Also my mistake, I misread you first post, I thought you said ‘all’ rather than ‘any’ religions are true..

It most certainly is not. It is logically impossible for all religions to be true as they each pertain that they are the ‘one true religion’. The only possibility, is that ONE is correct and the rest are mistaken, or they ALL are false.

Just because you can’t prove something exists, does make it true, or even remotely plausible that it is true. We can’t prove that unicorns don’t exist but that doesn’t make us agnostic about their existence.

It’s because WE have different material interests which are reflected in our ideologies. Some people genuinely think that their religious ideology is the best one to mediate the varying political interests within society. Lots of Muslims think this and so do lots of Jews and Christians. The Secular Party (SP) is putting forward the position that these conflicting material interests can be better mediated without using relgious ideology as a template for just social decision making.

The specific solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict which is being put forward by the SP is, at best, an idea; but one which is not based on the current level of political consciousness of most the various constituents who live in that area of the world. This is not to say that the SP solution is “wrong”, just that it obviously does not have majority support amongst the populace. To get that support, the SP proposes to put forward sets of what they deem to be rational solutions to political conflicts. It is in the spirit of the Englightenment and the bourgeois revolutions of the last 300 or so years that they do this. I think a lot of people would be attracted to proposals like these, even people in the Middle East. So, no harm done, IMO.

Of course the real, material contradictions of capitalist class societies cannot be reconciled by merely removing religious ideology from the poltical mix. They can, however, be pushed in a more materialist, less faith-based direction by removing the influence of relgious doctrine from State practice.

And yes, sorry, the post was rather long. Once I get started it’s hard to stop

I believe I did deal with your seminal point. I’m not sure whether you read the whole post, frankly you could be forgiven if you didn’t given the length, but here’s a summary for you.

As I see it, the plan lists asylum for Jews in the case of things going awry because it makes an assumption that ‘things going awry’ would happen at the hands of the Palestinian population rather than the Jews and that the result would be persecution of the Jews rather than the Palestinians.

Now this reading - whether it is correct or not - is quite obviously biased in favour of Israelis/Jews. As I say, we’re both reading between the lines and seeing different things and there’s no real way to be sure either of us are right about the Secular Party’s intentions.

As I said, it’s ridiculous to think that if things did go awry, the asylum for the Jews would be anything other than temporary and for this reason I think - if anything - the plan is biased in favour of Jews.

The other reason we’re arguing is because you insulted my intelligence for reading different meaning into the language of the plan. Clearly I got defensive and probably went overboard, but I don’t deal well with being insulted for the way I see things. I think it’s rude and arrogant.

Tell me I’m wrong for reading it the way I do if you like, just don’t tell me I’m naive.

In regards to one snippet, I partially concede the point. You’re correct, I was wrong to say that the party wholly foists the blame on the Jews. Call it a fault of my skim reading - I missed the bit where they suggested the crisis over the Israeli land was also due to the Muslim outlook.

Having said that, I’ll still say that if one observes the number of words dedicated to describing the issues on either side; compare the Israeli Jews, their manifest faults, the origins of these faults and what currently drives them - which are covered in several paragraphs - and the Palestinian “issues”, which they briefly mention in about half of one sentence. Instructive, no?

Also, you don’t deal with the seminal point - which I mentioned at least twice. Okay, it’s sensible to have contingency plans for any policy. My point is; why haven’t they mentioned, as part of their platform, that they will organise with the surrounding Arab countries a guarantee of a place of asylum for displaced Palestinians should the plan go awry? Why are the Jews and the Jews only targeted for an evacuation plan should the Secular Party’s amazing idea that no one else has thought of (haha) go tits up?

Going by my analysis (and I never claimed anything to the contrary), this thing stinks of an anti-Israeli bent - even though it’s not explicitly stated. Of course, for this kind of thing it often doesn’t need to be. Look at what they’re saying about the US, who just happens to be the major supporter of Israel. Once again, it’s simply reading between the lines.

I don’t know why we’re arguing about this - we both seem to believe that this party and their manifesto constitute a pathetic joke.

Are they advocating that the entire Middle East be collapsed into one secular state? I would like to hear how they intend to convince Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, Egypt, Israel and Syria to agree to this. The Middle East did have one unitary state for centuries, but it wasn’t secular; it was called the caliphate.

I think they really mean “Israel” rather than the “Middle East.” I was under the impression that all citizens of Israel already have equal rights, regardless of their religious affiliations. Am I wrong? Isn’t that why there is a lot of heat in Israeli debates because a small number of very observant Orthodox Jews want the state to be religious?

How does the “Secular Party” reconcile its claims with the fact that the only theocracies in the Middle East exist outside of Israel? Presumably in their mooted secular state it would be Muslims who might need protection as many of them do not acknowledge even the possibility that the state can operate independently of religious dogma?

The “Secular Party” seem to think that the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians is based on religion. It isn’t. It is based on conflicting national aspirations. At the moment the Israelis hold most of the cards because they actually have a legitimate state sanctified in international law. On the other hand the Palestinians do not have this legitimacy and are trying to achieve their state through terrorising the Israelis.

I don’t think you’re viewing the position of this party objectively. In truth I don’t think any of us can ever really view anything objectively, but that’s abstract and philosophical and doesn’t help anything.

Yes, the language of the piece primarily addresses the Jews, at least in the first few paragraphs. But the creation of Israel is an important part of the problem (I’m not saying that the existence of Israel is a problem, just that it is part of the conflict - I know how some people in these comments like to twist words), so it’s understandable that it should be the first thing addressed. Israel is also the most powerful nation being considered as a part of this plan. It’s important to address them separately, because it is Israel who will most have to compromise for any plan that is to be incorporated.

I explained why the piece addresses the persecution of the Jews individually in my last post. Obviously you disagree, I don’t see any way you can dispute the obvious threat, at least - in my opinion - as a perceived threat, so you must dispute that this is the reason for its inclusion in the plan. I suppose in this we must agree to disagree. But it is important for you to recognise that I am not ‘naive’ for believing what I believe. I am simply reading between the lines and seeing something different. If you won’t acknowledge that, then you’re guilty of the same arrogance of all religion in claiming that your beliefs are right at the exclusion of the beliefs of others.

But again, I digress.

“And your simplicity in paraphrasing their plan as ‘resettling’ the Jews ‘if it doesn’t work out’ is equally naive.”

How so?

How so? Because the plan, like any reasonable plan for the region, clearly allows for the right of Israel to exist, and the right of Israel to have, at the very least, part of that particular area of land. So does it not stand to reason that in the event of, as you say, the ‘collapse’ of the state or if things were to go awry, there would be a contingency in the plan that allowed for military action to retake the area?

I mean, think about it practically. Think about what it would mean for Israel to accept such a plan and for the US to back it. To think that no such contingency would be written into any plan would be truly naive. How you can truly believe that anyone with half a brain would suggest a plan which called for anything other than temporary asylum in the case of such a collapse is completely imbecilic. I’m sorry to resort to insults, but you’ve attacked my intelligence several times now and I think I’m well within my rights to return in kind.

In fact, one could consider this as a prejudice of the plan in favour of Israel and the Jews. If such a plan were enacted - particularly in the short term - the state would almost certainly collapse. Given the obviuous contingency, the result would no doubt be an international retaking of the region for Israel and the Palestinians would lose all legitimacy in the conflict. Personally I don’t believe this is the motivation behind the plan, but I think a reasonable argument could be put forward for that case. Just an example to show that there can be different interpretations of this piece with reasonable arguments behind them.

Please provide excerpts of the language that show that they ‘foist all the blame for the tensions in the conflict on the Jews’. As far as I can tell, after covering the creation of Israel, which as I said is important to address, the piece then addresses the fear of persecution - which has already been covered - the next piece that refers to Jews or Judaism is this:

The primary obstacles in achieving this solution are Judaic beliefs that presume exclusive territorial entitlement, and irreconcilable Islamic beliefs that also necessitate superior claims to territory.

Does this sentence not address both parties involved in the conflict equally? It certainly seems this way to me. Sure, part of the problem is the existence of the state of Israel, there’s no denying that, but if we allow for the fact that the Jewish state has a right to exist, then how are any of us foisting the blame on Israel for existing? And keep in mind I separate myself from the Secular Party in all other aspects, only that I think there is some good worth considering in this plan.

So I’ve explained, I think quite adequately, an alternate interpretation of mentality behind the plan listed by the Secular Party. Neither or us can be completely sure of which interpretation is correct without speaking to the president of the Secular Party (which I have actually done about other matters though he seems unwilling to reply to my last e-mail, though I assure you it was at least as civilly worded as this is, if not more so) On some points I can see how your prejudice influences your interpretation, the same way my prejudice influences my interpretation - if you can show me some language which supports your belief that the Secular Party holds the Jews responsible for tensions in the area I will be more than happy to consider it. On other points, however, it is quite clear that your views are quite unrealistic, if not naive. I personally wouldn’t have used that word about your beliefs at all, but you first used it about my beliefs, so I think it’s fitting.

“I simply answered Angela’s question.”

Yes, and I don’t think you answered the question adequately, thus the question still stands.

“And your simplicity in paraphrasing their plan as ‘resettling’ the Jews ‘if it doesn’t work out’ is equally naive.”

How so?

“The plan speaks of equal rights for both groups in this proposed nation.”

Yes, but I’m not dealing with that part of their manifesto. I’m dealing with the part where they clearly state their policy of forming a coalition of nations that “will guarantee their [Israeli Jews] asylum in the event of their persecution.” They’re clearly talking about resettlement in the event the unitary state collapses and the Jews are persecuted. I don’t see how the way I paraphrased this part of their manifesto is “naive”.

“The plan speaks of equal rights for both groups in this proposed nation.”

The point is that it only alludes to a contingency plan for one group (the Jews) if the plan goes awry. They also foist all the blame for the tensions in the conflict on the Jews and the Secular Party’s perception of the Jews’ attitude. Like I have repeatedly said, it doesn’t take a genius to read between the lines to understand what these guys really think.

If a single state solution is the only long term plan, then a guarantee of asylum is needed because looking at the situation realistically reveals that there is a threat, whether perceived or real, of persecution against Jews. Such a guarantee would surely be needed before Israel would even consider such an option. I just think it’s a realistic consideration within the hypothetical solution.

I think you may have misread my post. I neither agree nor disagree with the suggested solution, nor with the guarantee offer as part of a plan to make the solution work. Nor did I give my analysis of said solution. I simply answered Angela’s question.

Truly, James, I believe the only naivety is in the suggestion that anyone, be it the Secular Party or myself, believes that what they have listed on their site is the be all and end all of the solution. One nation, equal rights, a guarantee of asylum for Jews in the case of persecution and hey-presto, no more Israeli/Palestine conflict.

And your simplicity in paraphrasing their plan as ‘resettling’ the Jews ‘if it doesn’t work out’ is equally naive. The plan speaks of equal rights for both groups in this proposed nation. The fear of persecution against the Jews is specifically addressed because Jews generally seem to have a specific fear of persecution. Which is understandable given the persecution in their history. It could be argued that their fear is somewhat irrational based on the current international political climate, but I digress. The plan speaks of ‘asylum’ in the case of ‘persecution’. It doesn’t talk about booting the Jews out if things don’t work out.

I’m not saying this plan is perfect, no plan is, nor am I saying I support it. But just because you infer, James, does not mean they imply.