Christiane Amanpour's God's Warriors, "the Jews," and "the Occupied Territories": Is this for Real?

Christiane Amanpour in her "God's Warriors: The Jews" broadcast on CNN this weekend - aside from giving voice to as many anti-Israel and anti-"settlement" critics as one might imagine and almost no "Jewish" (really?) God's Warriors, except to portray them in the most trivialized manner - must have used the term "Occupied Territories" an endless number of times at every juncture in her narrative from start to finish, so much so that one could be left in no doubt that this was a critique of Israel's or "the Jews"' pre-sence in them (whatever one might mean by "them") and not about supposedly "Jewish" "Warriors for God" at all.

But it was an altogether too-easy victory. If you start by assuming what in the end you wish to prove, then you have really only indulged in an endless propaganda exercise ostensibly dealing with concepts you haven't really seriously investigated at all. A case in point - the highpoint of her investigation was clearly a revelation of a supposedly secret Israeli legal memorandum written by someone identified as a "legal adviser" alerting the then 1967 Government to the "illegality" of settlements and their potential violation of the Geneva Conventions and an actual interview (on the streets of London) with the now evidently-retired lawyerly Jewish author some forty years later (had he retired to London?) verifying, though a little more hesitatingly, that he still held the same view today.

That was all Amanpour needed. She then proceeded to run on with a series of cut-ins from a Jimmy Carter interview - as if he with his callow sophistries about Israeli "Apartheid" were some sort of expert too - interspersed with some "B-roll" of shots of James Baker and his Carlyle Group partner George Bush Sr., even the long-vanished Chuck Percy of Illinois! But where was the counter-indicative position stated in any depth to what was after all just another "legal opinion" (though in the sensationalist manner in which she was presenting it to a presumably legally-unsophisticated and unsuspecting public it was being given the appearance of the force of "a finding" or "a legal fact")? There was none.

Nor was there any serious background to how one came to the Six-Day War as if that was the be-all and end-all of the political situation. History began in 1967 - period. Or, for instance, of the Ottoman Empire previously or the British Mandate, or even the results of the Jordanian Annexation of the West Bank in the early 1950's, transforming what was once the British-named "Transjordan" (with obvious implications) into "The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan," i.e., "Jordan" on both sides of the River. No nothing - just bald statements nurturing present propagandistic fantasies.

"The Occupied Territories" -- let us start with that. When was the legal status of the territory in between the present territory of Jordan (now back on the other side of the River where it began) ever resolved? This is a good term for popular journalism or congenial conversation. Afterall, people must communicate, but it has no real presence in legal fact. That is what we meant by saying Ms. Amanpour achieved an all-too-easy victory on this point - from the beginning assuming what she had set out to prove, but the language you use from the beginning and throughout cannot contain the seeds of what you are going to conclude. You must give all sides to an argument or legal discussion a hearing.

In the first place, in Ottoman times, this whole area was part of the "Wilayet" or "Province of Damascus." There was never a "Province" called "Palestine," a name which like "Iraq" (i.e., the newly-discovered archaeological "Uruk") came from the British love of classics - in this instance, their love of classical literature which their professional bureaucrats learned at elite "Public Schools" and which was the legally-designated Roman term for the area after the Jewish presence had been largely eradicated following two Uprisings in 66-70 and 136 CE (interestingly enough, this was based on the Biblical term "Philistia" - the "Mycenaean" or "Greek" area of the Coast occupied by "the Philistines" which even modern Arabic has picked up for the name for its present-day extension - "the Philistinin"/"the Palestinians", the implications of which should be clear even though these aren't "Philistines," or are they?).

Jerusalem only became a separate quasi-administrative entity within this 'Wilayet" as Western Christian tourism and pilgrimage picked up during the Nineteenth Century and the Ottomans had to deal with Western Consulates that had started to grow up in it. There was never a "Palestine" per se except in late Roman times and there was never one again until the British came in 1917-18.

So it is best to start here with the First World War and its aftermath. The "Mandate" for Palestine and other "Mandates" were awarded to Britain and France by the League of Nations (basically as spoils of war) from the decomposing Ottoman Empire and German colonial possessions in Africa after the Conference of San Remo in 1920 and the Peace Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. This has to be considered the first "legal" building block if one wants to start with anything - whether colonial-minded or non-colonially-minded depending on the observer is besides the point.

Palestine was a "Class B" Mandate meaning, unlike some others ("Iraq" and "Syria" for Instance), its eventual independence was considered to be a ways off in the future. Whether one likes it or not, the fabled "Balfour Declaration" was appended to the Mandate for Palestine as a preamble. It is too bad it was never really observed, not even in spirit, because if it had been, history's first recorded "Holocaust" (or perhaps its second if one considers the Armenians and Turks) in which some six million were systematically annihilated might never have occurred. But, never mind, this is merely 'water over the dam' as it were.

It was at this point that all these results or positions were incorporated into the Palestine-Order-in-Council of 1922, which set forth the legal structure of the new "Mandate" absorbing all previous law including the League of Nations' Mandate and its controversial rider, "The Balfour Declaration." I needn't go into the terms of these. They are pretty obvious. By contrast "Transjordan" (as it was called) received an "Organic Law" after the British unilaterally cut away about two-thirds of the Mandate which originally applied to both sides of the river and gave it, presumably for 'services rendered,' to the Hashemite family of Mecca which coincidentally or otherwise was itself being thrown out of the Arabian Peninsula by "the House of Saud" - a dislodgement which had to do with "Arabian" legal affairs and nothing to do with "Palestinian" at all.

Moreover, it is hard to say if this was ever legally recognized by anyone but it didn't matter, as legal Mandatee, Britain presumably had the right to do this. In any event this threw the whole "Jewish-Palestinian" problem onto the Western Side of the Jordan River while at the same time making the eventual emergence of "Three States" (now possibly "Four") from the old Mandated Territory inevitable. Be this as it may, events eventually overtook this as well, though the establishment of "The Kingdom of Jordan" out of the old Palestine Mandate became more-or-less an unquestioned legal "fact" over the next 80 years.

Responding to various "Arab" uprisings in the Nineteen Twenties and Thirties (to some extent themselves responding to the rise of Nazism on continental Europe and elsewhere - the Baath Party in Syria, for instance, and further East), the British Administration in Palestine ("the man on the spot" as it was often called) became more and more anti-Jewish immigration - in contradistinction to the terms of the Balfour Declaration which in the end became more or less a dead letter - and came up with various "Partition" plans and finally "The White Paper" of 1939 which cut off Jewish immigration in Palestine (of course, just when it was most needed!).

In any event, after the Second World War and all the horrific events everyone is familiar with in connection with that, the legal question of "Palestine" ( though not of "Jordan" which had become an established "fact" as already explained) was once again 'on the table' of the heir of this League of Nations - the illustrious, still-functioning "United Nations." A version of one of these "Partition" plans was eventually adopted in 1947 but was immediately rejected by all of the surrounding "Arab States" by then themselves (several formerly "Class A Mandates") all independent: Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, etc. - only Lebanon does not seem to have been legally clearly regulated, nor does it seem to be today (let's leave present-day "Iraq" aside) - who immediately invaded looking forward to an easy victory.

What followed was the so-called Israeli "War of Independence," whose "Cease-Fire Lines" became the eventually demarcations of the 20-year "Truce" that then descended - the official name of which dropped into popular parlance as "the Old Green Lines." But where was the legal or "official" regulation here? There was none. What followed too was the eventual annexation of "the West Bank" (Jordanian parlance meaning the west bank of their Jordan River) in 1951 by the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan making it "Jordan" on both sides of the River. But where was the legal outcry here? There was none. But equally, where was the legal recognition or basis in international jurispru-dence? There was none - no more than the annexation by Israel of the City of Jerusalem and its surroundings after the Six-Day War in 1967 fifteen years later.

In other words, the status of the area in between Israel and Jordan, which had been part of the original Mandate for Palestine which had been legally recognized, was in a kind of legal limbo and was still to be regulated. This has to be done by Treaty and negotiations. Two such negotiations have occurred for better or for worse between Israel and Egypt and Jordan in the 1970's and 1990's. Ok, those situations are more or less legally defined and regulated whether rightly or wrongly.

But what of "the Occupied Territories"? These have not been defined in any legal sense and not even the famous Resolution 242 after the Six Day War in 1967 which called upon the Israelis to "withdraw from territories" in exchange for Peace drew back from doing this and did not - and this apparently purposefully - define which "territories" were to be so regarded and to what extent. This again was to be resolved by negotiations, but these "negotiations" are what are supposedly taking or not taking place; and, in any event have been marred by violence (from whatever the direction or from whosever's point-of-view) on a continuing basis.

Nevertheless, the term "Occupied Territories" itself would appear to be a misnomer, however it is used in fact, since it is difficult to "occupy" a "territory" which has no legal status to begin with - except that conferred on it perhaps by the illegal annexation by Jordan - and, therefore, it is difficult to see how the Geneva Conventions should apply to it anymore than they earlier did to Jordan (are all Jordanian-constructed buildings, et. al., therefore, "illegal"?). This is especially true in the light of a finding that "settlement" activity on the part "Jews" (if not "Israelis") in such areas was permissible - in fact, "looked upon with favor" according to the first officially-recognized legal entity, the Balfour Declaration.

However these things may be, the terms of all such legally-binding resolutions or enactments have been systematically violated by all either responsible for or a legal party to them from the beginning up to the present day. The British violated the terms of the Balfour Declaration which had been appended to their "Mandate for Palestine" from the beginning, in effect, doing away with it from two-thirds of the territory appertaining to it in a unilateral manner as early as 1920-21 or thereabouts (no protests here) and abolishing it altogether in 1939. The Jordanians also violated the terms of this Declaration, prima facie (and, as a result therefore, the Mandate for Palestine) allowing no "Jewish Settlement" - which they would have seen as a contradiction in terms - on the territory allotted to them from the beginning on up to the present day. As a footnote to this, it should be observed that even "Palestinian" groups like "Black September" opposed the kind of sovereignty these Authorities were exercising on whatever side of the Jordan.

The British also violated the terms of the Mandate for Palestine by the various unilateral actions they took already enumerated above. All so-called "Arab States," such as Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Transjordan (many - the last three the beneficiaries of "Class A Mandates" - whose independence had already been consolidated as already explained), absolutely rejected the internationally-adopted "Partition of Palestine," making this crystal clear by their immediate invasion. And even those who did not invade like Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Kuwait, etc. supported this rejection and invasion in no uncertain terms. Even the so-called "Palestinians" themselves rejected this, rendering it too a dead letter - many making this clear by their flight whether by choice or involuntary (however one views this and whatever the claims involved) and even more so by their "National Charter" which unequivocally rejects it even to the present day.

So what is, therefore, the legal status of the so-called "Occupied Territories" and what is their extent? There is none. They are in a kind of legal limbo, that is, they are, strictly speaking, legally unrecognized and who knows their extent? This has yet to be determined by negotiation and, like most of the arguments one usually hears (including those on Amanpour's program), superficial. So how can the Geneva Conventions supposedly be applied to an area whose legal status was never legally or rightfully determined in any meaningful way in the first place, except for the Mandate for Palestine in 1920-23 by the League of Nations and manhandled ever since by all legal parties concerned but still rightfully recognizing a Jewish right of settlement all the way up to the Jordan River and, if the truth were told, beyond? This is one legal nicety which has never been gainsaid, whether one likes it or does not like it.

In any event, "Settlement" has to do with 'Lands" - "Dead Lands" as they were called in the Ottoman Empire previously, "Mewat." As in the American West and something in the manner of "Homesteading," these were and are (Ottoman Land Law having been absorbed into both Israel and Jordan Law) lands outside of cities and public spaces connected to cities whose title according to the Ottoman Land Law of 1856 (and, in fact, strict Islamic legal theory and customary practice upon which it was based) had never either been determined or registered by anyone, but which carried with it a right of "Vivification," that is, if you fenced off an uninhabited area of this kind with no registered legal title and cultivated it for three years continuously, you had the right to register it as "mulk" - freehold property. Anyhow, these are legal complexities for which the reader might wish to look at my book: Islamic Law in Palestine and Israel: A History of the Survival of Tanzimat and Shari'a in the British Mandate and the Jewish State, E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1978.

Another point, which perhaps should be emphasized for the unsuspecting reader - to call these "towns" or 'bedroom suburbs," which have been founded or mainly grown up on such lands ("Palestine," "the Wilayet of Damascus," "Transjordan," or whatever you want to call it being comprised of large swaths of such lands), "Settlements" at this point is also a misnomer - as any clear-eyed observer who has seen them might be able to understand - of immense and tendentious proportions whose basic purpose is to delegitimatize them (as clearly Christiane Amanpour was intent upon doing whether intentionally or otherwise) before their legal status even comes under consideration or is negotiated. She like many of her colleagues and confreres just seem to facilely assume these things are obvious without any in-depth examination - forgetting the ancient proverb that "the unexamined life is not worth living."

Comments

[infp]

I support Israel's right to exist, but. . . Mr. Eisenman fails to acknowledge that the Palestinian people never had an adequate voice in the treaties and declarations that have determined their fate. They have been a subject people for centuries, under the Turks, the French, the English and the Israelis.

[checkmoot]

It seems that every politician running for offce in the U.S., must, at the beginning of their campaign, pledge allegiance to Israel. I wish nothing bad for the Israelis and I wish that they and the Palestinians would attain the fairest peace possible. I do believe, however, that said American politicians should be required to register as lobbyists for a foreign power so that voters would know, that if it comes to a showdown between the best interests of the U.S. and Israel, they are going to go with the Israelis. In fact I think that is the law. The only allegiance for American office holders should be to the U.S.

[Striker5]

That was an interesting read. I don't think this article was about religious influences, but about government and law.

At the end of the day, whatever lines were drawn on a map - this is about property. Palestinian Arabs had property - European Jews took it.

As to the role of American Christians, it is unfortunately true. It revolves around premillenial theology: the idea that Jesus is going to set up an earthly kingdom in Jerusalem for 1000 years prior to the final judgement.

The majority of evangelicals believe this and are enthusiastically bilked by Israel because of it.

Some denominations, like mine, read the apocalyptic language figuratively and do not share this millenial view but we are in the minority.

While these Christians do not support Israel as rabidly as the lefties accuse them, the support is strong and widespread.

This is unfortunate because, on paper anyway, these are the very people who should be the most compassionate for the plight of others.

The problem is that this issue is so old and the vast majority form their opinions based on yesterday's headlines. The palestinians have given up the moral high ground by embracing terror tactics but when we pull the thread back through the decades, this started when European Jews used their political connections and acumen and eventually their fighting spirit to take the land from someonel else. I believe in the Bible, but John Q. Palestinian doesn't.

Israel pulls God like a gun. God gave them the land. How many Israelis even believe in God anymore. I heard they're pretty secular these days.

[gakabani]

What kind of God is that? It is so imperfect and so stupid. We made God a tool to our objectives. We made him an idol of war. Well, that is not the definition of God. If God selects a group of people in favor to another, that by itself contradicts the concept of God.

All religions suck!

[OETKB]

The author of this piece may stick with his reality but there is happenings in the wings that ultimately will force paying the piper. Currently Israel has no Constitution and would even at this moment have problems granting civil rights to all its citizens. In 30 or 40 short years it will become moot as the Muslim population starts to outnumber the Jewish population in Israel. This will have to be reckoned with and the current strategies to deal with it will not cut it.

[nypoet22]

Wow, someone else on this blog actually read the ARTICLE? Astounding. They do have the makings of a constitution, but you know what they say about two jews and three opinions..­. in any case, I would think it likely to take longer than 40 years for the birthrates to result in a Muslim majority there. where did you get that figure?

[gakabani]

This is a good point, Israel has no constitution because in 30 or so years they will start expelling Arab-Israelis, Druze and the sort in order to maintain a majority.

[simpleshepard]

This conflict in Israel is point Zero. This is the root of accumulated and growing Islamic radicalism. This is where it began and sadly where it will end.
AIPAC, the Israeli "friend in Congress" wants another Holocaust to presage the second coming of Christ. These are not some fringe group insane people, these are the people that are creating America's Middle East Policies. They view anyone who even tries to broker a peace deal between Israel and Palestine as the Anti-Christ himself or at least Satanic. They believe that until this conflict pushes itself to Armagedon their savior will not reappear. I am sure you may be laughing right now, and it would be funny if it wasn't so damn true.
So here we are, a modern and rational humanity, being driving and shaped by these three insane factions of the Relegious Right all charging toward end times beliefs. One begins to wonder if we should all stand back and watch them sysematically take each other out. Like the bullies on the playground; let them fight it out and see how much it hurts. That would be fine but these people don't want to stop with each other, they want to impose their insanity on the rest of us. Plus they have somehow gotten to a place where they now have much bigger and much more destructive toys to do it with.
I hate to say it but the world should gather round Israel and Palestine, I mean everyone, and force a lasting peace on these two nations. Circle around them and stand their until it is done. Use everything in our power to make it happen, Politically Diplomatically, Economically and if need be Militarily. Make it happen. We should approach it like we would anything that is threatening all mankind. The past does not exist. It's stories have no real objective center. He said, she said. The way to move forward on this issue is to start today. That is how you resolve conflict. It's time to bury the hatchet, and I don't mean in someone head.

[MrLiberal53]

No, the conflict with Israel is not Point Zero. There was plenty of Arab on Arab conflict that had nothing to do with Israel. When Saddam Hussein came to power it did not involve Israel, but there was violence. When Iraq attacked Kuwait, no connection to Israel or AIPAC. When Iraq and Iran fought a prolonged war- not connection to Israel.
Try to be accurate, not just anti-Semitic.

[gakabani]

I tend to agree with you superficially. Saddam was a puppet (CIA agent) of the USA and came to power thanks to the support of the USA and so did the Sha of Iran.

When Iraq declared war against Iran, it was the USA, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia that pushed Iraq towards war.
When things went wrong for Saddam he wanted still a pice of cake and invaded Kuwait under a false flag by the USA.

Hell brakes lose when there is a maniac in power. We have one in the White House.

[gardengoddess]

Well, as all things should happen, let's begin at the beginning. According to extremely credentialed and respected anthropoligists, there were Arabs living in what is now Israel some 2500 years before Abraham ever led his little group into the area. Therefore, if anyone has "historical rights" to the region, it's the Arabs.

The Palestinians are the Phillistines, read about in the Old Testament. Their name became bastardized because first the Romans and then the British couldn't pronounce the original name correctly, so they changed it to something easier for them to say.

The Geneva Accord gave the Jewish people forced to flee Europe after WWII, a certain section of land. The Accord DID NOT give those Jewish people the right to colonize any other part of the region. When I say "forced", I'm talk about the fact that Europe was in shambles, and couldn't contemplate taking care of all the Jewish refugees that came out of the concentration camps. America also had a huge economic question mark to deal with, and they couldn't take all of those ill-treated, sick, poor refugees either. Therefore, some kind of plan had to be developed quickly, and that plan turned out to be shipping those people to a part of the world that was less inhabited and from which many of their ancestors hailed.

The nation of Israel has its land. Just like any other nation, they DO NOT have the right to try to take more land just because they want it, or think they need it. When Saddam Hussein did that, we bombed the hell out of his country, didn't we? Agression in any form is still agression.

All that said, Israel has a right to exist, and Israelis have a right to peace and happiness, just as everyone else on the planet does.

[leftcoastliberal]

The pro-Palestinian "left" is so unhinged it would be funny if their misguided efforts didn't seriously undermine the efforts of those who would see a Palestinian state. Note to "Jesustheliberal": if there were no difference between the way the Israelis treat the Palestinians and the way the Nazis treated European Jewry there's be peace in the Middle East because most of the Palestinians would be dead. Demonizing the Israelis will not lead to peace, justice, or a state for the Palestinians, it just reveals the demonizers as ignorant haters and provides fuel for paranoid Zionists who see all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism.

[maddogbitesback]

Well at least you admit there is such a thing as a paranoid Zionist. The fact is if I went back two thousand years and further into unrecorded history I would be able to cite many atrocities which happened in my background. The Romans threw the Christians to the lions, the Vikings attacked yada yada yada. I learned it in history. I didn't think I should feel persecuted because of what the Romans did. And another aggravating thing is the Jewish percewption that they alone were the targets of the Nazis. What about the Seventh Day Adventist or the Gypsies or the Slavs or those who dissented. Then there is the fact that everyone believes I am going to go to heaven. Or in the case of the Jews if I so much as point out the fact that my parents might not have been thrilled if I married a Jew but they wouldn't have considered me dead and sat in mourning for me. Jews, like all other religions are bigotted. They simply differ in the fact that they are taught it is okay for them to talk about goys but the reverse is not true. In fact in my Bible I read of Jewish atrocities committed happily. But they are okay it seems. Something about God smiting. Maybe when the concentration camps were in operation God was smiting the Jews. Some Jews thought that was a possibility.

[mommamia526]

Well, it is late, and at this time you truly appear to be a mad dog to me. Maybe I need some sleep. Here is one little tidbit you may want to chew on. Even if something did happen to your ancestors, this did not result in being chased from place to place, and country to country for twothousand years. Yes, there were gypsies in the concentrationcamps. And there were young men of different countries working in the German factories, among others Dutch young men. All for the German war machine. You know it was a very strange landscape. No men to be seen. Fields lying fallow. Our friends in hiding or abroad, many in Gr. Britain. Some had left, a.o. my next door neighbors. Their kids told me, another kid, mind you, you have to go, you have to go, tell your parents. We are going tomorrow. Then there was that little De Leeuw boy who was dragged out of first grade and shot on our playground in front of us. Oh, well, but maybe God was just smiting him? Served him right, right? Your Bible is teaching you exactly what, hatred? A zionist is someone who wants to be home, in a place where he belongs, and where he can defend himself. A place where he can build a life and practice his own religion. Jordan is 77% of the Palestinian mandate. Then there is Gaza. Both are for Palestinians. Palestinians also are members of the Knesset. Israeli Arabs can travel freely everywhere in Israel and PA-controlled areas. But, hey, mad dogs do not care about that, I assume. Why do YOU think *Palestinians* were driven out of Jordan, a whole group of them? And why are there *Palestinians *refugee camps* in Lebanon? And Iraqui *Palestinians* as well as Egyptian *Paletinians*? By the way, Egypt has created a safe zone in Gaza to keep the *Palestinian* weaponssmugglers out.

[Zenobius]

First Mearshimer and Walt, then Jimmy Carter, now Christiane Amanpour. Who will the advocates of Israel attack next?

This has reached the point where US advocates of Israel are endangering their own credibility, at least with me. After all, all these ad hominem attacks smack more of a lawyer trying to win a case than of an analyst trying to understand a situation.

It is my understanding that Israel's settlements policy is widely regarded as unjust in Europe, and even in India. Why is it objectionable to express views widely held overseas within the US?

Needless to say, I don't think we're doing ourselves a favor by making support for Israel's settlements policy a litmus test for whether or not someone's speech should be regarded as politically acceptable in the US. I don't even think the settlements policy has strong majority support in Israel - I believe the right is generally but not universally for the settlements policy, the left is generally but not universally against it. So why be more pro-Israel than the Israelis? This is like being more royalist than the king.

[druidlady42]

Left, Right, Jew, Christian, Muslim,---no matter who you are,----if one honestly and humbly "examines" himself, I think we all know deep in our hearts what constitutes common human decency and "rightness". What is being done to the Palestinian people by Israel (fully supported by the U.S.) is WRONG!--- Just as wrong as the U.S./Israe­l's barbaric trumped up "defensive" action against Lebanon last year; just as wrong as what civilized countries are allowing to happen now in Darfur; just as wrong as what the Nazis did to the Jewish people in WWII; just as wrong as what our own early settlers and government did to Native Americans when we wanted their land! When we dehumanize, marginalize, starve, kill, persecute, imprison our fellow human beings--even "in the name of God/Jehova­h/Allah"--­those who have not hearts of stone recognize such actions as WRONG!

I think Amanpour has done an exceptional and courageous job at pointing out that there are extremists in every religion willing to commit horrendous acts against others to carry out what they perceive to be the "will of God".
Personally, I believe that Jesus's teachings to Muslims, Jews, and Gentiles alike advocate a "new way" of human interaction--apart from that of the Old Testament, directly contrary to and conflicting with the political pursuits of this government and those of the Middle East, including Israel. To use a popular phrase: "What would Jesus do" about that wall?

[babylonandon]

Since when has mankind NOT engaged in dehumanizing, marginalizing, starving, killing, persecuting, and imprisoning thier fellow human beings?

We are an evil species. In the heart of EVERY MAN, EVERY WOMAN, AND EVERY CHILD is a monster waiting every day to get out. All it takes is the right circumstances to release the beast.

No person, no group, no clan, no state, no nation, no race, no faith is innocent. We are all equally guilty. The US is no worse at its worse times than Russia, China, Germany, Japan, Spain, England, France, Brazil, India, the Moslems, the Jews, or even the Native Americans. We have all butchered those who were weaker and who got in our way.

I like to think that sometimes at its best times the US is better than most...at its best times.

But never forget, we came here as the people who were kicked out of every "decent country" on this earth for being a little bit stranger and sometimes a little bit more nasty on our bad days than everyone else.

[oafishcad]

Not quite true. Though some of our ancestors came for the reasons you state, Many of our ancestors came here for more opportunity, not because they were kicked out of where they were. I'd guess the Native Americans weren't kicked out of Asia either.

[Hattie]

very well put.

[richw23]

Politics aside, Amanpour's delivery and gush is too off-putting for me to pay much attention. My guess is the only people who watch her already have their minds made up and want to blast her or praise her regardless of facts.

[nellyol'son]

I had a problem with this show as well. It seemed Amanpour only drew information from those Christians whose ideas represented the extreme right-wing evangelical segment of christianity. Where were the moderate voices? There are plenty of christians out there who aren't fanatically planning government takeover or waiting for the rapture. Why were they excluded?

[oafishcad]

I noticed that too, but I think that was the point. Only those who consider themselves "Warriors" for any religion were highlighted. Those who consider themselves "Peacemakers" were not. Maybe that could be another set of programs. Face it, how often is the Christian left mentioned in ANY news broadcast or mention of Christianity? Listening to any media you'd think the face of Christianity is Conservatism, which of course, it isn't.

[realitytrumpsbull]

I watched parts of that painfully long broadcast, and I remain unmoved from my stance regarding organized religion, I still think it's a great way to milk money out of people's wallets, and steer them around emotionally and politically. Here's to seeing more religious institutions publicly audited...

[gakabani]

A quote that tell you all:

"Because we took the land this gives us the image of being bad, of being aggressive. The Jews always considered that the land belonged to them, but in fact it belonged to the Arabs. I would go further: I would say the original source of this conflict lies with Israel, with the Jews – and you can quote me." – Yehoshofat Harkabi, former Israeli Chief of Military Intelligence, in 'Peace Won't be a Plane Ticket to Cairo,’ International Armed Forces Journal, October 1973, p.30.

[Dap]

Well according to what you wrote, Israel itself, as a whole, is then on disputed land, and the last rightful owners are the Syrians.

Which would make Israel the occupier of Syrian property.

[gakabani]

Under international law, nations are not the issue but people within the territories. You can call the territory Israel, Palestine, or Pal-Israel, but the indigenous people must be protected and their human rights acknowledged whatever, their economical status, education, language, religion, etc.

Give Palestinians the same right as Israelis, give them back their houses and farms. Let them them live using the technological resources available.

Remember 'Religion does not convey a title of property'

[Dap]

Exactly, the Syrians should allow the Jewish People to live in the region, and protect them, they should be allowed vote in Syrian elections. The Syrian courts can handle any local land disputes.

[behshad]

Using the argument that they 'didn't really exist as any creditable entity' in an attempt to disavow the right of the Palestenians to their land is a facile rationale which obfuscates a basic fact: The palestenian's properties have been incrementatlly wrested from them under a variety of guises and pretenses. Let's call it what it is: 'a Land Grab'.
Mr Eisenaman's argument would , by extension, legitimize violent and forceful confiscation of vast swatches of land ( far in excess of the token and largely barren reservation areas )right here in the United States from its current occupants and giving them back the Indians. After all the Indians were, as best we know, the original inhabitants and hence rightful owners of lands stretching from New York to California.

[mommamia526]

So, if an Israeli buys property from a Palestinian and pays for it, it is called a landgrab? If I buy property in the U.S., and pay for it, and later some person whose great grandfather lived on that piece of property, or he says his grandfather did, I should just hand the property over to that person? Now, really? Or, else, he comes back and murders me, or he murders someone else, just anyone? In the U.S. we have a concept such as eminent domain, under which the government can demand that you give up land for the public good. If that happens, should Americans then go around and murder someone, anyone, blow themselves up? And, again, what about all those Muslims from the Middle East who are building mosques all over Europe, and one way or another obtained tht land? Should we blow up their mosques and drive them into the Northsea? What about the newly built Hindu Temple in the U.S.? That land belonged to someone else just a short time ago, and no Hindu Temple ever existed there. Should we blow that temple up? The Hindus? What if someone could prove that on that same piece of land there once stood a church, should the Hindus proclaim that there never was such a church, even if it is a proven fact? What if you buy a barrenpiece of land, and over the years build it into a vineyard, can someone just demand that you hand it over to him, because he lived in a neighboring country? Buildings, equipment, irrigationsystems, crops and all? Yes, Indians were rightful owners of land here, however, they do not own the real estate built on it. And some specific Indian can not claim it because it belonged to *Indians*.