October 8, 2001

1:19 PM

Syria Wins Seat on Security Council Despite Being on U.S. List of Terrorism Sponsors. First the U.N. Human Rights Commission Boots the U.S., then there was the U.N. conference of racists, and now this... Is the U.N. rendering itself increasingly irrelevant? (Syria Daily reports | Info on Syria: The Heart of Terrorism | Testimony on Syrian Support for Terrorism)
posted by frednorman (64 comments total)

Is the U.N. rendering itself increasingly irrelevant?

What do you mean by "irrelevant"? Out of 177 nations voting, 160 voted "yes" to elect Syria on the Security Council. That's a very significant number, and a relevant signal. The signal might be that most of the world agrees with Guardian reporter Brian Whitaker, who argues that "A new US government report illustrates that any classification of terrorist groups is fundamentally motivated by self-interest."

Yes, Syria hosts and supports some militant and (former) terrorist groups. But what is terrorism? What is state-terrorism? Don't we have to be extremely careful to talk about terrorism when former terrorists receive Nobel Peace Prizes (Arafat) or become Prime Ministers (Begin, Shamir)? And when many decisions in painful conflicts are made on the battlefield of the media?
posted by igor.boog at 1:48 PM on October 8, 2001

Thanks Fredrik. If the UN keeps humiliating itself like this, it will be high time to establish a *new* "UN" that will consist only of democratic, freedom-loving nations. THAT is where the 21st century is. I mean, come on -- to quote Seinfeld (forget the episode): We're trying to have a civilization here!

Really - Syria? WTF?!
posted by davidmsc at 1:50 PM on October 8, 2001

Is the U.N. rendering itself increasingly irrelevant?

Well, no, because the irrelevancy occurred some time in the 1970s. The UN is a disgusting blight on the world and Midtown Manhattan. Syria, Sudan, et al can go to hell. This is beyond farce.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:53 PM on October 8, 2001

davidmsc: A new "UN"? Well, who is going to select which countries are "democratic" and "freedom-loving"?

By the way, don't you mean "freedom-loving governments"? I've never heard of a "nation" that doesn't love freedom. A "nation" is a group of people who feel they belong together and possibly want to build institutions to form a state...
posted by igor.boog at 2:01 PM on October 8, 2001

Is the U.N. rendering itself increasingly irrelevant?
Irrelevant to what? The average American? Maybe it's just America that's becoming irrelevant.


davidsmc: Syria is a democracy, btw.
posted by delmoi at 2:04 PM on October 8, 2001

Syria is a 'democracy', but there is only one party and they have a pretty firm grip on control. They had elections in Russia too.

The hope is that institutions like the U.N. can bring countries on the brink of freedom into the fold. Consigning them to hell won't help the world, or the people of these countries. There is a potential to bring real democracy to places like Syria and Sudan, and many agree that institution-building, including the UN is a good way to start.

The question is, how long do you wait before a nation is allowed in 'the club'? and how much freedom is enough?
posted by cell divide at 2:08 PM on October 8, 2001

This just shows how the UN continuously mock themselves. Absurd is an understatement!
posted by jacques67 at 2:17 PM on October 8, 2001

davidsmc: Syria is a democracy, btw.

WTF?
posted by ParisParamus at 2:20 PM on October 8, 2001

If Syria is a democracy then I'm Britney Spears.
posted by gimonca at 2:22 PM on October 8, 2001

How do you decide who's democratic? The same way we decide which states support terrorism. WE DECIDE, with whom we decide. You total up practices, such as support of terrorism, abuse of women, slavery, free press, freedom of religion, and WE DECIDE.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:25 PM on October 8, 2001

Among the UN declarations the US has not ratified, The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
posted by phoenix enflamed at 2:26 PM on October 8, 2001

Call me old fashioned but the lugs who got Nobels were given that not by the UN.
Israel is not even allowed a chance to rotate for the Security Councik thnaks to the 21 Arab nations who won't allow this.
Syria not a terrorist state? They support Hezbollah and have occupied Lebanon for a number of years despite Lebanon's intense dislike of this.
True it may be that caming terrorist states might be a political statement but when a state allows known terrorists to operate on its territory against another nationk then that is state sponsored terrorism no matter how you want to define things.
My main objection to allowing 'syria the seat is that it makes a mockery of the UN and certainly decreases any moral authority it might have had.
posted by Postroad at 2:30 PM on October 8, 2001

Moral equivocation is disgusting. I hate to burst some bubbles out there (delmoi, fer instance), but there are such things as good, evil, right, wrong, etc, and America is, quite simply, *good* and *right*. With very, very few exceptions, and ESPECIALLY when compared to most other countries.

And what the hell is going on with the fonts in these thread? And where's my coffee? Dammit...
posted by davidmsc at 2:38 PM on October 8, 2001

Well, according to the CIA world fact book:

elections: president elected by popular vote for a seven-year term; referendum/election last held 10 July 2000 - after the death of President Hafez al-ASAD, father of Bashar al-ASAD - (next to be held NA 2007); vice presidents appointed by the president; prime minister and deputy prime ministers appointed by the president

This is the official stance of the US government, as far as I can tell. If you have better sources, feel free to post them.

It seems strange for Syria to be on the Security council, but on the other hand it's not like the US is morally virtuous or anything, we've supported organizations and regimes that could be considered 'terrorist', I'm sure the soviets weren’t to happy about our support of the Mujahadin, for example.

Anyway, I don't really know much about Syria so I can't really compare it to the US or China or whatever, but it seems to me that saying "we're right and there wrong." And acting like every sane person would agree seems silly.
posted by delmoi at 2:41 PM on October 8, 2001

...it's not like the US is morally virtuous or anything...
...don't know much about Syria so I can't really compare it to the US...

(barfs)
posted by davidmsc at 2:47 PM on October 8, 2001

Parisparamus: "WE DECIDE"... you mean: the US decides? Like when the US was the only country opposing over 60 UN Security Council resolutions in which Israel was criticized, and using it's veto to block those resolutions? While the rest of the world (except Israel but including all the other democratic countries - and I don't mean Syria) supported those resolutions? Isn't the US often rendering the UN irrelevant? (There are more democratic countries in the world than only the US, you know.)

Postroad: do you call Hizballah a terrorist organization? Why? (I'm not saying they aren't, just asking you why you call them that.) Interesting to know: the US State Department, through its ambassador in Beirut, Richard Jones, admitted a few years ago that Hizballah is a “resistance,” not a “terrorist” organization. Yes, Hizballah is still on "the list", but why?
posted by igor.boog at 2:53 PM on October 8, 2001

davidmsc
Just so I can understand your statement and I can put myself in context, could you give me some examples of the very very few exceptions to your goodness and also could you give me some examples of the countries which apparently are outside total evildom, though not of course approaching American peachiness. Just to see if I happen to live in one.
posted by Zootoon at 2:57 PM on October 8, 2001

Moral equivocation is disgusting. I hate to burst some bubbles out there (delmoi, fer instance), but there are such things as good, evil, right, wrong, etc,

Yes, that's true.

and America is, quite simply, *good* and *right*.

But that isn't. There are a lot of things that the US did that would almost certainly not be considered 'good'. Killing another human being is wrong, but other things in this world are not so simple. Palestinian terrorism is wrong, but so is in many ways the oppression of those people in Israel. The fact of the matter is that they are both wrong, but from their perspective it wouldn't seem that way.

Similarly, it may seem to you as an American that everything your country does is right, and the enemies wrong, however from another perspective that may not be true.

Ideologies, Religions, Economics, Oil prices, none of those things are more important then human life, and anyone who kills over them cannot be considered wholly good.
posted by delmoi at 3:07 PM on October 8, 2001

delmoi: I agree with you that "acting like every sane person would agree" is silly, especially when a participant in this discussion is just flaming and not providing sound arguments, like davidmsc is doing.

But: the people in Syria live under one of the harshest and most dictatorial and un-democratic regimes I've ever seen. I've traveled extensively in Syria, almost yearly since 1989. I've been followed and questioned by secret service officials; Syrian and Palestinian friends have been arrested and tortured just because they invited me to their homes and talked to me. The situation is improving with Bashar Assad, but still... The system is very much like the system in Iraq. (Same party, comparable structure.) For sources: search for Patrick Seale and Nicolaos van Dam.

But you know what? When Israel would give Syria the Golan Heights back, Syria will probably immediately drop their support for the Palestinians and militant Lebanese groups. The only thing Syria will want then is a peace-treaty with Israel, and open up the economy for trade. Syria's economy is deteriorating quickly, and Syria really wants to open the border with Israel. Let's hope that with economic growth, also the liberalization will gain speed, like many analysts predict.
posted by igor.boog at 3:16 PM on October 8, 2001

The kneejerk reaction among Americans to the UN, stoked by Jesse Helms and talk radio hosts, simply strikes me as perverse. As for Syria, it's in a state of transition right now: if this can provide some kind of context for Bashar al-Assad to assert himself against the country's generals, then this could be useful. He's the Scott Evil of the Middle East.
posted by holgate at 3:18 PM on October 8, 2001

Holgate, so funny, and too, too accurate.
posted by cell divide at 3:19 PM on October 8, 2001

A state of transition? The rhetoric from Damascus sounds just a few rungs below that of Bin Laden. The country is a political hell. It's a terrorist heaven. Wake up.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:28 PM on October 8, 2001

Some exceptions to American goodness include slavery in first century, internment of Americans of Japanese descent in WWII, denial of right to vote to non-whites & women, and trading arms for hostages in the 80s. On balance, however, it simply cannot be denied that America is more *good* than *bad* no matter how you slice it. This is assuming, of course, that you are using freedom, democracy, rule of law, and free enterprise as your yardstick. There are varying degrees of each present in most nations; the quantity & quality of those ingredients all add up to a "goodness" (or not) level. And no, I do not have equations and figures for each nation; we are speaking very broadly here...which leads to your second question: "...give me some examples of the countries..." OK, there are many other *good* nations in this world. None is perfect (neither is US), but certainly on a graded scale, Britain, for example, would be better than, say, North Korea. Similarly, Canada, Italy, and France would rate higher than Syria, Libya, and Cuba. Many nations fall somewhere in the middle, but the last several decades suggest that many nations are moving towards freedom & democracy. Some move slow, others quicker.
posted by davidmsc at 3:31 PM on October 8, 2001

Syrian tanks rumbling past on the asphalt road outside (terrible noise) kept me from sleeping. No, I'm not joking (I'm staying in a suburb of Beirut). Because of this I joined the discussion here. The tanks are gone now. I'm off to bed. Bye guys.

BTW: Do you know how Israeli police found out this Syrian spy in Jerusalem and arrested him? He was driving around in a car with a big picture of Sharon and Sharon's son on the back-window. (Joke.) (Most Syrian officials drive around in cars decorated with pictures of the Assad family, and jokes about the stupidity of the Syrian intelligence abound in the Syrian bazaars.)
posted by igor.boog at 3:35 PM on October 8, 2001

While the rest of the world (except Israel but including all the other democratic countries - and I don't mean Syria) supported those resolutions? Isn't the US often rendering the UN irrelevant? (There are more democratic countries in the world than only the US, you know.)

I think if you break down the democratic country support of those resolutions, you find the world is largely composed of thug/dictatorial nations; and economic whore nations such as France. Did one of those resolutions include one condemning Israel for bombing Iraq's nuclear plant?

I am resigned to the reality that there are about five nations in the world which do not, most of the time, act as undemocratic or econo-whore nations. And the US lurches perilously close to the econo-whores when it does not treat Yasser Arafat as the criminal/terrorist he is.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:38 PM on October 8, 2001

I would really like the rest of the word to vote the US out of the UN altogether. The rest of the world would be much better off, and Americans could stop paying and dying for the damn thing. Anybody want to host it? England, I am looking at you.
posted by thirteen at 3:40 PM on October 8, 2001

(Just one more post from me today.)

ParisParamus: you're being rhetorical yourself in your last post. Give me a good example of the "rhetoric from Damascus" that sounds "a few rungs below that of Bin Laden" please. I'm curious.
posted by igor.boog at 3:41 PM on October 8, 2001

more *good* than *bad*
now that I can deal with
quite simply, *good* and *right*
was a bit more hard to swallow.
posted by Zootoon at 3:46 PM on October 8, 2001

OK, Zootoon, your turn: Can you articulate any reasons that the US is NOT good and right? And point out some nations that are very good or very bad, in your view?
posted by davidmsc at 3:49 PM on October 8, 2001

davidmsc
well you named them (some of them) here are some others: -
*sanctions against Cuba are easy, why not on China?
*all the dictators you've placed in power over the years and caused suffering to the people of those countries just for American interests (money) eg Pinochet
*failure to ratify important agreements on ecology for purely economic reasons
None of these (examples) make you an evil country but it does mean you are not "quite simply good and right" and more like "more good than bad" as you said in your latter post.
Good countries? Jamaica, Iceland, India, lots
Bad countries: more a question of bad governments, but take out the last Amnesty International report and you'll find most I'm not crazy about...the Chinese goverment, the Iraki goverment, ... I wouldn't like to make the list too long because then it starts to become a question of who you leave out than who you put in.
posted by Zootoon at 4:13 PM on October 8, 2001

Well, the Security Council is already weighed in favour of "good" nations (or, if you like, the representatives of Old and New Empire) with the veto powers of the permanent members, so it's not as if a rotating membership consisting of Syria, Iraq, Congo and North Korea (lord forbid) could alter its "moral authority". In political terms, the rotating membership is simply a condescension to the collective egos of the smaller nations.

The rest of the world would be much better off, and Americans could stop paying and dying for the damn thing.

Um, those invoices from the past couple of years still haven't been settled.

Wake up.

From someone who regards Ariel Sharon and his gunship diplomacy as a paragon of democratic virtues? That's a bad case of narcolepsy you've got there.

Anyway, the politics of this: Syria is a rotten "thugocracy", thanks to the police state assembled by Papadoc Assad. How do you change this? You attack the conditions that sustain the authority of the thugs on the ground, by cultivating relations outside of that Orwellian environment. (And in that regard, a better historical analogy might perhaps be Richard Cromwell.)
posted by holgate at 5:17 PM on October 8, 2001

The kneejerk reaction among Americans to the UN, stoked by Jesse Helms and talk radio hosts, simply strikes me as perverse.

I couldn't agree more. It's xenophobia, more often than not, however they choose to couch it.
posted by rushmc at 5:24 PM on October 8, 2001

Syria? Security? How the hell did 160 countries put those two together?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:35 PM on October 8, 2001

"rhetoric from Damascus" that sounds "a few rungs below that of Bin Laden" please. I'm curious.

try the Washington Post article Pope Urges Interfaith Tolerance: As Pontiff Arrives In Syria's Capital, Assad Assails Israel (Post, May 6, 2001):

"We see our brothers in Palestine being killed and tortured," he said. "We see that justice is being violated, lands are being occupied in Lebanon, Syria and Palestine. We see them attacking sacred Christian and Muslim places in Palestine. . . . They try to kill the principle of religions in the same mentality in which they betrayed Jesus Christ and in the same way with which they tried to kill the Prophet Muhammad."

posted by ParisParamus at 6:59 PM on October 8, 2001

I would love to know how to say BS in Arabic.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:20 PM on October 8, 2001

Um, those invoices from the past couple of years still haven't been settled.

I have always advocated paying up before getting out, and while I would think it rotten to leave without settling, the states have payed far more than their fare share since the begining of the damn thing.
posted by thirteen at 7:26 PM on October 8, 2001

Well its not like the US listens to the UN half the time anyway, which is really a shame.

e.g.
Under the UN charter the Principles of international co-operation in the detection, arrest, extradition and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity which was adopted by General Assembly in 1973, Bin Laden should be allowed to be tried in Saudi Arabia or perhaps even Afghanistan - which the US dismissed.

Of course Afghanistan shouldn't "grant asylum to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity", but of course they haven't been shown any evidence as to Bin Laden guilt.

Would the American people complain if Australia won a seat on Security Council, given their poor treatment of the Aboriginal people in the past 200 years? I doubt it.
posted by X-00 at 8:36 PM on October 8, 2001

if Australia won a seat on Security Council

Hahahahahaha AHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA...
posted by Neale at 8:56 PM on October 8, 2001

Clue alert:

Democracy no requirement for security council membership, parochial Americans discover
Shock, horror in streets as UN found to be not an agency of US government

Perhaps you could all remove anterior ends from posterior ends long enough to realize that the Security Council's purpose is to maintain peace and stability, rather than vet people according to US standards. We can maintain our own list of friends, allies, expedient partners, grudging lackeys, and outright enemies; the UN has to maintain relationships with all members, and membership on the Security Council is a measure of regional respect, and in fact has often been used when possible by the US in order to bring dodgy countries into the world of adult nations.

Besides, what can you say about a body that used to include the USSR, and still includes the PRC? Clearly it has purposes apart from the ones you imagine.
posted by dhartung at 9:08 PM on October 8, 2001

Neale, what are you laughing for? Australia has had terms on the Security Council, as recently as 1985-86, and before that, 1973-74. It seems to be competing as part of the two seats allocated (every other year) to "Western European and Other" states, rather than part of the five who are "African and Asian".

By the way, clueless people -- this means you -- here is the list of non-permanent members of the Security Council from 1946 on, with an explanation of the membership process.

Y'all may want to read it before you go off riding on that high horse.
posted by dhartung at 9:15 PM on October 8, 2001

dhartung. Thanks. I actually knew all that, but still think it's worth ranting over being in an organization with countries run by thugs.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:22 PM on October 8, 2001

I meant permanent seat, pardon me.
posted by X-00 at 9:48 PM on October 8, 2001

I actually knew all that, but still think it's worth ranting over being in an organization with countries run by thugs.

NAFTA before Fox's election comes to mind. "They're thugs: but hey, they're friendly thugs! And what about those Tijuana bars!"
posted by holgate at 9:53 PM on October 8, 2001

What this is, fellow Americans, is the latest indication that the rest of the world is aligning against us - in politics, in economics, in culture. Because America has not been perfect, the tyrants, the "thugocracies," the blood-drenched shitpits of the modern world can calmly point over the piles of bodies and blood of their countrymen and neighbors and say "You, America, have done bad, and therefore you are no better, no more worthy, than we." Forget our devotion to freedom, our staunch defense of individual liberty, the most egalitarian and effective democracy in the world, a economics that has nearly succeded in creating history's first true meritocracy, a history of compassion and charity that spans two centuries - and all this often as not to our own detriment. Forget the American blood spilled all over Europe, Africa, Asia because we stand by our allies through thick and thin, because we believe in freedom and democracy and we back it up with our "...lives, virtue and sacred honor." Because we have not been perfect, we are deemed the moral and political equivalent of gaschambers like Syria.

It is lucky for the rest of the world, in their rush to condemn us and thereby seek to erase their responsibility, their misdeeds and the moral taint of their history, that America is slow to anger, blissful in its inattention, and quick to name our worst enemies as friends should they deem to make even the most casual effort at good relations. Those days are ending. We have been unjustly named sinners so many times that we've nearly reached the point of not caring whether we sin or not. But really, America's worst sin has gone unnamed by the rest of the world, and rightly so, since they are as guilty: we have infantilized the world, with our riches and power. We have treated soveriegn nations as pets, and they have not only chafed but grown dependent. THAT is how Afghanistan justifies harboring bin Laden by saying that America 'abandoned' it in its time of need. It's not only ridiculous, it's infantile. We don't owe the world ANYTHING. If ever we did, we have paid it back ten times over.

So Syria is a member of the Security Council. So be it. All it really proves is that 160 members of the UN had deluded themselves to the point where they can vote this way. But 160, don't cry when America, because we carry the historical burden of freedom, liberty and democracy, refuses to participate in the farce. A neighborhood of children may conveniently overlook the adolescent with a history of torturing the field cats, and even name him captain of the kickball team. But the adults have no such luxury, and cannot in good conscience allow that child to babysit.

Previously, we were able to ignore the world's jibes, for they were mostly only that - jibes and petty taunts, like the inanity embodied by that fool Frenchman who dumped manure in the parking lot of a Paris McDonald's. Today, America cannot ignore anything anymore - our security, which we cannot forgo, demands it. So while America reels from bin Laden's brutality, the rest of the world - as it quibbles and, with the exception of a few true allies, damns America with faint praise and faux sorrow while parsing the meaning of "democracy" and trotting out a meager laundry list of justifications and infantile grievances - will from now on be forced to deal with the consequences of an America that cannot simply disregard its jibes anymore.
posted by UncleFes at 10:00 PM on October 8, 2001

Today, America cannot ignore anything anymore


It's true; you can't. You were all too naive or just plain indifferent. Like every other country, you have enemies. 'Cept more and more ferocious. Give us all a break and face up to it. Your "few true allies", as UncleFes says, fucking depend on it as well!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:47 PM on October 8, 2001

The Monroe Doctrine won’t be recited for the millienal generation.

Why just back out of the UN? Hell, close the borders. Nobody and nothing gets in or out. No more interventionist US military — they couldn’t go any farther than the current borders. No more meddling in foreign economies. The twenty or so countries currently sanctioned by the US don’t need to worry about the diplomatic tool that doesn’t work — the US economy would just disappear as a global entity.

Imagine if countries were allowed to develop by themselves, instead of having the IMF write their economic policy, keep a food export surplus while people starve (as in Haiti) and crushing debt was lifted off poor populations. Without the US they could develop their domestic economies before the WTO forced markets to liberalize.

Cap off Bush’s ultra-unilateral policy-making and have the US act like it’s the only country that matters. Ideologically, it wouldn’t be a change. Or, act like the US is one country in a world of countries. The values politicians chant over the bunting could very easily be exported.

The cost of making the US government an international devotee “to freedom” and an exporter of “effective democracy” is not palatable for a powerful minority. Every country not ruled by a centralized governmental-corporate oligopoly is a contender for the Superpower title. Too bad the ruling class is not willing to cultivate societies not indebted to it. That’s never been its intent.
posted by raaka at 11:08 PM on October 8, 2001

What Miguel said. Welcome to the big fucking world. Glad you could finally make it.
posted by holgate at 11:42 PM on October 8, 2001

The UN is a disgusting blight on the world and Midtown Manhattan.

Gee, where have I heard this rhetoric before?

Is it that offensive that an international organization reflects international opinion? The U.S. is the only "civilized" and "democratic" nation in the world where a politician would get lynched for stating such UN-endorsed facts as the Guardian (UK) article igor.boog linked (Israeli settlements "are there to consolidate a military occupation").

All of you denouncing the UN should consider denouncing every nation in the world except Israel, US, and UK--since it is these three who have stood against civilized European (and world) opinion in UN vote after UN vote on the Palestinian question (and the UK, unable to stomach voting with us, just as often abstains on these occasions).

Syria is most emphatically not a democracy, and I know that at a minimum the entire population of Damascus loathed the late Assad (and signs are weak that the UK-educated ophtalmologist now running the country will assert progress vs. the army establishment). But the Palestinian "terrorists" supported by Syria (and Iran): their methods are denounced by our close allies, but not their historical claims. Like it or not, the Palestinian groups are in a fundamentally different category from al-Qa`ida with its sweeping objectives and "global reach." And American strategic thinkers are wrestling with this politically difficult fact.
posted by Zurishaddai at 12:59 AM on October 9, 2001

Syria? The guys who literally bulldozed over a city -Hama- in 1982, killing at a minimum 20,000 civilians in response to an assasination attempt on Assad? Sure they deserve a seat on the Security Council. They understand the concept.
posted by quercus at 6:11 AM on October 9, 2001

The U.S. is the only "civilized" and "democratic" nation in the world..

What a crappy strawman argument. There are a number of decent countries in the world. No one thinks that here. Considering we are the only superpower, the US is shockingly humble, deferential, and bends over backwards to not be arrogant (to the extent that's possible--the US has a big footprint, inevitably).

But just because I was fortunate enough to be born in the US doesn't deprive me of the right to call a despotic toilet a despotic toilet (Syria). Most of the world is a despotic toilet--duh.

Israeli settlements "are there to consolidate a military occupation".

The Israeli settlements may very well be a military occupation; a defensive one legitimized, at the very least by being the spoils of a war waged against it. How about if Jordan and Syria and Egypt and Lebanon donate some land to the Palestinian Arabs; Israel chip in some of the West Bank (as it has proposed)? That would be fair, especially since most of the Palestinian Arabs (or their parents) are from those places anyway.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:50 AM on October 9, 2001

That would be fair, especially since most of the Palestinian Arabs (or their parents) are from those places anyway.

That is not true. (It's one of those Israeli propaganda myths.) Palestinians are originally from Palestine. With a few exceptions of course (like in every nation, many people have family abroad...) Most Palestinians (around 55 percent) now live in the Gazastrip and the Westbank. Their parents and grandparents are from Palestine. Another 35 percent of the Palestinians live as refugees in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. In Jordan, many of the wealthier Palestinian refugees got a Jordanian passport. The parents or grandparents of the refugees are also from Palestine.

It's not fair either. The Palestinians lost 78 percent of the land they used to live on for centuries in 1948. They have the right to be compensated (UN res. 194) for this loss. Why would they give up even 1 percent of the remaining 22 percent that was occupied in 1967 (including East Jerusalem)?

BTW: The Barak offer at Camp David wasn't 95 percent of those 22 percent of original Palestine as many people believe. It was 95 percent of the occupied territories minus the territory of "Greater Jerusalem", which is about 25 percent of the Westbank. It wasn't an offer the Palestinians couldn't refuse. Also because the refugee problem was not addressed fairly.

And, ParisParamus, why do you call Palestinians "Palestinian Arabs"? Do I have to call myself a "Dutch European" now?
posted by igor.boog at 7:38 AM on October 9, 2001

igor: I really don't know the answer re the origin of most Palestinians. Can you provide sources for this?

Why would they give up even 1 percent of the remaining 22 percent that was occupied in 1967 (including East Jerusalem)?

Well, since it belonged to Jordan pre-1967. Would you prefer that Jordan take it back and no Palestinian state be created? It's called compromise, plus the reality that Israel is not defensible without Israel controling East Jerusalem.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:48 AM on October 9, 2001

PS: My attitude is come back to talk to me when Israel isn't surrounded by despotic, scary regimes where there's no free press, no voting, no free expression and no freedom of religion, and little education; then we'll talk about, or even begin to think about, Palestinian Arabs having their own state (second state: Jordan is the first). Until then, Palestinan state = destruction of Israel.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:17 AM on October 9, 2001

Glad you could finally make it.

Shame it turns out to be a shithole. Some parties are best left unattended.
posted by UncleFes at 8:23 AM on October 9, 2001

PS: My attitude is come back to talk to me when Israel isn't surrounded by despotic, scary regimes where there's no free press, no voting, no free expression and no freedom of religion, and little education; then we'll talk about, or even begin to think about, Palestinian Arabs having their own state (second state: Jordan is the first). Until then, Palestinan state = destruction of Israel.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:25 AM on October 9, 2001

ParisParamus: there are quite a few sources on the origins of the Palestinians. Maxime Rodinson, a French Jew, is one of the most respected writers on the question of Palestine. Quite good statistics on where Palestinians came from and where they fled to can be obtained at the United Nations Relief and Work Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA). A more accessible source is the Norwegian FAFO institute. Then there is the PRRN-website on which you have to weed out the quality articles from biased stuff. You can find a good account of the refugee origins in Rosemary Sayigh's "From Peasants to Revolutionaries".

Well, since it belonged to Jordan pre-1967

Zionists occupied 78 percent of Palestine, Jordan occupied the Westbank, Egypt occupied Gazastrip. All in 1948. It all used to be Palestine. The Palestinians have the right to the in 1967 occupied territories: combine UN res 242, 338 and the Oslo principles. Jordan officially declared it doesn't have claims to any part of historic Palestine any longer.

Israel is not defensible without Israel controling East Jerusalem.

What does the occupation of East-Jerusalem add to Israels defences? I've never heard this argument before. An interesting read: the memoires of Moshe Dayan, the famous Israeli general of 1967. Among other things, he describes convincingly that the Golan Heights are not necessary for Israels defences and that statements that the Golan is of great importance for Israels defence are plain propaganda. I would like to check what he writes about Jerusalem, but I have the book in Holland, not here in Beirut... But: with the immense change in warfare and defence over the last decades, I don't believe it still really makes a strategic difference where exactly you draw borders. (There used to be this wall in Berlin...) Even more important: Israel will only be relieved of the threat to it when it signs a peace treaty that respects UN resolutions 242 and 338, and that provides an acceptable compromise on 194. I am not optimistic.
posted by igor.boog at 8:38 AM on October 9, 2001

ParisParamus: Hey, it's like I hear an Israeli government spokesman talking. Jordan the first Palestinian state? That's complete rubbish mr. Sharon used to try to sell to the West (he doesn't do that anymore now). Please check your facts and don't repeat what you hear from biased politicians. Fact is that the Palestinians, including the refugees, come from Palestine, not Jordan. Second: "scary" states around Israel a reason to deny (or postpone) Palestinians their right to a state? That's ridiculous. Know that those "scary" governments have only supported the Palestinians when it was in those governments' own interest. Palestinians have at least as much rights as the Israelis have, and they shouldn't be the victim of despotic governments in the region.

Lastly, you're being extremely rhetorical with the sentence: "until then: palestinian state = destruction of israel". Forgive me, but allow me to be rhetorical as well for a minute: "until now: support for Israeli governments = denial of Palestinian rights".
posted by igor.boog at 10:38 AM on October 9, 2001

Igor, do a search on ParisParamus-- he's a smart, rational guy on every other topic, but you will get nowhere arguing with him about Israel.
posted by cell divide at 11:07 AM on October 9, 2001

"until now: support for Israeli governments = denial of Palestinian rights".

True, in a literal way. But as I have written on Mefi before, what rights? The right to ruled by a tyranical, oppressive regime? Long ago, there was a consensus in Israel that there should be an Arab state carved out of the West Bank. The question is on what terms and over what territory. As long as Israel has scary undemocratic violent neighbors (internally violent), nothing Israeli has done in the recent past seems unreasonable.

I truly believe that those who are complaining about Israel have failed to study just how scary and despotic its neighboring countries are. We're not talking about the French/Belgian border here.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:24 PM on October 9, 2001

As long as Israel has scary undemocratic violent neighbors (internally violent), nothing Israeli has done in the recent past seems unreasonable.

Why so? If the U.N. had any legitimacy, it would simply pass a resolution that said that Israel would be defended in the same way Kuwait was, period. Then Israel wouldn't have to worry about doing it all by themselves, and needed be so concerned with buffers or defensive shows of brutality.
posted by rushmc at 5:58 PM on October 9, 2001

Exactly, RushMC, that resolution could never pass, hence, no legitimacy
posted by quercus at 7:01 PM on October 9, 2001

You know, I have zero truck with ParisParamus' assertion that Syria is a "despotic toilet" (I am giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he is limiting his potty talk to the Assad regime), even if most of his other "facts" sound like they came out of Ariel Sharon's fantasy life.

But for the record, since that strange-sounding collocution "Syria...democracy..." has come up in this thread: After independence in 1949, Syria did have a (real) republican form of government, until a March 1949 coup that, according to then-CIA-Damascus-station-chief Miles Copeland, was suggested by U.S. representatives and carried out with their advice and guidance through preparations (see his book, The Game of Nations, 1969, p. 42). Whoops, another brilliant U.S. policy alignment. I've met a Syrian who was shot at in the streets of Damascus in those times, and you can't tell me that despotic rule is somehow part of Syrian national character. (Here is where I spare you the trite catalogue of people actually gaining and learning to enjoy freedoms in history.)
posted by Zurishaddai at 2:49 AM on October 10, 2001

Then Israel wouldn't have to worry about doing it all by themselves, and needed be so concerned with buffers or defensive shows of brutality.

Israel hasn't "defended herself" as such for the past 20 years; Sharon's recent bitch-slapping at the hands of Ari Fleischer just showed himself to be a bully who turns into a whimpering coward when the head prefect speaks up. At least Barak had an ounce of true bravery. And as someone noted on the BBC the other day, if the "war on terrorism" could be won with guns and gunships, Israel would be the safest nation on earth.
posted by holgate at 5:50 AM on October 10, 2001