Interesting Article

[Virgil]

EDITORIAL
Who Needs a Jewish State?

October 10, 2004

The second intifada, or Palestinian war on Israel, is 4 years old. Although it has featured guns and suicide bombs, it has failed just like the first intifada, in 1987-93, which featured rocks and Molotov xxxxtails. For every dead Israeli, there are three dead Palestinians. Thousands have been injured. Thousands more have been turned into refugees by Israel's unsubtle policy of avenging suicide bombs by destroying the houses of the bombers' relatives. The Palestinian economy — near totally dependent on wages from jobs in Israel — is a shambles, as Israel quite understandably has become choosier about who it lets in.

The headlines have obscured one remarkable positive development: Israel's acceptance in principle of a Palestinian state. Even Prime Minister Ariel Sharon — the most anti-Arab of all Israeli politicians — accepts it, in principle. In fact, he is building a barrier that looks like his idea about where Israel's border with this state should be.

Palestinian leaders are flummoxed. And some of them are abandoning the two-state solution — Israel and Palestine, side by side — in favor of a one-state solution: a single, secular state in which Jews and Arabs would live in democratic harmony. This idea is percolating through the Western intelligentsia and even into left-wing circles in Israel.

So what is the problem? It's that such a state would not be Jewish. The premise of Zionism — the premise of Israel — is that Jews need and deserve their own state. Israel has always been slightly disingenuous about this, boasting that Arabs living in Israel proper (i.e., not the disputed territories) enjoy full civil equality. This is possible only because so many Arabs fled or were driven out when the Jewish state was declared in 1948.

A single state encompassing Israel and the disputed territories would reinvent this problem. It would bring the descendants of many 1948 refugees back into the fold, along with other Arabs. The higher Arab birthrate would make Jews a shrinking minority.

Many Americans might ask, so what? The United States prides itself on being a melting pot of different races, ethnicities and religions. But most countries are more like Israel. They define themselves ethnically or religiously or (like the surprising new states that popped up out of the dying Soviet empire) by some ancient and long-suppressed geographical chauvinism. Nations are, in political scientist Benedict Anderson's memorable phrase, "imagined communities," and the imagination takes many forms.

Good fences make good neighbors, as Robert Frost famously put it. In 1947, the same year Britain abandoned Palestine, it also left the Indian subcontinent. But first Britain divided the area into two nations: India for Hindus and Pakistan for Muslims. The result hasn't been blissful. But there hasn't been an all-out war for 33 years. A one-state solution would have been nastier.

Israel must remain a Jewish state, and to do that and be a democracy as well, it must always have a Jewish majority. That has been a limit on the imperial ambitions of some of Israel's less-attractive leaders. It is also a limit on what the world and the Palestinians can expect Israel to accept.

It took the Israelis decades to accept the idea of a Palestinian state next door. They saw it as a staging ground for conquest and elimination of the Jewish state. The "single-state" solution would achieve that same illegitimate goal by more decorous means.

[Virgil]

Notice the double standard and the covert reference to Armenia. Now Armenians are "chuvenists". The biasness of the LA times, NY times, and the rest of "well respected" news sources is just ridiculous. They do this same crap when it comes to anything Armenian. In fact, I dare anyone to find a article that does not put a "postive" spin on Turks and their history.

Anyways, I just wanted to show you all the power of the media. This is not a "conspiracy theory" and no, I am not leading you to one, but rather the more exposed you are to propaganda, the more you will tend to believe in it.

For instance, the other day I was talking a few Armenians from Iran. They had homes here and in general were pretty "wealthy". Anyways, what I found funny is how they continually made America seem like a utopia. Now, I understand that America holds oppurtunities that many nations can not provide, however, it is far from a utopia. It is still a developing nation and has a lot to learn. Furthermore, it is only 200 years old. To paint the difference in age, Rome, which was considered the greatest empire ever, lasted for no more then century. Now, seeing as to how America has 800 years to go, I still think it is very premature to label it a uthopia when there still is a lot that could happen. Like the old saying goes, what goes up must come down, therefore, to assume that America's reign as a "world power" will be forever is just shortsighted. I am just waiting for the day that these "so-called" Americans will have to go through what other nations have gone through. This country has it well seeing as to how the only threat to its power is its greed, reliance on foriegn investment, and mismanagement of resources.

Now, what does this have to do with Armenians? Well, the first thing any nation needs is investors-people with capital-and the first thing investors look for is a stablity. Most of the values of stocks and bonds are based on investor confidence. If tomorrow the mass media were to predict a heavy economic crash, investors, would quickly liquidate their assests. My point is that if indeed Armenians truly want Armenia to become properous they must make sure the investor confidence in it is high. This does not mean continually ridiculing and over exagerating the turmoil of the Armenian economy, but emphasizing the fact that it has potential.

Hold on, before you say "wel, it has no resources and etc...", I would like to point you to the fact that Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, Switzerland, and many other prosperous nations don't have resources as well. Give the Japanese another 50 years and they will totally cut their reliance on foriegn resources. They are now trying to grow crops on manufactured platforms on the ocean.

To summarize, I would like to make sure you understand that the first place any sort of change will occur is through individuals. This starts with more postive references to Armenia instead of continually making it seem like a wasteland. Now, it is healty to critisize, for instance I continually state that if nothing is done about Armenia then within the next fews years it will cease to exist, however, this is totally different then saying "yeah, everyone is thief in Armenia" or "it is run by mobsters" or "yeah, why go to Armenia? No profit".

[Anonymouse]

Nations are imagined communities, as that is the problem with all nationalisms, although I question the relevance of this in this forum. Perhaps Armenia Politics?

[Virgil]

Nations are imagined communities, as that is the problem with all nationalisms, although I question the relevance of this in this forum. Perhaps Armenia Politics?

Well...I was thinking about starting the thread in Armenian politics, but it is not about Armenia. I was trying to connect the dots with this peice, you know kind of show how the "big picture" looks like?

By the way, can you please elaborate your theories on nations? Just curious as to what you mean by "immagined communities" because when I refer to "nation" I am referring to a group of people that are united under one banner. For instance, all Americans are united under the banner of democracy, freedom, and equality. This is their vision, regardless, of the fact that they somtimes abuse it.

I was trying to touch on a few points with this article. The first being the power of the media. See it is one thing to actually hear somthing and it is another to actually see it. By seeing certain aspects of society that is taboo on TV, we slowly tend to accept them as absolutes. This form of propaganda or "mind control" is indeed present in every aspect of America.

Just watch the news for a month. I gurantee that everytime there is a "terrorist attack" in Israel you will notice them putting it up as "breaking news". Furthermore, you will notice articles that support Turkish entry into EU and Pro-Iraqi liberation segments. For instance, during the olympics did anyone notice how they continually focused on the "Iraqi team"? Seriously, think about this for a second, when is the last time the American media has shown sports that Americans weren't good at? Everytime they showed the Iraq team it was followed with "they have acheived freedom" or "the liberated Iraqi team". This is the kind of covert ways they slip propaganda into the media.

I have tracked many news agencies and what I have found is most are always Pro-english, Pro-Israeli, Pro-American, and Pro-Turkish. For instance if you go to BBC, you will always find articles that makes Turks look like saints even even though the democratic changes have only recently been put into effect. Most of the time they show how "democratic" Turkey has become by interviewing a few Turks that live in Europe. In fact, there was a huge article devoted to Azerbaijan soccor judge.

Furthermore, I find it funny how the editor does not see the double standard and hypocrisy in what he writes. Basically, Jews have a "right" to a independent, but Arabs don't? So, by the authors logic does that means that Hitler had a right to throw out Jews seeing as to how the majority of Germans would become Jewish overtime?

The second point I would touch on is how the media can minipulate the economy. IF the mass or mainstream media can get away with articles such as this, doesn't the public ever wonder if maybe they have gotten away with other inconsistencies? Really think about it for a second, you have news agencies like LA times, NY times (Well, only within the last few months has it changed its policy towards Armenians), and Washington Post publishing articles that have put two sides to Armenian history, so, if they can indeed get away with this doesn't make you wonder what else they can get away with? If they can make Chechen terrorists into saints, while pushing all the blame towards Putin and his policies, what else can they get away with? Which begs the question, if they knew the American economy or any nation that is aliegned with the U.S. was suffering economically would they report it? Would they hinder voter confidence? Well, I do not know because frankly I don't have the research nor the time, however, the possiblity is not far off. If they can ge away with half the things they have already gotten away with, I would not be suprised if indeed they are minipuling investor confidence.

The third point I would like to touch on is how society in general are like cattles. Even though I have shown you clear cut articles that are hypocritical and illogical, you still resort to reading them. Not only do you read them, but you some how feel they are "honest" and a "fine source of information". See this is where most people fail to realize that most of the experts in any field are just talking heads. Really what is a Ph.d? It is a certification that you are "expert", however, if indeed this is the case why is it that most of the "experts" are only used as puppets? You have most of these so-called expert brought on shows for the shear fact that their approval is valued. We place most of our faith on these "experts", however, rarly do we ever question them. Now, what would happen if the majority of "experts" held biases? What if you were blacklisted because your view does not coincide with that of these "experts"? In addition, what would happen if the majority of experts were united under one banner?