We conquer the capital

26 thoughts on “We conquer the capital”

1. Israel, of course, defines itself as the “state of the Jewish people (everywhere)”, and notably not as the “state of its citizens”.
   Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state, and at least some of its political parties (from Avoda on left) see “state of its citizens” as implicit in the latter. Keep in mind, also, that New Zealand wasn’t founded as a refuge. There are quite a few ways to define “Jewish state,” many of which are conceived in terms of homeland and sanctuary rather than exclusivity.
   At any rate, the Maori-Palestinian comparison, including the issue of state definition, came up for discussion on my site about two years ago.

2. You may also want to consider New Caledonia, Australia and Canada – particularly New Caledonia – as points of comparison. Maybe Fiji as well, although there are important points of difference (most significantly the fact that the indigenous population is politically dominant).
   Another possible issue for discussion is the degree to which violent conflicts have to be resolved before measures like the Waitangi Tribunal can be implemented. In general, settler states don’t make amends to indigenous people until the latter have been thoroughly beaten down.

4. The world is much less familiar with the claims of New Zealands indigenous people than those of the Palestinians, and it has everything to do with the Palestinians having rich cousins to bankroll them through decades of international terrorism. Imagine the Maori bloodying up the Munich olympics…
   Helena’s fixation comes through again, even the Maori somehow awaken her phobias. I am sure when she takes the Rocharch test she sees the map of the West Bank in every page.
   David

5. Rorschach test: West Bank outline = a beautiful butterfly wing, don’t you think?

6. In general, settler states don’t make amends to indigenous people until the latter have been thoroughly beaten down.
   … and sometimes, not then either I think, Jonathan.
   There’s a range of interesting examples to look at. Of course, “amends” come in a number of forms, including restitution of stolen lands and resources; reparations; public apologies; and other intentional projects on the cultural front aimed at preserving indigenous cultural forms and practices.
   In many cases the indigenous culture has been extinguished so completely that it cannot be revived in any coherent form. Under those circumstances many of the indigenes may not even have been able to leave many blood-lines at all (= physical near-extinction). Alternatively, there may be descendants, but so miscegenated that cultural revival is hard to conceive of, organize, or implement. Think: any one of scores of native-American peoples; Khoisan, many Australasian Aboriginal peoples, etc etc.
   At the other end of the spectrum are the indigenous peoples who, though subjected to settler colonialism and determined efforts at political and cultural obliteration, manage to resist them and throw the settlers out: Algeria, Malaysia, a large number of other African and Asian cases.
   In between, you have the many varieties of political accomodation between settler societies and indigenous society– as in South Africa, most of Latin America, and New Zealand. Could we put Canada into this box, too?
   Where does China’s role in Tibet (and elsewhere in its West) fit into this spectrum? I have been struck by how much more complex the relationship between Han Chinese culture and Tibetan culture seems once you go to China, than if you merely read about the issue from outside.
   It’s a conceit of western hyper-liberals that “culture” doesn’t matter any more in the era of homo economicus. Au contraire. (Homo economicus is, anyway, himself very much the construction of a certain culture.)
   And then, there is the whole phenomenon of settler societies engaging in appropriation/expropriation of aspects of the culture of indigenes– of which “Israeli breakfast” is only one of myriad examples around the world…

7. David:
   Helena’s fixation comes through again, even the Maori somehow awaken her phobias. I am sure when she takes the Rocharch test she sees the map of the West Bank in every page.
   There are actually quite a few parallels that can be drawn between the Maori and the Arab citizens of Israel: (1) both live in settler states; (2) both have engaged in shooting wars over land; and (3) land and cultural rights remain a contentious political issue among both peoples. Of course there are also plenty of disanalogies – NZ has much more defensible borders, the Maori aren’t connected to any larger outside nationalism and Israel has never tried to acculturate the Arabs like New Zealand did to the Maori – but the comparison can be made and discussed on those terms. The Maori I’ve met are certainly aware of the parallels between the two situations.
   Helena:
   In many cases the indigenous culture has been extinguished so completely that it cannot be revived in any coherent form […] At the other end of the spectrum are the indigenous peoples who, though subjected to settler colonialism and determined efforts at political and cultural obliteration, manage to resist them and throw the settlers out
   With the most important determining factor, I think, being population balance. Too few settlers (as in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, Algeria and Angola) and the settler society has insufficient staying power, resulting in the colonists being thrown out. Too many settlers (as in the US, Australia and Argentina) and the indigenous population gets wiped out or ground under. It’s the countries in the middle where settler societies take root but the natives retain their own roots, requiring them to reach some kind of mutual modus vivendi. At a guess, the societies that fit in this category are the ones that are between 15 and 85 percent indigenous – i.e., the range bracketed by New Zealand at one end and Namibia at the other.
   The Latin American countries that have become mestizo societies probably fit in here as well, although curiously enough those where the indigenous population is largest and most distinct (e.g., Bolivia) are often the most retrograde in interethnic relations. So does Canada, given that the First Nations form more than 15 percent of the population in certain regions albeit not in the nation as a whole. It may even be possible to fit in Hawaii, where the indigenous and part-indigenous population rises above 15 percent and where there’s been something of an officially sponsored renascence of native culture.
   Also, in addition to the 15 and 85 percent tipping points, there’s a third tipping point within that range. This is of course 50 percent, at which point a settler society must either co-opt the indigenous people, institute an apartheid system or cease to exist as such. That’s one of the many reasons why New Caledonia is worth watching, to see if the Noumea Accords will satisfy indigenous aspirations sufficiently to allow existing political and cultural structures to remain in place. Thus far it seems to be working, if the results of the last election are any guide, but it may or may not do so over the long term, particularly if France ever gets another overseas minister as ham-handed as the unlamented Brigitte Girardin. Latvia is another country worth watching in this respect, given the near demographic parity between Latvians and post-WW2 Russian colonists. Maybe also Kazakhstan, although the settler minority there is declining rather than increasing.
   BTW, did you mean Zimbabwe/Rhodesia instead of Malaysia? I’d say that Malaysia is a settler state to some extent, if imported Indian laborers are counted as “settlers,” but it has become a multiethnic society rather than throwing the settlers out. It’s that 15 percent tipping point again.
   Where does China’s role in Tibet (and elsewhere in its West) fit into this spectrum?
   I’ve never been there and I haven’t done enough reading to be certain. My in-laws were in Lhasa last year and they say that there are whole districts where it’s impossible to tell that you’re not in Beijing, but I’ll have to become more familiar with the situation.
   And then, there is the whole phenomenon of settler societies engaging in appropriation/expropriation of aspects of the culture of indigenes
   When two cultures live together for any length of time, there’s bound to be some borrowing and mutual influence. Settler societies often adopt aspects of indigenous culture – like the Maori place-names you mentioned in NZ, or Native American place-names in the US and Canada – but they also engage in a good deal of reinvention and adaptation. Arabs gave us falafel, and Israelis gave us more varieties of falafel to choose from. I’m not sure I really agree with the term “expropriation” as applied to culture, unless the cultural group from which a practice is adopted is wiped out or assimilated.

8. Good points, Jonathan. Re “50%” being an important tipping point, though, I don’t think it’s exactly there, because of the vastly superior means of physical and financial power that are usually in the hands of the settlers. (Which is how they got to be where they are.)
   These components of power help them to control and play divide and rule among the indigenes. So though it may not be a formal apartheid system, and the indigenes in a place like Guatemala might formally at least have a vote, still, the “whiter”, more Spanish-derived people in the cities can continue to monopolize the effective levers of power against them and can perpetuate the resource-expropriation process.
   On whether “cultures”, or rather, some of their manifestations, can be expropriated, you’re right that when the indigenes (or anyone else) are wiped out or assimilated, aspects of their culture may become expropriated by others. But they can also perhaps become expropriated when they are used in ways the indigenes (or others) find objectionable whether this is due to their being inappropriately commercialized, or to taboos being broken, or whatever?
   In general, all cultures are constantly being reinvented and renegotiated by their practicioners, and very often in response to exogenous influences. I try not to be a cultural essentialist. But I think we need to be very aware of the power relations that are at stake when cultural practices are appropriated from other cultures to make sure this is not a power-abusing or otherwise disempowering expropriation…

9. Re “50%” being an important tipping point, though, I don’t think it’s exactly there, because of the vastly superior means of physical and financial power that are usually in the hands of the settlers.
   Point, although there’s some variation in the power differential depending on settlement patterns. In classic settler states – let’s call them Type A settler societies – the settlers are citizens of the government that sponsors the settlement, which gives them considerable control over the terms of settlement and relations with the natives. This is even true of penal colonies; convict settlers may not be treated well during their term of service, but the government will generally side with them in disputes with the natives and encourage them to take land after they are free. Thus, the settlers in Type A states tend to have disproportionate political and economic power.
   On the other hand, there are Type B settler societies, in which the “settlers” aren’t citizens of the sponsoring government and are often brought in for labor purposes. In these countries, the settlers often receive less advantageous treatment from colonial authorities as against the indigenous population. This power relationship also carries over after independence; for example, indigenous Fijians had no trouble retaining political control even when they were a minority, and can certainly do so now that they have passed the 50 percent mark. (Note that the yishuv in Mandatory Palestine was in many ways Type B, although unlike most Type B settler populations, it developed its own military strength.)
   Some countries combine the features of Types A and B – New Caledonia, for instance, is divided between the Kanaks, the descendants of French settlers, and imported Asian and Polynesian laborers. The laborer minorities tend to support the French, who have a greater ability to dispense patronage; it also doesn’t help that the Kanaks regard the minorities as settlers and are often hostile to their political and land rights. (I believe there’s a similar dynamic in NZ vis-a-vis Maori and Pacific Island immigrants; quite a few of the NZ First MPs are Maori, and the party’s anti-immigration stance may have something to do with that.) New Caledonia is probably a point in favor of your argument that 50 percent isn’t enough, at least in a state that is mostly Type A; given the pro-French elements’ greater ability to co-opt the Kanaks and minorities, it will take at least a 60 percent Kanak majority to shift political control.
   It might also be possible to speak of Type C settler states, in which the primary conflict is between imported settler groups rather than settler-indigenous. Mauritius, for instance, has no indigenous population but has conflicts between French creoles, Indians and descendants of slaves. Likewise, ethnic conflict in Guyana and Trinidad tends to be black versus Asian, with the indigenous groups wiped out or marginalized.
   Mestizo societies may be a Type D; the degree of itnermarriage is certainly relevant to whether settler-indigenous boundaries remain rigid, become blurred or disappear into a common identity. And then there’s Hawaii, which is in a class by itself. Haoles at the top, imported Asian and Portuguese laborers in the majority, a politically significant indigenous population and a great deal of intermarriage, especially at the elite level, between native and settler populations. Not even New Caledonia is such a balagan.
   But they can also perhaps become expropriated when they are used in ways the indigenes (or others) find objectionable whether this is due to their being inappropriately commercialized, or to taboos being broken, or whatever?
   Certainly; I’d say that the term “expropriation” can fairly be applied, for instance, if indigenous sacred places or rituals are commercialized by non-indigenous people. At the same time, though, I don’t think the term can be applied to mere adoption of indigenous cultural elements as long as those elements are retained by the indigenous people. The use of Hawaiian words in the local dialect of English, for instance, doesn’t deprive the native Hawaiians of their language. And I’m particularly wary of terms like “expropriation” in cases where borrowings are adapted or added to by the borrowers – viz. the Israeli breakfast, which is at least as much Mizrahi as Arab in origin.

10. From a purely non-scientific, non-academic point of view, Israeli expropriation of items of Palestinian culture (in some cases complete with blatant mispronunciation) is more than a little bit offensive. To see hummus (aka hum us, or hooo mooos), falafel (aka fulawful), and other traditional Arab/Palestinian foods touted as “Israeli cuisine” is like having salt rubbed into the wound. But by far the most offensive example I have seen was a number of years ago at the Israel booth at a Middle Eastern “Culture Fair” where traditional Palestinian cross stitch embroidery was being displayed – and sold – as “Israeli embroidery”. Outraged does not begin to describe my reaction, and I was not particularly quiet about it either, much to the consternation of the American Jews who were manning the booth (I am sure each of them had at some point spent the obligatory summer working at a kibutz, wearig khakhi shorts, and “discovering how truly fabulous” Israel really was).

11. Shirin, I’ve also got a falafel anecdote. About 15 years ago when I was living on West 103rd Street in Manhattan, I used to frequent a falafel place at 104th and Broadway. I got friendly with the owner, who was a Palestinian from Jerusalem, and one day he was explaining to me how falafel was a traditional Palestinian food. At that point, one of the customers sitting at the counter responded that falafel wasn’t from Palestine, it was from Egypt. An argument followed that was as intense as any I’ve seen between Palestinians and Israelis. No doubt Palestinian claims of cultural “expropriation” would ring pretty hollow to that Egyptian gentleman, given his assertion that the Palestinians stole falafel from his culture.
    This happens quite often with food, which crosses cultural lines more easily than just about anything else. Quite a few traditional Middle Eastern foods are claimed by Palestinians, Egyptians, Lebanese, Syrians and even Turks or Iranians; for instance, I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard the the “Arab coffee versus Turkish coffee” argument. The fact is, though, that no matter who originally invented these foods, they have become part of all the regional cultures, because the people of those cultures eat the foods at home and have developed new ways of making them. Likewise with Israel; falafel isn’t of Israeli origin, but at this point it has become part of Israeli culture, and Israelis have developed a few new twists on the traditional food. Cultural artifacts like food can’t be stolen, only adopted – after all, if cultures had to disclaim everything they didn’t originally invent, then a great deal of Arab culture would be gone too, wouldn’t it?
    This is what I had to say when the subject came up on my site three years ago:
    

    It seems that some pro-Palestinian students at Concordia University (where else?) are accusing the campus Hillel organization of “cultural theft” for serving falafel at its orientation week table. I wonder what they have to say, then, about this web site referring to Maimonides as “Ibn Maymun, the great Arab philosopher” without any acknowledgment that he was Jewish.

    
    

    I’m not sure where this nonsense started, but the fact is that there’s no such thing as “cultural theft.” Theft occurs when someone permanently deprives another of property. If one culture borrows something – for instance, a food item – from another, then the culture it borrows from has not been deprived of anything. Culture is one of those marvelous things that can be shared, lent and given away without any loss at all.

    
    

    Besides, it’s entirely possible for something, or someone, to belong to more than one culture. Maimonides, for instance, was an Arab philosopher – he spent most of his working life in Egypt, his influences included the great Arab scholar Averro

12. Yup. That’s why I tried to draw a distinctioon between AP-propriation and EX-propriation of cultural practices/artefacts.
    However, in my experience there are a lot of circumstances in which the power relations between the two groups concerned are very unequal. In those circumstances, members of the weaker group have understandable fears about the risks of cultural expropriation– which can also have huge economic consequences– while members of the stronger group are pften oblivious to the grave offense that their acts of ap/ex-propriation can cause.
    In US Quaker circles (which are predominantly “white”) we’ve had at least instances of this. In one, African-American Quakers objected to white Quakers staging an activity called the “Underground Railroad game”, since as the A-A Quakers pointed out the original circumstances in which the U.R. operated were far from playful. In another, Native Americans objected to white Quakers organizing a “sweat lodge”, which the Native Americans saw as an important spiritual practice in their tradition, surrounded by many rules and taboos of its own.
    In general, it’s really good to discuss these issues. Well-meaning whitefolk (or other powerholders in society) are often quite unaware of the offense they (we) can cause.
    Jonathan, I think your typology of settler societies is quite powerful. Have you written more about it somewhere? You should! It probably needs a bit more refining– French and English relations in Canada (with each other as well as vis-a-vis the First Nations) provide another possible Type, since the Quebecois certainly weren’t brought in under British auspices…
    Still, you’re off to a terrific start w/ the typology, which is based on your great knowledge of all these other little-studied societies.
    Btw, about NZ First. I think they have one MP and he (or she?) is indeed a Maori. Described by my friends in NZ as a strong political maverick. Nevertheless the sensitivity you refer to– of disadvantaged people already in a society being wary of too much immigration of newcomers– is certainly a near-universal and quite understandable phenomenon.

13. I think your typology of settler societies is quite powerful. Have you written more about it somewhere? You should!
    Thanks. I haven’t written it up yet, although I’m planning to do so after I’ve developed it a bit more. As you may be aware, I have an interest in the politics of settler states; given that I live in one and have close emotional and family ties to two others, I have a long-standing interest in how settler societies resolve their issues.
    It probably needs a bit more refining– French and English relations in Canada (with each other as well as vis-a-vis the First Nations) provide another possible Type, since the Quebecois certainly weren’t brought in under British auspices…
    I suppose French Canada was a Type A settler society that was conquered by another one, much like New Netherland. The original settlers were Frenchmen who arrived under French auspices, and thus fit my Type A paradigm. Whether the subsequent conquest renders it a different type is something I’ll have to think about.
    Btw, about NZ First. I think they have one MP and he (or she?) is indeed a Maori.
    NZ First has 13 seats in the current Parliament. Of those, six are Maori, representing almost a third of the presently sitting Maori MPs.
    BTW, there are a few other bad links in my comment above. This is my December 2002 post about the falafel controversy, and this is Barry Meislin’s digression.

14. Oops on NZ First. Sorry ’bout that. Good link you provided, Jonathan. Thanks!
    Also, re the typology. Canada and ZA both fall into the category of settler societies where there has been long-running competition between European-origin settler groups of two distinct (and in this context competitive) national origins. In general, the architects of colonial ventures tend to adopt a broad view of whom they want to bring in under their control– whether as settlers, as indentured workers, enslaved workers, or whatever– provided these newcomers have little or no cultural infinity with the indigenes. ..
    In NZ, in the early 20th century, there was a widespread view among the Pakeha that the Maoris were a “dying race”, and that the “best” the whitefolks could do for them was to “smooth their pillow as they lay a-dying”.
    Thank God that fatalistic and demeaning view has, by and large, been changed. Also, even more importantly, that a policy of pro-active preservation and strengthening of the Maori culture has been pursued by the NZ governments since 1987.

15. Also, re the typology. Canada and ZA both fall into the category of settler societies where there has been long-running competition between European-origin settler groups of two distinct (and in this context competitive) national origins.
    True, and this didn’t happen in New Netherland/New York. I suppose that there were too many French Canadians and Afrikaners, and that they were too territorially concentrated, to be buried under immigration like the Dutch were in NY. Hmmmm… Louisiana as another example of long-term conflict between two settler groups following a conquest? Or, for that matter, the part of the southwestern United States that was taken at Guadalupe Hidalgo?
    I’m tempted to classify these societies as Type C, but there are some differences in dynamics. When more than one settler group coexists in a society, there are two possible ways they can react to each other – they can treat each other as straightforward minority and majority, or the first to arrive can claim to be “more indigenous than anyone else.” Most of the Type C societies – Mauritius, for instance – take the first option, with no group claiming to be indigenous. In societies like Canada, ZA, Louisiana and the Southwest, though, the conquered group usually does claim some kind of indigenous status, and makes many of the same claims to cultural rights that indigenous groups do elsewhere. Maybe it’s the experience of conquest that makes the difference; regardless, the interrelationships are different enough that I’ll call them Type E.
    The more I think about it, BTW, the more I’m convinced that the US is at least two distinct settler societies – one created by the original British-sponsored settlement of the eastern seaboard, and the other created by the American-sponsored settlement of the west. The former is a pretty classic Type A; the latter has many Type E elements, especially along the belt running from Louisiana to California.
    This definitely bears more thought, especially the hard-to-classify cases like Hawaii, Malaysia and Israel.
    In NZ, in the early 20th century, there was a widespread view among the Pakeha that the Maoris were a “dying race”, and that the “best” the whitefolks could do for them was to “smooth their pillow as they lay a-dying”.
    The same attitude existed in Australia and Hawaii. I can’t help thinking that it was exacerbated by the fact that, in many cases, indigenous people did die back due to their susceptibility to Eurasian diseases. Fortunately, as you say, this attitude has now been replaced by one that values the living culture.

16. I don’t mean to intrude but I had some thoughts. (I guess I do mean to intrude).
    In Canada the original French settlers came for the fur trade. They were dependent on the natives, being in business with them. This dependence also extended to security. Immigration to French North America was never as widespread as in the English colonies so maintaining good relations with their native allies proved useful to the French. The natives represented a force multiplier for the defence of new France.
    Where they didn’t depend on the natives, such as in Newfoundland, conflict ensued. Both French and English settlers drove the Beothuk to extinction in Newfoundland.
    Canadian patterns of immigration were also slow. Arrived later. In the west, generally, there were too few settlers to impose themselves on the natives. Thus Canadian settlement is characterized by treaties. Which is why Canadian history is so boring. Canada also created the RCMP rather than garrisoning the west. The government had little choice but to take the policing route. It was as much a matter of money as culture or belief one policy was superior to another.
    There was conflict with the Metis however. (Descendants of French and Scottish fur traders).
    In present day Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the Metis under Louis Riel fought two brief wars against the new Canadian government. This was more of a French/English, Catholic/Protestant conflict than a strictly native versus non-native conflict. The Metis saw themselves as the rightful owners of the land. The government in Ottawa saw them as half-breed Frenchmen who would form another majority French province, which the conservative government of the day didn’t want.
    They didn’t want to re-create the French English conflict in the West as in the East.
    In the end the Metis got protection for both their language and religion. To this day, the Metis are active in fighting for indigenieous rights; and Metis steet gangs plague Winnipeg.
    French Canadians, Acadians and the Metis, along with natives, all consider themselves somewhat indigenious. English Canada has nothing like you find in New Zealand.
    It should also be mentioned that until Quebec’s Quiet Revolution in the 1960s, borgeouise elements within Quebec society did see the British influence as benificial. They recognized the parlimentary tradition had shaped the Quebecois as much as their language had. Representative government had been denied them under Fench colonialism.
    Only until the post-1960s rise of Quebec nationalism did the conquest come to be understood as a disaster.
    If anything, the Canadian experience when compared to other settler countries, only proves how important context is.
    That said, I don’t think the experience of Canada’s natives has been any more positive than in its closest neighbour the US. Native poverty levels might even be higher in Canada, though no Canadian would admit that. However, native groups do play a constitutional role in Canada.
    Different settler cultures (French, English and Spanish) also seemed to bring vastly different attitudes toward marriage with aboriginals.

17. I should have mentioned I hope that the above will help refine your schemata. I think the Metis and other Francaphones outside Quebec (ie the Acadians) would be especially useful.

18. “Likewise, the fact that Israelis eat falafel doesn’t mean that they “stole” it from the Palestinians – instead, all that happened was that falafel became part of both Israeli and Palestinian culture”
    The point take us back to one major question which is why a JEWISH STATE?
    The Jew are Arabs race, they live in the same land for thousands of years, then the religions started Judaism Christianity and finally Islam all the people are from this land Jew Christian and Muslims are same race. The point is why this Jew state and who behind this evil?
    The history of all mankind in ME were lived in harmony, the Jew never experiences problems or hatred and suffering like what happened in Europe specially in 1770 and over in Italy in Spain, in France which enforced them to come to Sultan of the Othman Empire who granted them refuges status on the Muslims land and they live togather.
    

19. Salah,
    Who the heck are you to question other states? Roll up you own freaking sleaves and make your own country’s life more prosperous and successful instead of questioning and undermining your neighbor’s.
    Israel was sanctioned by the same power that made Iraq out of the blue, Britain. The Balfour declaration is contemporary to the arbitrary grant to Abdullah and Feisal of the Amman and Baghdad thrones. Why don’t we ask why Iraq?
    Look at a freaking map. Does the Muslim Ummah lack lands? Live and let live. Why can’t you accept a non-moslem state in your neighborhood? Is it the usual humiliation excuse behind your irrational emotional explosions?
    David

20. “Who the heck are you to question other states? Roll up you own freaking sleaves”
    These wards more applied to you David…
    There is not state in this world along the history 5000 years built on religion OK.

21. “Israel was sanctioned by the same power that made Iraq out of the blue, Britain. The Balfour declaration…”
    The Balfour declaration clearly does not address the issue of a Jewish state – something that disappointed the Zionists quite a lot. It also very clearly provides for the preservation of the rights of the non-Jewish population, despite the fact that the Zionists tried to keep that provision out of it.
    “Why can’t you accept a non-moslem state in your neighborhood?”
    Yet another tiresome repitition of yet another tiresome myth. The objection is not to the existence of a non-moslem (sic) state. The objection is to the forced imposition of a European settler state that has involved massive displacement and denial of rights of the native Muslim, Christian and other non-Jewish population.

22. “Israel was sanctioned by the same power that made Iraq out of the blue, Britain. The Balfour declaration is contemporary to the arbitrary grant to Abdullah and Feisal of the Amman and Baghdad thrones. Why don’t we ask why Iraq?”
    Whose give the right to Britain to gift Palestine to you David?
    There were Muslims and Jew and Christian lived years on that land, how it come yours and you’re follower by massacre Palestinians like KAHANA Militia and others.
    Who terrorist the Palestinians from there land?
    Why you don’t speak the truth that Balfour lied to Al-Sharif Hessian when he promised to be the king of the Kingdome of all the Jazerah include Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine and in same time promised to gift Palestine to you.
    Who killed Al-Sheriff Hussein David in Jerusalem? And Why?
    Speak the facts don’t claming there are more land for Arabs than Israel, all this rubbish its there land not yours, you can not denied there are Christian and Jew and Muslims on the Arab land you manipulating and diverting the facts by not telling the truth, the Muslims and Islam never and ever denying other religions and the fact all Jews and Christian lived together David.
    There are no problems between the Muslims and Islam with other religions the fact is all Muslims respected all Holly Books and all Prophets of major’s religions. Jews suffer and humiliated there in Europe and this is a fact you can not denied this is a history go and do your homework, be better prepared to ell us the facts with reality when you comment.
    I have no problem whatsoever with other religions.
    I made it clear in many times my respect to all mankinds whatever believes.

23. Salah,
    Who the heck are you to question other states?
    I am Babylonian, I born in Babylon in mid of last century, I had 5000 years of history telling me, educated me with the math, astronomy.
    My old generations in Babylonian built the Hanging Gardens till now no one with this advance technology knows how they did it

24. Israel was sanctioned by the same power that made Iraq out of the blue, Britain
    The United Nations’ partition proposal of November 29, 1947 had “an equal number of supporters and detractors” (the vote was thirty-three for, thirteen against, and ten abstentions); that the “Jewish forces [were] better equipped” than the invading Arab armies in May, 1948 (they were not, by any stretch of the imagination); that the first truce was “signed” on June 10, 1948 (it was never “signed,” and it began on June 11) ….
    http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/4479.html
    

25. i come from best search engine http://www.google.com

26. This kind of thing is imitated badly and often aerial photo by others, but Carson’s phraseology within poems geopolitical remains her own: “Rotate the husband and expose a geographic information systems hidden side,” she urges early on

Comments are closed.