L.B.: Suspicious phone call

Left Behind, pp. 156-159

Dirk Gently Burton, you will recall, was Buck Williams' college roommate and is now his off-the-record source about the machinations of a powerful conspiracy of behind-the-scenes financiers.

Burton's fringe theory has two parts. First, he believes that international bankers seem to be concerned about discussions to unify the global economy with a single currency -- so concerned that they've actually sought to influence those discussions. The second part is even more controversial. Burton believes that powerful businessmen may be using their wealth and power in an attempt to sway political leaders.

As crazy as all that sounds, Buck's journalistic instincts tell him that Dirk may be on to something. Buck worriedly tries to call his friend, but Dirk's boss at the London Exchange answers the phone instead. The conversation that follows reads like something out of "Get Smart" (RIP, Agent 86) or "Our Man Flint":

"You must tell me precisely who you are and your specific relationship to Mr. Burton before I am allowed to inform you as to his disposition," Nigel Leonard said. "I am also constrained to inform you that this conversation shall be taped, beginning immediately."

"I'm sorry?"

"I'm taping our conversation, sir. If that is a problem for you, you may disconnect."

"I don't follow."

"What's to follow? You understand what a tape is, do you?"

"Of course, and I'm turning mine on now as well, if you don't mind."

"Well, I do mind, Mr. Williams. Why on earth would you be taping?"

"Why would you?"

This paranoid parody continues for two more pages with the manifestly twitchy Nigel increasingly sounding like a bad American actor faking a British accent. Eventually we learn that Dirk has turned up dead, an apparent apparent suicide (that is, it's apparent that it was intended to appear as a suicide).

Buck smells a story. Suspecting that his friend has met with foul play, he books the next plane to London to investigate.

The broad outlines are familiar here. This is standard stuff in political and espionage thrillers. Yet it's a bit strange that Buck should suddenly drop everything and switch genres like this. Less than 48 hours have passed since billions of people disappeared and hundreds of thousands more were killed, and Buck is personally in charge of investigating that story. Yet here Buck decides to step out of the disaster narrative and into a hackneyed spy story. Buck reassures his boss that he will "be back in time for all these summits" -- referring to the various Jewish conferences that have already supplanted the disappearances as Buck's main focus.

Here, then, are the stories our intrepid reporter is following, listed according to his sense of priority:

1. Suspicious suicide of Princeton roommate
2. Meeting of Jewish nationalists
3. Meeting of Orthodox Jews
4. Parliament of World Religions conference
5. Global cataclysm, mass disappearances, the end of the world.

I have to say, too, that I'm a bit disappointed with the conspirators in our shadow-government cabal. Under different circumstances, there'd be nothing wrong with the old "make it look like a suicide" ploy. It's a time-honored strategy for getting rid of an annoying Man Who Knows Too Much. But why stick with such a chestnut when the events of the past two days have presented so many other opportunities for getting rid of a body? They want Dirk Burton to disappear, so why not take advantage of the disappearances?

All they'd need to do is shoot/stab/strangle/bludgeon him. They shouldn't worry what the body looks like because if they do this right, no one will be looking for the body. After disposing of the late Dirk Burton, arrange some of his clothes neatly draped in his favorite chair. Toss in, maybe, a half-finished glass of scotch or a still-smoldering pipe in the ashtray. The details don't have to be exact, just enough to lump him in with the larger, global mystery and ensure that no one regards his absence as a smaller mystery deserving separate consideration. If that seems too bloodless, the piles of wreckage along every highway and railway would seem to offer additional opportunities for capable thugs trying to get rid of a body.

But no, instead they stick to the pre-cataclysm plan and fake a suicide, thus raising the suspicions of the GIRAT. Too bad for them. If Dirk had seemed to be a part of the mass disappearances, then Buck Williams would have ignored his fate just as he is ignoring the mysterious fate of those many other billions. After all, there are Jews in New York and it's his job to figure out what they're up to.

Comments

[kevin]

Laid out in simple terms, these books appear incredibly anti-Semtic, almost like they took the Elders of Zion seriously. I am a touch surprised I haven't heard more discussion of that aspect of them.

[cm]

In keeping with the phone theme, I feel the need to quote Mr Gently's secretary:

I'm sorry, Mr Gently can't come to the phone right now as he's not quite right in the head and thinks he's a cucumber.

Wonder what Buck would say to that?

[Chris]

"I have to say, too, that I'm a bit disappointed with the conspirators in our shadow-government cabal."

I agree. Stupid twits are probably congradulating themselves on not having been seen exiting the building, cackling, and twirling their mustaches. Was Nicky Himalayas' original name Snidely Whiplash?
When exactly did commercial air travel resume? Where, for example, are the air traffic controllers? On the night of Rapture Sodom on the Lake (alias Chicago) was the only airport open in the entire Atlantic Basin, forcing RayBuck to divert from Paris to Chicago in the middle of the damn Atlantic Ocean. Now Buck can just hop a plane, visit London without a second thought, and completely reassure his anti-Semetic colleagues that he will be back in New York in a few days. Oh yeah, continuity is big in these books.

[Beth]

"I'm taping our conversation, sir. If that is a problem for you, you may disconnect."
"I don't follow."
"What's to follow?"

I can't blame Buck for being suspicius. If the British gentleman I was talking to suddenly morphed into some guy from Brooklyn, I be suspicious too.

[ajb]

So I guess inter-continental air travel is up and running again, too. That was quick.

[VKW]

Fred, thanks for the tip on how to deal with unpleasant people after the Rapture! I mean, I'll certainly be Left Behind, and anyone else who is LB is bound to be evil, or at least Not Good Enough, so if they get on my nerves, why not? I can't be damned more than once, and I could always do one of those last minute Conversions!

[Robert]

I remember this part as yet another WTF? moment. It was like some horrible printing error when portions of an entirely different book were mixed up with the one I was reading. This isn't switching tracks. Going from Biblical disaster to Dan Brown globe hopping is like melting down the whole damn rail yard and using the steel to build an ocean liner.

Sadly this new direction (sorry to spoil things) will turn out no better than what has come before. The authors' idea of cunning international intrigue is on the level of giving the hotel clerk your nickname rather than your given name when you register.

[Rhys]

Not to be picky, but Buck did talk to Dirk after the Rapture occurred, so if his killers did arrange for it to look like he was taken, Buck would still smell a rat.

The mysterious brit should have just left it at "I'm very sorry sir, but we haven't seen Mr. Burton for several days now. We have no idea where he is. If you have had any contact with him, we would dearly like to know". Still suspicious, but Buck won't suspect the brit on the phone.

The important thing about spy thrillers is that you don't know who the bad guy really is until the last minute when you least expect it. This is just too damn obvious.

[JamesK]

The thing is, faking Dirk's rapture would be even more approprite in this situation. If everyone's claiming that he was one of the guys who vanished (compleate with a little pile of clothes and a witness or two), but Buck distinctly remembers talking to him on the phone after it all went down, well... Lots of plot opportunities down that path.

[Grumpy]

Rhys makes a good point. It depends, though, on everyone being firmly convinced that no further disappearances are taking place.

But no, instead they stick to the pre-cataclysm plan...

Reminds me of the plot of Star Trek 6. -SPOILERS AHEAD- The conspirators first use a prototype Bird of Prey and some magnetic boots to assassinate the Klingon chancellor and frame Capt. Kirk. When that fails to disrupt the peace conference, they resort to plan B: a guy with a rifle in a window. (Wearing a rubber mask, in the extended version.)

[Mnemosyne]

On the night of Rapture Sodom on the Lake (alias Chicago) was the only airport open in the entire Atlantic Basin, forcing RayBuck to divert from Paris to Chicago in the middle of the damn Atlantic Ocean.

Which is extra-bizarre since Chicago is about 1,000 miles away from the Atlantic Ocean. Are they even considered part of the Atlantic Basin?

[jwhook]

Three items, Fred.

1. Your second paragraph is really funny.
2. Was agent 99 left behind?
3. If you want to get raptured have a common first name, preferrably one like Isaac or Joshua.

Thanks again for your fine work.

P.S. They could have killed Dirk 2 days earlier, before he talked to anyone.

[Bob Davis]

After all, there are Jews in New York

Hey, some of my best friends are jews in New York.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Being in New York, I mean.

a modest experiment

[R. Mildred]

I have it! The Grand International Jewish Financiers control the disappearance ray!

That's why dirk wasn't made to look disappeared because they didn't want to raise suspicion that the disapearances were something man made. So they gave Buck a perfectly normal murder mystery to solve, thus shifting the focus of The GIRAT to something rather mundane and ordinary that they've made look like was committed by the Ameriglish speaker on the phone for non-grand conspiracy reasons.

But unfortunatly for them The GIRAT sees through their tissue of lies...

[bulbul]

Re: kevin - L&J are pretty schizofrenic when it comes to Jews. On one hand, there is this weird evangelical/fundamentalist fixation on Israel being instrumental in God's plan for the Last Days, on the other hand we have the Jews running the world, organizing global conspiracies and thus essentially helping the Antichrist in his ascend to power. Although now that I think of it, it kinda makes sense if L&J (and their fellow nuts) see Jews and Israel as two separate entities. Remember the bit about Rayford or Buck travelling on a ship down the Jordan river someone mentioned few weeks ago? I guess to L&J there is a fundamental difference between a country and its inhabitants. While Erec Yisrael is the embodiment of all that is holy, the people who live in it or come from it are evil. And both of those only exist in their minds.

[J Mann]

Burton's fringe theory has two parts. First, he believes that international bankers seem to be concerned about discussions to unify the global economy with a single currency -- so concerned that they've actually sought to influence those discussions. The second part is even more controversial. Burton believes that powerful businessmen may be using their wealth and power in an attempt to sway political leaders.

As crazy as all that sounds, Buck's journalistic instincts tell him that Dirk may be on to something.

Absolutely hilarious.

[Chris]

"Not to be picky, but Buck did talk to Dirk after the Rapture occurred..."
No, he didn't; he 'listened to a saved message" from him (p.104), at a time when he hadn't been able to access his mail since before the rapture. It would have b een possible for there to be a time stamp on the message, but LH/J don 't mention it, and in fact in the conversation with Nigel Whatsisface Buck - no, dammit, Cameron, why the hell should I pander to his fantasies - asks "Was Dirk among those who disappeared?" so he doesn't in fact register any post-rapture conversations. No, the drape-the-clothes-on-a-chair thing would have worked just fine, as would almost anything other than attempted suicide.

[coriolis]

Sadly, the whole novel could be strengthened by inverting the structure. The GIRAT is investigating the disapearance of his best friend. Then ... BANG ... every loony right-wing Christian along with all the children in the world disappear. The shift from the mundane to the sublime would be as shocking as the rapture would be in fact.

This would necessitate holding off the climax of the book until the end. (This just gave me an insight into the marriages of L&J that I didn't need. I need a memory wipe now.)

[Narc]

Is it just me, or does it seem that the phrase "international bankers" is sort of a code for "wealthy, godless Jews" in a context such as LB?

I love this series of blog posts, but I haven't finished reading all of it, so excuse me if this has been covered elsewhere. It's also been a few years since I read LB (there were only a couple of the books out, and I wanted to see what all the fuss was about). I still have PTSD from the experience.

[Andrew Brown]

In this context, the idea of a saved message is vaguely disturbing. Surely it's only the unsaved messages that remain on your answerphone?

[Taxorgian]

If someone objects to Likud policy in Israel, they are often tarred with the "anti-Semite" label. Until reflection on this disaster of a book, I hadn't considered that there might be anti-Semites who were pro-Likud; the True Believers seem to be exactly that. Specifically, they support radical policy in Israel because that's one element in the necromantic spell of Fundie Revelation. [By that I mean that if enough Arabs are killed, they believe they will summon the vengeful spirit Kyrios Yeshu Christos from beyond the grave to annihilate all the people they don't like. Of course, this particular spirit doesn't have a lot to do with the Jesus of the Gospels, but they don't let that stop them.]

[Mnemosyne]

Is it just me, or does it seem that the phrase "international bankers" is sort of a code for "wealthy, godless Jews" in a context such as LB?

Great big yeppers to that, and it's been the case for some time. Michael Lind's fascinating book, Up From Conservatism, says that one of the incidents that flipped Lind back to the Democratic side was realizing that Pat Robertson had completely cribbed one of his books from anti-Semitic literature, only replacing "Jews" with "international bankers."

[Lucia]

LOL, Andrew!

As I understand it, not that I have studied this stuff extensively (so many wackos, so little time), PMDs don't like or respect Jews or Israel, but, as Taxorgian says, they think Israel must exist and include certain territory in order for the Rapture to occur. Afterward, of course, Israel will be of no further use and God will destroy it. Substitute "Second Coming" for "Rapture" and it seems many fundies who are not necessarily PMDs buy in.

Apparently a lot of Israelis are cynically willing to act the part of the sacrificial lamb in this drama (especially since they don't buy into the whole plot in the first place) if it will get them US support.

I have seen at least one web site making the case that Bush's support for Israel is entirely based on the fundie premise -- unfortunately I can't find it right now.

[bellatrys]

Nah, Taxorgian, it's not quite as sinister as that. It's just rote object-based magic: the Jews are collectively the Key to Time. They have to be placed in the right location on the Well of Souls is all, otherwise without all the mystical components in place the Gateway won't open.

After that, once it's opened, you don't need the Key any more, so it doesn't really matter what happens to them (since they're NPCs), but it would nice to switch them to your side, because as anyone who has ever played a strategy game knows, you get more points that way.

So you convert the ones you can, and the rest get it in the Cataclysm that opening the Well of Souls causes, but this doesn't matter any more than the number of hostile NPCs that get killed on the quest to put the Key of Time on the Well of Souls to begin with, because none of them are real people, see - and the PCs get the girl, the treasure and live happily ever after forever and ever amen...

(That this fuses neatly with Jewish Apocalyptic Moronism is just a nice plot twist. Both sides both using the other and thinking the other guys are chumps, but hey, at least they're paying for the solid gold Ritual Objects we need and the breeding program to produce the Unblemished Red Heifer, so that we can Open the Well of Souls and call the Messiah for the first time, sillies! And yes, the prohibition against Magic and trying to force the hand of Heaven to do your bidding is there in the TANAKH as well as the New Testament...)

[Cactus Wren]

I think that in L&J's minds, the Rapture is inviolate, not to be trifled with. It's inconceivable to them that such a happening -- the very literal Hand of God -- could be sullied, besmirched, by something so tawdry as the Bad Guys (particularly these Bad Guys) using it to cover up a murder.

[Jesurgislac]

I think Cactus Wren is right.

Also, the principle of the Left Behind series appears to be that very large miracles (the saving of Israel from destruction, the Rapture itself) shall be ignored and forgotten about as fast as possible. Or maybe that's just Cameron.

[Scaramouche]

You know if it happened today, Buck would have most likely gotten the memo.

[Dahne]

After that, once it's opened, you don't need the Key any more, so it doesn't really matter what happens to them (since they're NPCs), but it would nice to switch them to your side, because as anyone who has ever played a strategy game knows, you get more points that way.

Also, you get the Morning Star +3 vs Liberals.

I can't help but imagine how much better these books would be if Dirk Gently were in them. Sometimes, I really can't blame Douglas Adams for being an atheist.

[Scott]

After disposing of the late Dirk Burton, arrange some of his clothes neatly draped in his favorite chair. Toss in, maybe, a half-finished glass of scotch or a still-smoldering pipe in the ashtray.

Then Buck could realize or be told (for the readers) that it had to be faked, because The Elect don't drink or smoke.

[Beth]

After disposing of the late Dirk Burton, arrange some of his clothes neatly draped in his favorite chair. Toss in, maybe, a half-finished glass of scotch or a still-smoldering pipe in the ashtray.

They wouldn't even have to go to that much trouble. Simply say,"No one's heard from him since That Day. We're all terribly worried." Besides the Raptured, thousands, perhaps millions must have died in car crashes, train crashes, plane crashes, etc, and besides being tacky, all those smouldering wrecks would make identification of remains rather difficult. It would be perfectly natural for someone to just disappear and never be heard of again.

Apparently a lot of Israelis are cynically willing to act the part of the sacrificial lamb in this drama (especially since they don't buy into the whole plot in the first place) if it will get them US support.

Why "cynically"? It's certainly cynical of the PMDers to play the generous friend when what they really want is to see Israel destroyed in an apocolyptic war, but is it really cynical to accept needed help from people who are only being generous for their own selfish purposes? That sounds more pragmatic than cynical to me.

One of the scariest things about the PMD Israel fantasy is the dream of rebuilding the great temple. When Sharon merely visited the Dome of the Rock, it was considered by many Palestinians sufficient justification for a new intifada. Imagine the reaction if the Dome of the Rock were destroyed. But that would be the necessary first step for rebuilding the temple, which once stood where the Dome stands now. I think Bellatrys pretty much nailed it. To the PMDers, the Jews are simply pawns. What do they care if the Israelis (or Palestinians, for that matter) get wiped out? It's all part of the game.

[aunursa]

Taxorgian,

I have NEVER seen an example of someone who is labeled anti-Semitic merely for objecting to a particular policy of either the state of Israel or the Likud Party.

I HAVE seen individuals and groups labeled anti-Semitic for any of the following actions: placing all the blame for the Middle East conflict on Israel and only Israel; for unilaterally condemning Israeli policy as racist or evil without considering the context; for singling out Israel for condemnation for any and every imperfection, real and imagined, while ignoring much, much worse violations by regimes that don't even feign a respect for human rights or democracy; and for calling for the elimination of Israel as a Jewish nation.

[Mnemosyne]

I have NEVER seen an example of someone who is labeled anti-Semitic merely for objecting to a particular policy of either the state of Israel or the Likud Party.

You must not spend a lot of time online. I've been accused of it frequently for saying things like, "Um, maybe making the Palestinians live in refugee camps for 40 years was a bad policy?"

[sophia8]

"After disposing of the late Dirk Burton, arrange some of his clothes neatly draped in his favorite chair. Toss in, maybe, a half-finished glass of scotch or a still-smoldering pipe in the ashtray."
They wouldn't even have to go to that much trouble. Simply say,"No one's heard from him since That Day. We're all terribly worried." Besides the Raptured, thousands, perhaps millions must have died in car crashes, train crashes, plane crashes, etc, and besides being tacky, all those smouldering wrecks would make identification of remains rather difficult. It would be perfectly natural for someone to just disappear and never be heard of again.
Yes, but if they did that, it wouldn't arouse the suspicions of the GIRAT; there would thus be no basis for a major plot point. He wouldn't have any excuse for travelling half-way around the world, which would result in L&J having one less excuse to use up pages in details of travelling and airline schedules.

[aunursa]

You must not spend a lot of time online. I've been accused of it frequently for saying things like, "Um, maybe making the Palestinians live in refugee camps for 40 years was a bad policy?"

Well making the Palestinians live in refugee camps for 40[sic] years is not a policy of Israel or the Likud Party. And blaming Israel -- and only Israel -- for 38 years of Palestinian poverty requires ignorance of the complex situation and is unfair to the Jewish state. (Among other things Israel repeatedly tried to return the lands to Egypt and Jordan, and later attempted to relinquish the lands to the Palestinians in exchange for peace.) If one makes such statements repeatedly without any historical context or similar statements attacking the leadership of the Palestinians and other Arab governments, then it's reasonable to question whether one's position is anti-Semitic.

At any rate I should have excluded internet chat rooms and message boards from my statement; in such forums there is a typically a lot of rhetoric and flaming and irresponsible charges on all sides that are not found in statements on websites and in the media.

[Lucia]

Beth, I intended the cynicism I imputed to some Israelis more to describe their attitude toward PMD than their accepting help given with suspect motives. I didn't intend any criticism on either score, since (as you will have gathered) I too think PMD is a crock, and I would certainly knowingly accept help from someone who regarded me as a pawn in some eschatological chess match, probably, I confess, with an inner snicker.

[patter]

Do all the guys' names in this book sound like belches? ("BUUUUUUUCK!" "DIIIIIIIIRRRRKK!")

[Jesurgislac]

aunursa: Well making the Palestinians live in refugee camps for 40[sic] years is not a policy of Israel or the Likud Party.

Yes, because once the new state of Israel had driven out hundreds of thousands of the Palestinians who used to live there, in order to create an artificial Jewish majority - which has since been maintained by increasingly stringent laws denying the original inhabitants who are not Jewish any right to return to their country of origin - it was none of Israel's responsibility what happened to the stateless people thus created. Of course not.

And blaming Israel -- and only Israel -- for 38 years of Palestinian poverty requires ignorance of the complex situation and is unfair to the Jewish state.

Because when you steal land from people who used to live there, and keep them from it by force and violence, and retain control over the water supply so that Palestinian farms get less water than Israel swimming pools, and permit Israeli citizens to destroy Palestinian crops at whim without penalty, and allow Israeli troops to destroy Palestinian houses, it is obviously not your fault if these people are poor. It's their fault. Quite.

[buckets]

Patter. Belches? or porn star names?

[aunursa]

Yes, because once the new state of Israel had driven out hundreds of thousands of the Palestinians who used to live there, in order to create an artificial Jewish majority - which has since been maintained by increasingly stringent laws denying the original inhabitants who are not Jewish any right to return to their country of origin - it was none of Israel's responsibility what happened to the stateless people thus created. Of course not.

1. The vast majority of Palestinians left voluntarily.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=7&x_article=185

2. Arabs, Christians, Muslims, and Jews (as well as women and gays) all enjoy equal rights in Israel. By contrast consider the plights of Jews and Christians, women and gays in Israel's neighboring countries. (e.g. Jordan specifically prohibits Jewish citizenship. Gays are routinely tortured and murdered in Muslim countries. Palestinian gays try to gain asylum in Israel because they are threatened with lynchings in the West Bank.)

I think it's fair to question the motives of one who singles out Israel for condemnation for the Palestinian situation and releasing from any and all blame the Palestinian leadership, as well as the neighboring countries that refused to lift a finger to help the Palestinian people.

3. There was no sovereign nation in the land prior to 1948. There has never been a country of Palestine in the land of Israel, the West Bank, or Gaza. Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan controlled the West Bank from 1948-1967. Prior to that the land was under the British Mandate. Prior to that it was part of the Ottoman Empire.

4. Israel offered to give up land for peace in 1948, 1957, 1967, and 1973. In each case the Arab nations responded with a firm rejection of any peace with Israel. In 1993 Israel agreed to relinquish land for peace; after Israel ceded control of several West Bank communities, terrorism INCREASED.

When Israel offered to cede to the PA 95% of the disputed territories, Arafat walked out the talks without even making a counter-offer. Both U.S. envoy Dennis Ross and Saudi Arabian Prince Bandar blamed Arafat for rejecting such a breathtaking offer. Prince Bandar sternly lectured Arafat, "I hope you remember, sir, what I told you. If we lose this opportunity, it is not going to be a tragedy. This is going to be a crime."

Because when you steal land from people who used to live there, and keep them from it by force and violence, and retain control over the water supply so that Palestinian farms get less water than Israel swimming pools, and permit Israeli citizens to destroy Palestinian crops at whim without penalty, and allow Israeli troops to destroy Palestinian houses, it is obviously not your fault if these people are poor. It's their fault. Quite.

The idea that Israel steals Palestinian water is yet another myth:
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=12&x_article=173

From 1967 to 1995 domestic water for West Bank Palestinians increased by at least 640%

Israel has supplied, from its own sources, large amounts of water to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, to the Kingdom of Jordan, and to a number of villages in South Lebanon. Meanwhile, Jordan has not supplied the West Bank with any water since 1967, despite its quasi-legal obligation to supply 70-150 MCM (million cubic meters) annually.

Moreover, Israel agreed to supply, or arrange for the supply of, 55 MCM of water annually to Jordan. Until the development of new desalinazation plants, all of the additional water is coming directly from Israeli sources (Jordan Times, 25 August 1999).

[chris Borthwick]

Jordan may prohibit Jewish citizenship, but Israel, on the other hand, insists upon it, to the extent of prohibiting Israeli nationality.
Israel is different. For one thing, it’s the only nation there is that doesn’t have an attached nationality. Israelis carry an identity card with a space marked Nationality’. If you’re a naturalised ex-Egyptian, you write ‘Egyptian’, and so on. If you were born there you fill it in as ‘Jew’, ‘Arab’, ‘Druse’, ‘Samaritan’ and so on. I now read in Ha’aretz that when some citizens recently went to court to argue that they should be able to write ‘Israeli’, the Israeli Government argued that this “undermines the very principles under which the State of Israel was created”.
The state claims that "the dictionary definition of a nationality is `a nation, a people; a large group of people of a joint origin, common destiny and history and usually a shared spoken language' and thus registering as ‘Israeli’ would not reflect the person’s "national and ethnic identity".
Professor Uzi Ornan, one of the petitioners, says. "The state is afraid that if it agrees to register an Israeli nationality, it will create a de facto separation between Jews abroad and Jews living in Israel as part of an Israeli nationality.”
Israel is not an ordinary state like other states, and this is at the heart of many of the problems of the region.

[Jesurgislac]

aunursa: The vast majority of Palestinians left voluntarily.

The article you linked to does nothing to demonstrate that the vast majority of Palestinians voluntarily agreed to abandon their homes and land forever.

Arabs, Christians, Muslims, and Jews (as well as women and gays) all enjoy equal rights in Israel.

Incorrect. Christians, Muslims, or indeed Hindus, Parsis, or people of any religion other than Jewish, do not have equal rights in Israel. We may also, if you like, go into the apartheid treatment of Arabs - Muslim and Christian - inside Israel, regardless of their supposed equality under the law. Do you want to do that?

I think it's fair to question the motives of one who singles out Israel for condemnation for the Palestinian situation

I think it's fair to question the motives of one who singles out Israel and denies its responsibility as a state for the Palestinian situation.

There was no sovereign nation in the land prior to 1948.

Because the country Palestine was under colonial rule for much of its history does not negate its existence. The state of Israel is a modern creation: it began as a state consisting almost entirely of very new immigrants. The country Palestine has a considerably longer history than the state of Israel.

Israel offered to give up land for peace in 1948, 1957, 1967, and 1973.

But has never offered, for peace, to give up its apartheid policies. Discussion of Israel's wars against neighboring states, threatening attitudes to its neighbors, and indeed its right to exist in 1948 as a brand-new colonial nation in a part of the world that had seen as much as most what Western colonialism does, would take more space than a single comment could afford. (Israel ceased to be just a Western colonial nation, a modern political anomaly, when Jewish refugees from Middle Eastern countries began to arrive after 1948. It is notable, however, according to those who have lived in Israel, that there is a distinct and apartheid-like racial stratification in Israel between European/American-origin Jews, at the top of the heap: below them Middle Eastern Jews: below them again the black Jews from Africa. (And of course lowest of all who are still Israeli citizens, and legally discriminated against in certain respects, Arab Israelis, Christian and Muslim.)

The idea that Israel steals Palestinian water is yet another myth

The link is broken. In any case, while "Israel steals Palestinian water" is certainly flashy shorthand, it's not a myth.

A significant component of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains the dispute over allocation of scarce water shared by the two peoples. Since 1967 Israel has effectively acted as the hegemon in both the Jordan system and the aquifer region. The occupation of the West Bank has given Israel control over the watershed that feeds directly into its crucial Yarqon-Taninim aquifer (Mountain Aquifer), within the borders of pre-1967 Israel (Waterbury, 9). In addition, since the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip began after the 1967 Six Day War, Israeli military orders denied Palestinian involvement in the management and development of water resources and limited increases in water consumption by the Arab population for both agricultural and domestic use. Israelis consume a significantly larger amount of water per capita than Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. A significant component of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains the dispute over allocation of scarce water shared by the two peoples. Since 1967 Israel has effectively acted as the hegemon in both the Jordan system and the aquifer region. The occupation of the West Bank has given Israel control over the watershed that feeds directly into its crucial Yarqon-Taninim aquifer (Mountain Aquifer), within the borders of pre-1967 Israel (Waterbury, 9). In addition, since the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip began after the 1967 Six Day War, Israeli military orders denied Palestinian involvement in the management and development of water resources and limited increases in water consumption by the Arab population for both agricultural and domestic use. Israelis consume a significantly larger amount of water per capita than Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. -cite

[aunursa]

Because the country Palestine was under colonial rule for much of its history does not negate its existence. The state of Israel is a modern creation: it began as a state consisting almost entirely of very new immigrants. The country Palestine has a considerably longer history than the state of Israel.

No. There has never been a country of Palestine.

A majority of Israeli Jews are indiginous to the Middle East and North Africa.

But has never offered, for peace, to give up its apartheid policies.

Israel has no apartheid policies. All citizens of Israel enjoy freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom to vote. Compare Israel's policies with those of ANY Arab or Muslim country -- Arabs in Israel enjoy more rights and a much higher standard of living than Arabs living in Arab and Muslim countries. Compare women's rights and gay rights in Israel with that of any Arab or Muslim country: The only Middle East nation in which Arab women vote is Israel. Gays have more rights in Israel than in the United States. Compare the Israeli court system ... Arabs and Muslims who allege discrimination can appeal to Israel's judiciary and receive a fair hearing -- and can even win their case against the Israeli government ... compare Israel's independent judiciary with any kangaroo court in Arab and Muslim nations.

Israel's enemies want to single out the Jewish state and hold it to an impossibly high standard of perfection not applied to any other nation. Then they condemn Israel for failing to be perfect, while ignoring the numerous human rights violations of the Palestinians (not only atrocities committed against Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Israelis -- but also atrocities committed against other Palestinians) and the brutal tactics of other Arab and Muslim regimes.

The link is broken.

I tried it, the link works.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=12&x_article=173

[aunursa]

Jordan may prohibit Jewish citizenship, but Israel, on the other hand, insists upon it, to the extent of prohibiting Israeli nationality. Israel is different.

The point is, regardless of what information is on the identity card, Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Arabs are all Israeli citizens. Do Jews and Christians in Saudi Arabia enjoy the same rights as Muslims?

Israel is not an ordinary state like other states, and this is at the heart of many of the problems of the region.

You got that right. If Israel's neighbors had half the commitment to democracy and human rights as Israel has, then there would be no significant conflicts in the Middle East.

[bellatrys]

Tell that to Gil Nema'ati, aunursa. Tell that to the 27 pilots. Tell that to Yitzhak Laor and Micha Kurz, Yehuda Shaul and Yonatan Baumfeld, who made "Breaking the Silence" and have been screamed at and defamed by those whose cause they were defending, told that their job was to shut up and die - and kill - and be silent, by their elders.

Tell them, not us. For some strange reason, it's their opinion - and those they were fighting, and will fight no more - that matters, in the end. Convince them that everything is fine, were it not for the wickedness of the Arabs, why don't you?

[Jesurgislac]

There has never been a country of Palestine.

That is a fantasy, not a historical reality. If you're dealing in fantasy, we can't debate.

[pharoute]

"When Israel offered to cede to the PA 95% of the disputed territories,"

Ah! the "generous offer." A nice review of what happened would help: http://www.counterpunch.org/christison08152005.html

[aunursa]

Tell that to Gil Nema'ati, aunursa. Tell that to the 27 pilots. Tell that to Yitzhak Laor and Micha Kurz, Yehuda Shaul and Yonatan Baumfeld, who made "Breaking the Silence" and have been screamed at and defamed by those whose cause they were defending, told that their job was to shut up and die - and kill - and be silent, by their elders.

The overwhelming majority of Israeli soldiers proudly serve in the West Bank. In any democracy there will be at least a handful of people who disagree with government policy. Yes, Israelis can agree or disagree with certain government policies, just as American citizens are free to disagree with our government policies. Contrast this with the situation in the PA, where those who dare disagree are subject to government executions or mob lynchings.

[The idea that there has never been a country of Palestine] is a fantasy, not a historical reality.

This alleged country of Palestine ... when was it formed? What was its capital? What were its borders? What were the names of its leaders? When was it recognized as a sovereign state by the United Nations? By any other nation?

Ah! the "generous offer." A nice review of what happened would help: http://www.counterpunch.org/christison08152005

Hardly a reliable source:

1. Throughout her various articles author Kathleen Christison promotes the anti-Semitic canard of Jewish/Israeli power and control of American government, having alleged that Israel forced or influenced the U.S. to start the war in Iraq, that American Jews have attempted to suppress evidence of Jewish support for the war, and that some government policymakers serve Israel's interests at the expense of American interests.

2. The website counterpunch.com is devoted to such extremists as Holocaust denier Norman Finkelstein ... a supporter of David Irving; musician Gilad Atzmon -- who has defended the burning of synagogues and has endorsed Islamic terrorism as a way to create a "balance of power" to deter the United States; and Northeastern University professor Shaheed Alam, who claimed that the September 11 terrorists were the moral equivalent of Washington and Jefferson, and who has smeared Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel.

U.S. envoy Dennis Ross, the Clinton administration representative, blames Arafat for rejecting the Camp David offer. Ross believed that Arafat's actions demonstrate that he was not sincerely interested in peace no matter what was offered. Read his interview here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50830,00.html

Saudi Arabian Prince Bandar -- who can hardly be considered sympathetic to Israel -- blamed Arafat for rejecting such a breathtaking offer. Bandar told Ross, "If Arafat does not accept what is available now, it won't be a tragedy, it will be a crime." Bandar later told The New Yorker's Elsa Walsh, "It broke my heart that Arafat did not take that offer." Read about Prince Bandar here (His January 2, 2001 discussion with Arafat is near the middle of the article): http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/international-relations/prince-bandar.html

[Ray]

Just on the question of the prior existence of 'Palestine' - do you think discussions about the Irish nation before 1921 were essentially nonsensical?

[Jesurgislac]

aunursa: This alleged country of Palestine ...

...which is to be found on a fair number of maps made before 1948, and many, many contemporary historical references prior to 1948 - including, by the way, the famous "Balfour Declaration". Rather odd for an "alleged country", don't you think?

when was it formed?

Like most ancient countries, it's hard to answer that question. When was Germany formed? When was France formed? When was Italy formed?

What was its capital?

Traditionally, Jerusalem.

What were its borders?

Variable, as with all ancient countries. (And some more modern ones. The borders of the US, for example, can fairly be described as "variable" for quite a while after it came into existence.)

What were the names of its leaders?

You know, I admit to ignorance about this. :-) My ignorance of their names, however, does not prove that these leaders did not exist.

When was it recognized as a sovereign state by the United Nations?

Now you're just being silly, aren't you? Shall we argue that Israel doesn't exist because it was never recognized as a sovereign state by the League of Nations?

By any other nation?

What's your definition of "recognized", and how do you apply it in ancient times? Could you prove that China ever recognized France as a sovereign state?

Ray: do you think discussions about the Irish nation before 1921 were essentially nonsensical?

Presumably Aunursa believes that before 1921 Ireland was an "alleged country". And that since 1707, Scotland has been an "alleged country". And so forth...

[aunursa]

Like most ancient countries, it's hard to answer that question. When was Germany formed? When was France formed? When was Italy formed?

All of those nations have histories as independent nations. There is no history of an independent Palestine.

The land was known as Palestine -- that's why it was on pre-1948 maps. There never was a sovereign nation of Palestine. The land known as Palestine was part of the vast Ottoman Empire 1517-1917. In 1916 control of the southern portion of their Ottoman Empire was "mandated" to France and Britain under the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Arab region into zones of influence. Lebanon and Syria were assigned (mandated) to France... and "Palestine" (today's Jordan, Israel and "West Bank") was mandated to Great Britain.
http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html

Traditionally, Jerusalem [has been its capital.]

Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim nation. Jerusalem has only been the capital of a Jewish state.

Shall we argue that Israel doesn't exist because it was never recognized as a sovereign state by the League of Nations?

Well gee, let's see. It would be kind of difficult for the League of Nations to have recognized Israel since the League was dissolved in 1946 -- TWO YEARS BEFORE Israel was declared an independent nation. Israel has been a member state of the United Nations since May 11, 1949.

Could you prove that China ever recognized France as a sovereign state?

Embassy of the People's Republic of China in the REPUBLIC OF FRANCE