Arab countries treat Palestinians far worse than Israel

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan
The Complete 's Guide to the Middle East.

I have read other gides for idiots, and they are singularly crappy books. From another source, and yes, it is a biased one, but it gives sources:

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story414.html

Based on Ottoman census records in the late 19th and early 20th century, Palestine was widely inhabited at the time especially in the rural areas where agriculture was the main profession. According to Justine McCarthy (p. 26) the population of Palestine in the early 19th century was 350,000 people, and in 1914 , just before the outbreak of WWI, Palestine had a population of 657,000 Muslims Arabs, 81,000 Christian Arabs, and 59,000 Jews (including many European Jews from the first and second Aliyah). So the Jewish population of Palestine in 1914 made up under 8% of the total population, which was much smaller than the Palestinian Christian population. It should be noted that our source, Justine McCarthy, is an authority on the Ottoman Turks who was quoted by many Israeli Jewish scholars like Benny Morris and Tom Segev. In that regard, it is worth quoting one of the most zealous Zionist leaders, Israel Zangwill, who stated as early as 1905 that Palestine was twice as thickly populated as the United States:

"Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two souls to the square mile, and not 25% of them Jews ..... [We] must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan and accustomed for centuries to despise us." (Righteous Victims, p. 140 & Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 7-10)

Had the Zionist leaders admitted the existence of such an indigenous population, then these leaders would have been obliged to explain to their followers how they intended to make this indigenous population leave their homeland. To contradict this baseless and concocted myth, it is worth quoting Ben-Gurion who stated in 1918 that "Palestine is not an empty country." According to Shabtai Teveth (who is one of Ben-Gurion's official biographers), Ben-Gurion stated in an article published in 1918 that:

"Palestine is not an empty country . . . on no account must we injure the rights of the inhabitants." Ben-Gurion often returned to this point, emphasizing that Palestinian Arabs had "the full right" to an independent economic, cultural, and communal life, but not political. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 37-38)

At the often unreliable censuses of the time.

And the area meaning what are currently Israel, the territories and Jordan, right?

Like the East bank of the Jordan was so much more heavily poluated..I mean, look at all the large cities like....Amman, and ........ and ......., as compared to the coastal cities like haifa, or Gaza. The cute smiley fails you in this regard.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Both Peru and Chile, for example, had democratically elected governments when the Pacific War was fought. My guess si that he 'deifniton' of democracy is very exclusive

Had Peru and Chile peaceful transfers of power yet? Did they have regular elections? These things make a difference.

The Democratic Peace Project has gone through every war and analyzed each war country's government using the standard definition of 'democracy' in International Relations and have so far concluded that democratic dyads don't fight each other. It is the closest thing to a law that International Relations has.

Both states had had various. peru was more unstable, as governments sometimes lasted their full terms, and sometimes not. You say the standard definition of dmeocracy..what is it? Why does a long line of peacefull transitions matter? And yet, if you have peacefull transitions, but a strong executive who retains powers, liek say, a Wilhemine Germany, all of a sudden you don;t count? I am sorry, but to me this certainly smacks of playing with the definitions to make the evidence set fit your preconcived notions. What is the tehoretical basis for this saying? What is the [b]theory[]/b] of why dems. don't fight each other? That is the great weak spot of this notion.

Rothy..yeah, i forgot, you are the wrong Nazi.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap


I have read other gides for idiots, and they are singularly crappy books. From another source, and yes, it is a biased one, but it gives sources:

Thank you, that's all I needed to know. It's no different from those you criticise for using propoganda.

250,000 in a land fve times present day Israel + territories, that by themselves can hold 10 million. Certainly seemed overcrowded to me.

[GePap]

Oh Edan...

I said: it is baised, but it gives sources. you little quip..where did it come from? Which source did the idiots at Idiots guide get it from? I have seen factual mistakes in those books before (like in the WW2 for idiots), so I do not trust them. Look at the quotes. They give you Page numbers and titles! Don't trust them, get the book, check out the quote, see if they took it out of context. But as far as I am concerned, the proof I give, with citiations, is better than that half-assed quote from your 'source'

[Imran Siddiqui]

And yet, if you have peacefull transitions, but a strong executive who retains powers, liek say, a Wilhemine Germany, all of a sudden you don;t count?

If the strong executive isn't elected then no, how can you be a democracy?

What is the theory of why dems. don't fight each other? That is the great weak spot of this notion.

The theory of what democratic dyads don't fight is the easiest part. I don't get how it is the weak spot.

The theory is that democracies are open, and decisions are seen by everyone and everyone has a say. Also, since they are open, the people of the country can see them and have a say in the decision. It places constraints on leaders to engage in war against other democracies (they are concerned about reelection).

Also democracies share common norms, such as civil rights and liberty. Therefore they view each other as friends and unthreatening.

--

The IR definition of democracy is:

1) Fair, regular, multiparty elections
2) Voting franchise for substantial amount of population
3) Vote for executive OR the parliament has strong power
4) Peaceful transfer of power
5) Stability and Longevity (at least 3 years)

--

You will also have to explain, if the Democratic Peace theory isn't correct, why it is taught almost as fact in most IR classes around the country, and why it is believed by most of the IR professors (most of them are now liberals and there are only a few realists around).

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
I am sorry, but to me this certainly smacks of playing with the definitions to make the evidence set fit your preconcived notions.

That's generally how it works. You might as well as you might as well ask how they can draw any meaningful conclusion from such a statistically insignifigant sample.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well doesn't it seem peculiar that in an era of INCREASED warfare (1900 on), that we really haven't seen democracies face off against each other. And even if we take the broadest definition and say one or two wars have resulted in democracies fighting... how come it is so low compared to other dyads?

[GePap]

The theory is that democracies are open, and decisions are seen by everyone and everyone has a say. Also, since they are open, the people of the country can see them and have a say in the decision. It places constraints on leaders to engage in war against other democracies (they are concerned about reelection).

Why against other democracies? Why does the nature of the other state matter to the masses? After all, the enemy is the enemy. That is one fot he weaknesses. Fashoda is a nice example: had people ahd the right to vote at that very time, there would have been war between france and England, had any demagoge wanted to stir the people up.

1) Fair, regular, multiparty elections
2) Voting franchise for substantial amount of population
3) Vote for executive OR the parliament has strong power
4) Peaceful transfer of power
5) Stability and Longevity (at least 3 years)

The bit about longevity I dispute, and the bit about a 'substantinal' part fo the population is also dubiuos. What is substantial? 50% Over 50% Do sattes without the franchise for women count? Why, why not? What about a place like South Africa under apartheid? does it count as a dem?

As for it being taught in every IR class: IR profs are desperate for antying they can sell as soemthing porven by evidence.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well doesn't it seem peculiar that in an era of INCREASED warfare (1900 on), that we really haven't seen democracies face off against each other. And even if we take the broadest definition and say one or two wars have resulted in democracies fighting... how come it is so low compared to other dyads?

The problem is your reasonning for why democracies would not fight democracies make little sense. If two states hav a border dispute, and one side thinks it can win by force, why, even if it is democratic, and so is the other state, would they not press their advantage? cause they give a damn about the form of goevrnment of the other guy? How dod you explain the willingness of democracies to ally themselves to non-democracies in wars? Could it be common aims?

Perhape democracy does not cause peace, but instead, the facvotrs that elad to eventual peace between two neighbors also lead to democracy in them? Britian and France ceased to be enemies before they became democracies under your definition.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why against other democracies? Why does the nature of the other state matter to the masses?

Who do you think it would easier to go war against? Iraq or France? If you said France you have really lost it, haven't you?

People don't want to go to war against other democracies because they don't see them as 'evil'. Dictatorships, on the other hand.

Fashoda is a nice example: had people ahd the right to vote at that very time, there would have been war between france and England, had any demagoge wanted to stir the people up.

It's actually an example that backs the Democratic Peace. The two countries did NOT fight because they shared similar democratic norms and worked by negotiation. The democratic leaders of both countries were wary of getting into a war that could lead to their being booted. If ONE of the countries was a dictatorship, they WOULD have gone to war.

The bit about longevity I dispute, and the bit about a 'substantinal' part fo the population is also dubiuos. What is substantial? 50% Over 50% Do sattes without the franchise for women count? Why, why not?

No. Would you really consider a country that doesn't let 50% of the population vote a democracy? That's silly!

What about a place like South Africa under apartheid? does it count as a dem?

Of course not!! 30% of the people can vote, while 70% can't? What kind of 'democracy' is that?!

'Substantial proportion' basically means you can't deny the vote based on race or gender. At least 50% should be able to vote, but closer to 60% or 70%.

As for it being taught in every IR class: IR profs are desperate for antying they can sell as soemthing porven by evidence.

Or perhaps they actually believe it? Ever think of that? I mean, the Democratic Peace Project has some of the best minds in IR today working on it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If two states hav a border dispute, and one side thinks it can win by force, why, even if it is democratic, and so is the other state, would they not press their advantage?

NO! They'd negotiate and work things out. Democracies have common aims in terms of liberty and rights, to declare war on one for a 'border dispute' would be utterly mad, and would certainly fail, and would get the officials who tried it be thrown out!

Britian and France ceased to be enemies before they became democracies under your definition.

I don't think they did. They became democracies before they stopped being enemies. They didn't get to be friends until the 2nd Morocco Crisis.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's actually an example that backs the Democratic Peace. The two countries did NOT fight because they shared similar democratic norms and worked by negotiation. The democratic leaders of both countries were wary of getting into a war that could lead to their being booted. If ONE of the countries was a dictatorship, they WOULD have gone to war.

You have no basis for this statement. The leader of the side that would have won would undoubtedly gone on to further victories electorally. Yes, fi you loose there is risk, but if you win, the rewards are immense!. After all, the same could be said of democratic leaders that go to wars with non-dmeocratic leaders: if Johnson had been winning in Vietnam, he would have had second term, would he not? Do you believe dmeocratic leaders are so utterly risk averse?

Perhaps they did not go to war ebcuase the leaders at the time felt strong enough to ignore public sentiment and keep thier eyes on the bigger picture, like, well, Germany.

[Shi Huangdi]

"Benny Morris and Tom Segev. "

I don't know Segev, but I do know Benny Morris. He may be Israeli Jewish, but he most certainly is not pro-Israel if you are familiar with his works. He is considered a revisionist and has a definite pro-Palestine slant. I think your source is still a bit suspect here.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
NO! They'd negotiate and work things out. Democracies have common aims in terms of liberty and rights, to declare war on one for a 'border dispute' would be utterly mad, and would certainly fail, and would get the officials who tried it be thrown out!

Please. democracies do not have an interest in general liberty and rights. They have a common value in maintaining their own liberty and rights, like say, their rights to their won territory.

I don't think they did. They became democracies before they stopped being enemies. They didn't get to be friends until the 2nd Morocco Crisis.

Friends and not enemies are not the same. Do you forget Crimea? last war fought between Britian and france? 1790's-1815. first war as allies? 1854. next war between them..wait, none.....

Britain and france fought no wars since 1815, a time at which neither would fit your democratic definitions.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"Benny Morris and Tom Segev. "

I don't know Segev, but I do know Benny Morris. He may be Israeli Jewish, but he most certainly is not pro-Israel if you are familiar with his works. He is considered a revisionist and has a definite pro-Palestine slant. I think your source is still a bit suspect here.

An authors politcal slant has sh1t to do with how well they research, and good reserchers tell you were they got their sources. If you want to question the credibility of thier "facts", give me good evidence of bad faith quoting, or misinterpretation of figures on their part. otherwise, your complaint against them is only politically driven, and academically worhtless.