Peace in Israel/Palestine

[blankall]

Originally Posted by _Q_

I would hardly call the population expansion rapid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...n_to_Palestine



So your idea that the vast majority of Palestinians were Arab immigrants is at best inconclusive and and worst a flat out lie. Just because Arafat had an Egyptian Grandmother it doesn't mean that every Palestinian is like him.

Never said anything about the word majority. However, there's no denying that he immigration into the region was notable. Also making statements like muslims live in the place they were born is pretty ridiculous. When you have a population that is having an average of 7+ children per mother being born, most are going to be born in the place they were born. That doesn't lead any evidence towards the claim Palestinians were living on land they had lived on for generations. That only leads evidence towards there being lots of births, which isn't disputed.

Secondly, you're referencing McCarthy, who is a Turkish educated professor. He also denies the Amernian Genocide, and has all sorts of "facts" and figures to support that as well.

That wikipedia article is particularly poorly written. I tried to change it myself after contacting the authors of the books it references (or at least used to reference) by e-mail. All changes I made were immediately changed by a hawkish group of editors who patrol wikipedia. Since then, they've also removed all the excerpts dealing with the migration and urbanization of Palestinian arabs at the time.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by blankall

Never said anything about the word majority. However, there's no denying that he immigration into the region was notable. Also making statements like muslims live in the place they were born is pretty ridiculous. When you have a population that is having an average of 7+ children per mother being born, most are going to be born in the place they were born. That doesn't lead any evidence towards the claim Palestinians were living on land they had lived on for generations. That only leads evidence towards there being lots of births, which isn't disputed.

Secondly, you're referencing McCarthy, who is a Turkish educated professor. He also denies the Amernian Genocide, and has all sorts of "facts" and figures to support that as well.

That wikipedia article is particularly poorly written. I tried to change it myself after contacting the authors of the books it references (or at least used to reference) by e-mail. All changes I made were immediately changed by a hawkish group of editors who patrol wikipedia. Since then, they've also removed all the excerpts dealing with the migration and urbanization of Palestinian arabs at the time.

I never said the bolded part. Where are you getting that from? I'm actually not sure what you're getting at there.

So who's immigrant population increased more rapidly, the Arab or the Jewish population?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by _Q_

I never said the bolded part. Where are you getting that from? I'm actually not sure what you're getting at there.

So who's immigrant population increased more rapidly, the Arab or the Jewish population?

Well it's pretty likely that there wouldn't be as many Jews owning property under the Ottoman empire. The Ottoman empire gave preferential property rights to muslims, and unfairly taxed Jews. Jews had also been forcibly expelled from the region that is now Israel many many times. I'm not talking about ancient expulsions thousands of years ago either. Recent expulsions included in 1750 when all Jews were removed from Jerusalem. In 1834 the Jewish quarer of Safed was destroyed and progroms were instituted against the Jews of Jerusalem. In 1929 the entire Jewish community of Hebron was decimated.

But maybe you're right, we should just freeze the clock at the moment when the Jews are in the weekest position and the Arabs in the strongest, and then use that moment as the final benchmark to make claims about who belongs where.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by blankall

Well it's pretty likely that there wouldn't be as many Jews owning property under the Ottoman empire. The Ottoman empire gave preferential property rights to muslims, and unfairly taxed Jews. Jews had also been forcibly expelled from the region that is now Israel many many times. I'm not talking about ancient expulsions thousands of years ago either. Recent expulsions included in 1750 when all Jews were removed from Jerusalem. In 1834 the Jewish quarer of Safed was destroyed and progroms were instituted against the Jews of Jerusalem. In 1929 the entire Jewish community of Hebron was decimated.

But maybe you're right, we should just freeze the clock at the moment when the Jews are in the weekest position and the Arabs in the strongest, and then use that moment as the final benchmark to make claims about who belongs where.

So what? The Ottomans were ruthless to anyone who wasn't Turkish if it was convenient for them. 1/4 of the population in present day Lebanon was killed during WWI by the Ottomans. Several Lebanese scholars were hanged in Beirut in 1916. That square is still known as Martyr's Square to this day because of this. What's the point of all this? I fail to see what you're getting at. The fact is there was a sizeable Palestinian population in what is now present day Israel whose rights shouldn't be denied. They're there, they were always there and they have every right to remain there.

[afc wimbledon]

I always hate Israel Palestine arguements because they always seem to founder on attempts by both sides to paint it as a black and white affair, it never has been, the arabs were screwed over when my people, the Brits, gave away their land, the Arab respocne in '48 was equally wrong, the Jewish treatment of arabs through 48 onwards was brutal and wrong, the idea that someone living on land in 1947 or 2047 BC gives them moral authority is also inane.

Israel exists and has the right to continue to exist, it does not need the west bank or Gaza and if they had any sense would trade that land for peace while they are utterly in charge of the region, we, the west, should withdraw all our support for Israel until they do as it is not in our interest to support Israel, they aren't an ally in fact from the wests point of veiw Israel is a pain in the arse that does nothing for us and will always put their own self interest before ours.

Our position should be we will gaurentee your existance with the full power of NATO if you make peace but you are totally on your own otherwise.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by blankall

Well it's pretty likely that there wouldn't be as many Jews owning property under the Ottoman empire. The Ottoman empire gave preferential property rights to muslims, and unfairly taxed Jews. Jews had also been forcibly expelled from the region that is now Israel many many times. I'm not talking about ancient expulsions thousands of years ago either. Recent expulsions included in 1750 when all Jews were removed from Jerusalem. In 1834 the Jewish quarer of Safed was destroyed and progroms were instituted against the Jews of Jerusalem. In 1929 the entire Jewish community of Hebron was decimated.

But maybe you're right, we should just freeze the clock at the moment when the Jews are in the weekest position and the Arabs in the strongest, and then use that moment as the final benchmark to make claims about who belongs where.

I think you're generally making good points, but I can't help but recognize the sheer irony in them.

This is probably why there will be no solution for that region until people really want to sit down and genuinely work to recognize each other's plight.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I always hate Israel Palestine arguements because they always seem to founder on attempts by both sides to paint it as a black and white affair, it never has been, the arabs were screwed over when my people, the Brits, gave away their land, the Arab respocne in '48 was equally wrong, the Jewish treatment of arabs through 48 onwards was brutal and wrong, the idea that someone living on land in 1947 or 2047 BC gives them moral authority is also inane.

Israel exists and has the right to continue to exist, it does not need the west bank or Gaza and if they had any sense would trade that land for peace while they are utterly in charge of the region, we, the west, should withdraw all our support for Israel until they do as it is not in our interest to support Israel, they aren't an ally in fact from the wests point of veiw Israel is a pain in the arse that does nothing for us and will always put their own self interest before ours.
.

You're pretty wrong on this. Canada and Israel's bilateral trade now measures in the billiions. The Canadian army uses Israeli made drones and intelligence gathering equipment, which save the lives of it's own soldiers. The computer you are typing on to rant about Israel probably uses an Israeli desinged processor.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by _Q_

So what? The Ottomans were ruthless to anyone who wasn't Turkish if it was convenient for them. 1/4 of the population in present day Lebanon was killed during WWI by the Ottomans. Several Lebanese scholars were hanged in Beirut in 1916. That square is still known as Martyr's Square to this day because of this. What's the point of all this? I fail to see what you're getting at. The fact is there was a sizeable Palestinian population in what is now present day Israel whose rights shouldn't be denied. They're there, they were always there and they have every right to remain there.

These massacres and expulsions were not commited by the Ottomans. They were commited by the arabs, who had regional control. I was not arguing for denying Palestinians rights. I was putting the current conflict into an historical perspective. A perspective that elucidates why things aren't as simple as Israel needs to withdraw to X border now.

As it stands now Israel is in the process of withdrawing. The've essentially withdrawn from all the West Bank with the exception of the area around Jerusalem and the area immediately adjacent to their international airport (coincidentally around the settlement of Ariel):



The most likely solution is a land swap. Israel retains it's "settlements" around Ariel and East Jerusalem. The Palestinians are given land in the North.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I always hate Israel Palestine arguements because they always seem to founder on attempts by both sides to paint it as a black and white affair, it never has been, the arabs were screwed over when my people, the Brits, gave away their land, the Arab respocne in '48 was equally wrong, the Jewish treatment of arabs through 48 onwards was brutal and wrong, the idea that someone living on land in 1947 or 2047 BC gives them moral authority is also inane.

Israel exists and has the right to continue to exist, it does not need the west bank or Gaza and if they had any sense would trade that land for peace while they are utterly in charge of the region, we, the west, should withdraw all our support for Israel until they do as it is not in our interest to support Israel, they aren't an ally in fact from the wests point of veiw Israel is a pain in the arse that does nothing for us and will always put their own self interest before ours.

Our position should be we will gaurentee your existance with the full power of NATO if you make peace but you are totally on your own otherwise.

so what are the conditions of removing any kind of foreign aid to Palestine on the same kind of scale?

You talk about trading land for peace, but that never seems to work, it seems like whenever negotiations move forward it is followed by rocket fire. It doesn't serve Hammas' interests to negotiate any kind of settlement as the destruction of Israel is in their charter.

Your being very unilateral in your view.

As far as Israel not being an ally, they are effectively our only ally in the region.

I could conversely argue that until the Palestines sign off on Israel's right to exist and work actively to end Hammas' role in the region that we should withdraw any foreign aid that is sent to the region.

It works both ways.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

so what are the conditions of removing any kind of foreign aid to Palestine on the same kind of scale?

You talk about trading land for peace, but that never seems to work, it seems like whenever negotiations move forward it is followed by rocket fire. It doesn't serve Hammas' interests to negotiate any kind of settlement as the destruction of Israel is in their charter.

Your being very unilateral in your view.

As far as Israel not being an ally, they are effectively our only ally in the region.

I could conversely argue that until the Palestines sign off on Israel's right to exist and work actively to end Hammas' role in the region that we should withdraw any foreign aid that is sent to the region.

It works both ways.

Well seeing as Palestine recognized the existence of Israel in 1993, but Israel has failed to reciprocate, I don't think the West would have a leg to stand on in this case. Do the Palestinians have to re-iterate that every decade or so to satisfy Israel?

Also, Hamas isn't Palestine. They only represent a portion of the population who probably realizes the mistake they made by putting them in power. Nobody is talking about negotiating with Hamas, why has Israel refused to negotiate with Fatah?

[CaptainCrunch]

Are you talking about the Oslo accords, after which attacks on Israel intensified?

And only one group, Fatah recognizes Israel, Hammas and the other groups at the time still refuse to recognize Israel.

I would like to see Irael working with Fatah, I would like to see Israel putting a stop to the building of some of the settlements.

But Hammas is an elected body with a mandate from their people and they don't recognize Israel's right to exist.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Well seeing as Palestine recognized the existence of Israel in 1993, but Israel has failed to reciprocate, I don't think the West would have a leg to stand on in this case. Do the Palestinians have to re-iterate that every decade or so to satisfy Israel?

Also, Hamas isn't Palestine. They only represent a portion of the population who probably realizes the mistake they made by putting them in power. Nobody is talking about negotiating with Hamas, why has Israel refused to negotiate with Fatah?

Hamas was voted into power by popular election. They won 76 of 132 seats. That's more than a "portion", that's a majority.

In 1993 both Israel and the PLO exchanged letters and statements staing they recognized the other following the Oslo accords. The tricky part is that neither agreed to recognize borders.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Israel exists and has the right to continue to exist, it does not need the west bank or Gaza

Right, Israel did not need nor want Gaza. That's why they tried to include Gaza in the '78 peace accords with Egypt (who didn't want anything to do with Gaza either) and why Israel pulled up stakes and removed their citizenry from Gaza.

and if they had any sense would trade that land for peace while they are utterly in charge of the region

Tried that twice, at camp David & Wye. Land for peace isn't the sticking point. At Camp David Clinton had a preliminary land for peace deal, but Arafat wouldn't meet him on the other issues and walked away. The other issues are in the way of a deal. Israel will never agree to the actual right of return of Arab refugees and their descendants, it would be demographic suicide, and Abbas can never compromise on the right of return, it would be actual suicide (he would be dead within the week).
Jerusalem is extremely tricky. Israel will never allow another party to control Jewish access to the Western Wall (holiest Jewish site) and the Palestinians insist on controlling the Old City as part of their capitol.

we, the west, should withdraw all our support for Israel until they do as it is not in our interest to support Israel, they aren't an ally in fact from the wests point of veiw Israel is a pain in the arse that does nothing for us

Not in our interest to support an active vibrant free market democracy? We should only be supporting dictatorships and repressive monarchies?

It is in our economic interest to support Israel - It is one of the most innovative countries. You have a cell phone and computer thanks to Israeli ingenuity.

It is in our philosophical interest to support Israel - a country with democracy, rule of law, individual freedoms & rights. Arab-Israelis vote, sit in the parliament, hold ministerial positions, and sit on the supreme court. Homosexual Arabs are clamoring to get into Israel where there is a vibrant gay community, rather than be persecuted in Arab countries. Canadians acctually have something extra in common with Israel - we both have Members of Parliament whose goal is the end of the country (Bloc Quebecois).

It is in our tactical interest to support Israel. Being on the front lines of the war against terror they have developed security protocols used around the world along with medical triage items that are used worldwide.

and will always put their own self interest before ours.

Please remind me which country or government that does not put their own self interest first?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

Right, Israel did not need nor want Gaza. That's why they tried to include Gaza in the '78 peace accords with Egypt (who didn't want anything to do with Gaza either) and why Israel pulled up stakes and removed their citizenry from Gaza.

Tried that twice, at camp David & Wye. Land for peace isn't the sticking point. At Camp David Clinton had a preliminary land for peace deal, but Arafat wouldn't meet him on the other issues and walked away. The other issues are in the way of a deal. Israel will never agree to the actual right of return of Arab refugees and their descendants, it would be demographic suicide, and Abbas can never compromise on the right of return, it would be actual suicide (he would be dead within the week).
Jerusalem is extremely tricky. Israel will never allow another party to control Jewish access to the Western Wall (holiest Jewish site) and the Palestinians insist on controlling the Old City as part of their capitol.




Not in our interest to support an active vibrant free market democracy? We should only be supporting dictatorships and repressive monarchies?

It is in our economic interest to support Israel - It is one of the most innovative countries. You have a cell phone and computer thanks to Israeli ingenuity.

It is in our philosophical interest to support Israel - a country with democracy, rule of law, individual freedoms & rights. Arab-Israelis vote, sit in the parliament, hold ministerial positions, and sit on the supreme court. Homosexual Arabs are clamoring to get into Israel where there is a vibrant gay community, rather than be persecuted in Arab countries. Canadians acctually have something extra in common with Israel - we both have Members of Parliament whose goal is the end of the country (Bloc Quebecois).

It is in our tactical interest to support Israel. Being on the front lines of the war against terror they have developed security protocols used around the world along with medical triage items that are used worldwide.

Please remind me which country or government that does not put their own self interest first?

We would trade with Israel (as does China) regardless of whether we supported them in other areas, and that includes security information so our support of Israel is irrelevant to these areas.

Regardless of how Israel runs its own country our support of them negatively effects our relationship with every other muslim country, in fact the only positive to supporting Israel is it curries favour with the US, if it were not for that there would be no upside what so ever.
We get nothing out of the support we couldn't and wouldn't get anyway through normal trading.

People again talk of Israel being 'the only democracy in the middle east' which is true but irrelavant, if they were positively influencing their neighbours, helping to spread democracy to the region it would be a fair point but the reality is Israel is a destablising force in the region, we support their democracy at the cost of being in a position to help democracy in muslim lands.
All of this would be excusable if Israel was morally in the right, trying to make peace and be reasonable in the area, as they were pretty much pre '67, but the reality is since 82 Israel has been as much to blame as the PLO or Hammas, they have been intransigent and prefer to use their overwhelming force to dominate the region, which is fine for them but I see no reason to support them.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Regardless of how Israel runs its own country our support of them negatively effects our relationship with every other muslim country...

Canada's support of Israel certainly doesn't help the relationship with every other muslim country but does it matter. The west has a somewhat positive relationship with some of the more stable nations in the region (Saudi, Jordan, Kuwait, etc.) The nations that have a very strained relationship with the west would likely have a strained relationship with the west regardless.

People again talk of Israel being 'the only democracy in the middle east' which is true but irrelavant, if they were positively influencing their neighbours, helping to spread democracy to the region it would be a fair point but the reality is Israel is a destablising force in the region, we support their democracy at the cost of being in a position to help democracy in muslim lands.

It's relevant for a number of reasons but the most evident reason is that democracy in Israel is the primary reason that many dictators in the area continue to oppose Israels existence and are not interested in any sort of peace agreement (including Hamas).

All of this would be excusable if Israel was morally in the right, trying to make peace and be reasonable in the area, as they were pretty much pre '67, but the reality is since 82 Israel has been as much to blame as the PLO or Hammas, they have been intransigent and prefer to use their overwhelming force to dominate the region, which is fine for them but I see no reason to support them.

I don't understand what you mean by "dominate the region". What region? Israel? Because they certainly don't dominate anything east of the West Bank.

Israel has been negligent in their use of settlements. Occasionally, they have been negligent in their use of force (Lebanon). But for the most part Israels actions have been with one goal in mind: self-preservation.

Frankly, I could care less who does or doesn't support Israel. It does bother me that they are painted as ruthless baby-killers. If Canada, or just about any other Western Democracy faced a similar situation to Israel it's likely that our populace and leaders wouldn't show an ounce of the restraint that Israel has shown over the last 60 years.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

We would trade with Israel (as does China) regardless of whether we supported them in other areas, and that includes security information so our support of Israel is irrelevant to these areas.

Regardless of how Israel runs its own country our support of them negatively effects our relationship with every other muslim country, in fact the only positive to supporting Israel is it curries favour with the US, if it were not for that there would be no upside what so ever.
We get nothing out of the support we couldn't and wouldn't get anyway through normal trading.

People again talk of Israel being 'the only democracy in the middle east' which is true but irrelavant, if they were positively influencing their neighbours, helping to spread democracy to the region it would be a fair point but the reality is Israel is a destablising force in the region, we support their democracy at the cost of being in a position to help democracy in muslim lands.
All of this would be excusable if Israel was morally in the right, trying to make peace and be reasonable in the area, as they were pretty much pre '67, but the reality is since 82 Israel has been as much to blame as the PLO or Hammas, they have been intransigent and prefer to use their overwhelming force to dominate the region, which is fine for them but I see no reason to support them.

Quick question. How would condeming Israel and supporting dictatorships actually help the cause of spreading democracy in the middle east? Are you saying that if Canada didn't support Israel, they could then go and ask the dictators to please stop being dictators and become democracies, and they would do it?

I'm also curious how you come to the conclusion that Israel destabilizes the region? Israel is somehow responsible for the dictators and theocracies now? The only possible example of destabilization is Lebanon. If Israel didn't exist, Syria would simply have taken it over. Syria's government is led by the Ba'ath party, whose name translates into return of the great arab empire. They have stated several times their goal is to reform greater Syria. We all know what a stable force Syria is. As bad as things are in Lebanon, they'd be worse in Syrian hands.

And no, Israel would not share their intelligence and military technology with us if we stopped supporting them.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by blankall

Quick question. How would condeming Israel and supporting dictatorships actually help the cause of spreading democracy in the middle east? Are you saying that if Canada didn't support Israel, they could then go and ask the dictators to please stop being dictators and become democracies, and they would do it?

I'm also curious how you come to the conclusion that Israel destabilizes the region? Israel is somehow responsible for the dictators and theocracies now? The only possible example of destabilization is Lebanon. If Israel didn't exist, Syria would simply have taken it over. Syria's government is led by the Ba'ath party, whose name translates into return of the great arab empire. They have stated several times their goal is to reform greater Syria. We all know what a stable force Syria is. As bad as things are in Lebanon, they'd be worse in Syrian hands.

And no, Israel would not share their intelligence and military technology with us if we stopped supporting them.

I think people get carried away a little bit with how awesome a democracy is and how horrible a dictatorship is. Remember, the Palestinians democratically elected Hamas, yet we can all agree that Fatah (essentially a dictatorship) is much better off for both the Palestinians and Israelis. Jordan for example is fairly liberal (for the region anyways), yet is a monarchy with very limited powers to elected officials. Yet Jordan is the most stable nation in the region, even more so than Israel, and on all accounts a decent place to live. Lebanon on the other hand is a democracy, with albeit some pretty shady parties allowed to run for election (read Hezbollah), but they do have fair and open elections where any party can be criticized just as they are here in the West. Yet Lebanon might be the most unstable in the region, although I would also say it's a fairly decent place to live. Outside of the Middle East, I hate to bring up the Nazis in a thread that involves Israel, but Hitler was elected democratically.

So in the end, supporting a democracy shouldn't be the end game. Supporting stability should be a more important priority.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by _Q_

I think people get carried away a little bit with how awesome a democracy is and how horrible a dictatorship is. Remember, the Palestinians democratically elected Hamas, yet we can all agree that Fatah (essentially a dictatorship) is much better off for both the Palestinians and Israelis. Jordan for example is fairly liberal (for the region anyways), yet is a monarchy with very limited powers to elected officials. Yet Jordan is the most stable nation in the region, even more so than Israel, and on all accounts a decent place to live. Lebanon on the other hand is a democracy, with albeit some pretty shady parties allowed to run for election (read Hezbollah), but they do have fair and open elections where any party can be criticized just as they are here in the West. Yet Lebanon might be the most unstable in the region, although I would also say it's a fairly decent place to live. Outside of the Middle East, I hate to bring up the Nazis in a thread that involves Israel, but Hitler was elected democratically.

So in the end, supporting a democracy shouldn't be the end game. Supporting stability should be a more important priority.

Hamas is in no way a democratic government. Being elected does not make you democratic. In order to be democratic you have to respect basic free rights, such as freedom of religion, speech, assembly, etc...

Electing a dictatorship is merely mob rule, which could not be further from democractic rule.

Lebanon has it's own problems, which are related to a massive cultural clash and have nothing to do with the style of government in place.

Jordan has a constitutional monarchy. It ranks very high, relative to its peers, in terms of democratic indicators such as freedom of speech, religion, press, etc.. Although their democracy is flawed, as the king holds way too much power, the citizens of Jordan are relatively free. Jordan ranks 1st among all arab nations in terms of basic human rights and democratic reforms:

http://www.voanews.com/content/repor...57/160141.html

There was nothing democratic about the nazis. Once again winning an election does not make you democratic. The majority of the citizens choosing to estinguish democracy and target minorities is not democractic. Basically, having an election is a necessary part of a democracy, but does not in itself make you a democracy unless basic human rights are respected.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by blankall

Hamas is in no way a democratic government. Being elected does not make you democratic. In order to be democratic you have to respect basic free rights, such as freedom of religion, speech, assembly, etc...

Electing a dictatorship is merely mob rule, which could not be further from democractic rule.

Lebanon has it's own problems, which are related to a massive cultural clash and have nothing to do with the style of government in place.

Jordan has a constitutional monarchy. It ranks very high, relative to its peers, in terms of democratic indicators such as freedom of speech, religion, press, etc.. Although their democracy is flawed, as the king holds way too much power, the citizens of Jordan are relatively free. Jordan ranks 1st among all arab nations in terms of basic human rights and democratic reforms:

http://www.voanews.com/content/repor...57/160141.html

There was nothing democratic about the nazis. Once again winning an election does not make you democratic. The majority of the citizens choosing to estinguish democracy and target minorities is not democractic. Basically, having an election is a necessary part of a democracy, but does not in itself make you a democracy unless basic human rights are respected.

Well in that case Israel isn't much of a democracy since they are one of the worst offenders of human rights in the world. Israeli news article:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...261912,00.html

Also, they rank extremely poorly on the Human Rights Index
http://escolapau.uab.cat/img/program.../2011INDHi.pdf

Yes Lebanon has a massive cultural clash, but they can probably be pretty high in your definition of what a democracy is if they declared tomorrow that they are a "Democratic Christian State" and decided to "occupy" all Muslim areas. Scratch that, it wouldn't be occupation, Muslim areas would just be "Disputed Areas" as our friend Mr. Ayalon would say.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Well in that case Israel isn't much of a democracy since they are one of the worst offenders of human rights in the world. Israeli news article:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...261912,00.html

Also, they rank extremely poorly on the Human Rights Index
http://escolapau.uab.cat/img/program.../2011INDHi.pdf

Yes Lebanon has a massive cultural clash, but they can probably be pretty high in your definition of what a democracy is if they declared tomorrow that they are a "Democratic Christian State" and decided to "occupy" all Muslim areas. Scratch that, it wouldn't be occupation, Muslim areas would just be "Disputed Areas" as our friend Mr. Ayalon would say.

There are plenty of biased articles against Israel. If you look at how Israel treats its own citizens, including the Arab Isralis it ranks very high. If you want to include how Israel treats the other side in an armed conflict, and objectively look at the facts, you'll also find it ranks very high.