also wonder if the original quote was in Hebrew, English, or French, and how many translations its gone through. If, for instance, it was in Hebrew and translated into French and then into English I don’t think we can assume that the final version has much in common with the original. I also don’t know the date of Ben Gurion’s quote. Was he talking about the gains made in 1967, or 1948? Was he in power at the time of the quote, or armchair quarterbacking? What was the context?
Even if it’s 100% precise in its translation and refered to 1948, I’d ask, “So what”?
If Bush cast a situation in a certain light, would people necessarily accept it as true? Why, then, accept Ben Gurion’s view as gospel? Could this acceptance be agenda driven?
Let’s look at the meat of the quote assuming 100% precision in translation:
The claim is made that Irsrael took a “country” that would’ve been owned by, presumably “the Arabs” if any Arab leader would have had a claim to it. But there was never such a country, even Palestine wasn’t going to be pan-Arab in ownership.
Would, for instance, Saudi Arabia have had “their” country “stolen” in 1948? No… then why would he be talking about any Arab leader not negotiating because “their” country was “stolen”? It makes no sense.
The quote is nonsensical on its face, even ignoring that it lacks the context, timeframe, or impact of that quote.
I can’t seem to find any context for it online, either, only repeated endlessly on various anti-Israel and/or anti-semitic webpages.
But then again, it was presented by gonzo. Are you really surprised that it was a driveby post with no context, elaboration, logic, debate, or effort?
I got a Hebrew translation of the book (from French).
It is not a direct quote from Ben-Gurion. Nahum Goldman reflects back on a conversation he had with BG in 1956. This quote (or even the sentiment) does not appear in any formal BG quotation (I have check with the BG legacy center here in Israel, from which I got the copy).
The context, according to Goldman, was an argument they had (in Hebew). Goldman held that peace should be aimed at, while BG held it impossible, thinking a strong army is required. After the alleged quote, according to Goldman, BG continued: “Maybe it will change in a generation or two, but for now there is no chance of that. So, it is simple: we must remain strong, hold a strong army. That is all there is to it. Otherwise, the Arabs will destroy us”
I think I must add that Goldman and BG were political enemies. Reading the relevant pages of the book convey a distinct feeling that Goldman wanted to portray BG in a bad light, while posing himself as the real power / understanding.
To prove that notion I get, let me quote some more (I snipped a lot, but note I have no dog in the argument between Goldman and BG):
Bolding mine.
Sounds to me like a small man trying to show to the world how he was right, and other were mistaken.
Also, the book was written in 1976. I find it hard to believe Goldman remembered every word for 20 years, not mixing it with his own feeling. Not to mention the argument was in Hebrew, the book / discussions in French, and the non-quote in English…
Oh, and one more question to Gonzomax: how is this non-quote relevant to the current debate?
That is a quote from David Ben Gurion the first leader, organizer of the country of Israel and esteemede international leader. http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/bengurion.html There are hundreds of stories about this esteemed politician and intellectual.
Ccertainly Finn I just made it up. You are always right.
Quit nit picling. Did you ever go out for a drive in the country, What nation was it. country just refers to land. It was occupied by apparently people with no rights to it.
Dont ever mention me without driveby. It is such an honorable debate technique. I would hate to lose my identity. I do drop off an occasional article . Then give time for some to think about it. Others to try to pick holes and scramble for a way around . I also know any debate with some of you will be accompanied with insults and slurs. I am not always in the mood for it. Quit debating yourself.
Would you mind giving the full quote and, say, two or three lines on either side of it?
Naw, you’re just lying. I never said you made it up, merely that you posted yet another driveby.
You’ve even had a mod tell you that your posting often consists of driveby posts. Willful ignorance is bad, ya know.
Speaking of which, I notice no retraction of your Hebrew -> French -> English “quote”. I shouldn’t be surprised.
Damn… I’d laugh, but you seem to actually think that’s not absurd. Yeah, Ben Gurion was talking about the countryside… that any Arab leader would’ve had a claim to. Yeaaaaaaaaaaah…
By apparently people, eh? And no rights to it? According to… you?
~yawn~
The countryside, that evidently belonged to all Arab leaders, was taken by appartently people.
Good show.
It does seem to be all you are capable of. Lets see from this latest exchange…
Quote with no cite for context, and also zero from you as far as what this means to you. Ignored by all as yet another drive by from you, but Finn responded:
He actually did the work of hunting down YOUR cite, and giving some comment on it. Something you (again) didn’t bother to do. To which your ever helpful replies were:
and…
Classic.
In any case, its NOT a nitpick gonzo. Context is kind of important. In addition, when translating from one language to another (or as Finn hypothesized into 2) things DO get messed up in the translation. Thats why it would have been good of you to do some work and put in a cite for the quote (it also would have been nice if you could have been bothered to put the quote in a quote box…I didn’t even realize it WAS a quote from Ben Gurion…thought it was more of your code).
In addition, just because Ben Gurion said it (IF in fact he did…context and all that), why do you think this is the definitive statement? IOW, why should we care what he said, or take it as gospel? Why do you think this statement is important? You don’t say…hell, you NEVER say anything. You just driveby, toss in a link with no commentary or quotes from it, the drive out. You toss in a cryptic quote supposedly from Ben Gurion without bottering to cite or attribute it, without commentary from yourself, then drive out. THen you get offended when called a drive by poster.
It would be amusing if it wasn’t so sad.
-XT
Everybody sees a difficulty in the question of relationships between Arabs And Jews. Not everybody sees there is no solution to this question. No solution. A gulf and nobody can bridge it. We want the country to be ours.They want the country to be theirs.
Times interview.
\Note the use of country.