PDA

View Full Version : Do Europeans think Israeli moral leverage re the Holocaust is about played out?


astro
06-29-2003, 01:45 PM
The article linked below made me wonder about this.

The professor indicated below may be brilliant in his field but he is apparently a political idiot. It does seem, however, that based on the article, his attitude apparently reflects the personal (not institutional) attitudes of a significant number of English and European academics and non-academics, who feel that Israel has played or otherwise relied on the Holocaust card once too often at this point in justifying their (perceived) gross human rights abuses and oppression of the Palestinians.

In the eyes of Europeans is the moral leverage of the Holocaust experience about used up at this point in Israel justifying their behavior toward the Palestinians?

Outrage as Oxford bans student for being Israeli
By Julie Henry, Education Correspondent (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/06/29/noxf29.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/06/29/ixportal.html)

Part of article below -

In a reply sent by email on June 23, Prof Wilkie wrote: "Thank you for contacting me, but I don't think this would work. I have a huge problem with the way that the Israelis take the moral high ground from their appalling treatment in the Holocaust, and then inflict gross human rights abuses on the Palestinians because they [the Palestinians] wish to live in their own country.

"I am sure that you are perfectly nice at a personal level, but no way would I take on somebody who had served in the Israeli army. As you may be aware, I am not the only UK scientist with these views but I'm sure you will find another lab if you look around."

----------------

A series of attempts have been made to isolate Israeli scholars in protest at their country's operations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In Britain, calls for an academic boycott have been led by Steven Rose, an Open University professor.

Last year the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology was forced to hold an inquiry after The Sunday Telegraph revealed that Mona Baker, a professor, had sacked two Israeli academics from the editorial boards of two journals because of their nationality.

A Umist inquiry found that Prof Baker had not acted improperly under its rules because the journals she owns were not connected to the university.

december
06-29-2003, 03:27 PM
Apparently the Holocaust is now a source of humor for some Europeans. (http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php). Remember those words as you read Merde in France’s account of a crossword puzzle recently published in Le Parisien.

'Wholesale meats' was the definition given for 'genocide'. 'Taken far from home' was the definition for 'deported' and 'Pejorative for Jewish girl' was the definition for 'kike-ette'. When questioned by the AFP, Christian de Villeneuve, Managing Director of Le Parisien, admitted 'that there had been a lack of vigilance'. A "lack of vigilance" indeed!

Really Not All That Bright
06-29-2003, 04:13 PM
When I was a "European" I did, now that I'm an American... I still do. This isn't to say I'm unsympathetic or a Holocaust denier or any of that.

clairobscur
06-29-2003, 04:51 PM
I can't see in what way the Holocaust ever gave the Israelis any justification for their behavior toward the palestinians. If what the Israelis are doing is wrong, the holocaust is totally irrelevant and don't offer them any sort of moral high ground. It doesn't now, and it never did. So, in my mind this "moral leverage" isn't exhausted, it never existed at the first place.


Or else, anybody whose people has been opressed during the last 60 years would also keep a moral leverage which would allow him to opress anybody else he sees fit. I don't think it works that way. For instance, if you've been the victim of an attempted murder 20 years ago, it doesn't give you the right to steal my wallet.


However, I indeed remember there has been some arguments in some academic circles last year because some institutions or some individual scholar decided to boycott Israel and sometimes Israeli scholars. I didn't know it was still an issue.






As for the crossword puzzle, I couldn't find on online source about it in french . I was curious to read the actual definition in french and to check whether they have been all used in the same puzzle...it would make a difference, IMO...



For instance, "kike"..I assume it was "youpine" in french... is indeed a derogatory word for a jewish woman, so I've no issue with that. What is insulting is calling someone names, not mentionning that the word exists. But perhaps there's a different view over here since I noticed on this board that people apparently don't even dare to *write* the word "nigger", even when mentionning it without any intent to be derogatory. Similarily, taken far from home" is a correct definition for "deported", and doesn't have to refer to Jewish people or WWII in any way. But if the three definitions, including "genocide" actually appeared in the same puzzle, there's indeed a problem. As for the "wholesale meat", that's why I wanted to search the actual definition used in french, but I couldn't find any references.

Sorry for my doubts, but the site you provided a link to, december appears to be *extremely* biased, as usual, and to say the truth, I lost most confidence in the truthfulness of your sources.

clairobscur
06-29-2003, 04:54 PM
I can't see in what way the Holocaust ever gave the Israelis any justification for their behavior toward the palestinians. If what the Israelis are doing is wrong, the holocaust is totally irrelevant and don't offer them any sort of moral high ground. It doesn't now, and it never did. So, in my mind this "moral leverage" isn't exhausted, it never existed at the first place.


Or else, anybody whose people has been opressed during the last 60 years would also keep a moral leverage which would allow him to opress anybody else he sees fit. I don't think it works that way. For instance, if you've been the victim of an attempted murder 20 years ago, it doesn't give you the right to steal my wallet.


However, I indeed remember there has been some arguments in some academic circles last year because some institutions or some individual scholar decided to boycott Israel and sometimes Israeli scholars. I didn't know it was still an issue.






As for the crossword puzzle, I couldn't find on online source about it in french . I was curious to read the actual definition in french and to check whether they have been all used in the same puzzle...it would make a difference, IMO...



For instance, "kike"..I assume it was "youpine" in french... is indeed a derogatory word for a jewish woman, so I've no issue with that. What is insulting is calling someone names, not mentionning that the word exists. But perhaps there's a different view over here since I noticed on this board that people apparently don't even dare to *write* the word "nigger", even when mentionning it without any intent to be derogatory. Similarily, taken far from home" is a correct definition for "deported", and doesn't have to refer to Jewish people or WWII in any way. But if the three definitions, including "genocide" actually appeared in the same puzzle, there's indeed a problem. As for the "wholesale meat", that's why I wanted to search for the actual definition used in french, but I couldn't find any references.

Sorry for my doubts, but the site you provided a link to, december appears to be *extremely* biased, as usual, and to say the truth, I lost most confidence in the truthfulness of your sources.

december
06-29-2003, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by clairobscur
As for the crossword puzzle, I couldn't find on online source about it in french . I was curious to read the actual definition in french and to check whether they have been all used in the same puzzle...it would make a difference, IMO...



For instance, "kike"..I assume it was "youpine" in french... is indeed a derogatory word for a jewish woman, so I've no issue with that. What is insulting is calling someone names, not mentionning that the word exists. But perhaps there's a different view over here since I noticed on this board that people apparently don't even dare to *write* the word "nigger", even when mentionning it without any intent to be derogatory. Similarily, taken far from home" is a correct definition for "deported", and doesn't have to refer to Jewish people or WWII in any way. But if the three definitions, including "genocide" actually appeared in the same puzzle, there's indeed a problem. As for the "wholesale meat", that's why I wanted to search the actual definition used in french, but I couldn't find any references.

Sorry for my doubts, but the site you provided a link to, december appears to be *extremely* biased, as usual, and to say the truth, I lost most confidence in the truthfulness of your sources. My cite took its information from this site (http://merdeinfrance.blogspot.com/2003_06_22_merdeinfrance_archive.html#105682027019279011), which shows the original French and the English translation. The word "Youpine" is used, as you thought. Note that the source of the story is Liberation (http://www.liberation.fr/) and the story has also been reported in Isranews (http://www.liberation.fr/). I have no idea what the reliability of these two sources is.

Can you tell us what is the reputation of Le Parisien? Is this a respectable magazine or newspaper?

Tee
06-29-2003, 05:22 PM
Europe seems to be the source of most of the people claiming to be "anti-Zionist," the ones I see on the web. I've never, ever seen or heard someone claim that it's alright to treat the Palestinians badly because of the Holocaust, so I'll need a cite to believe it. Until then I'll assume that the Holocaust is a reason given for Zionism...and if the Europeans are tired of hearing it as an excuse for Zionism, I'm not sure what to tell them. The answer isn't going to change, you know..."times up, we need another reason now or no more Jewish state." That's ridiculous.

clairobscur
06-29-2003, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by december


Can you tell us what is the reputation of Le Parisien? Is this a respectable magazine or newspaper?


Ok..I read the article. By the way "boucherie en gros" has a double meaning. It can be understood as "wholesale meat " but also as "large-scale slaughter" or "slaughter, roughly". Indeed it was quite distasteful to use all these definitions.



Liberation is a quite acceptable paper, strongly left-leaning, targeting a rather young, leftist, urban and "open-minded" readership. The kind of paper where you'll find a lot of articles about gay issues, about helpless immigrants being victimized by evil police officers, about culture, about social isues, that sort of things. I suppose you get the picture. It has a (relatively ) well-developped international section. It has on the overall a good reputation, and is quite reliable, with some investigation, but as I said with a strong leftist bia. It's one of the the main french nation-wide papers. Concerning the issue at hand, it tends to be strongly pro-palestinian, but I'm not surprised that it's the paper which pointed out the crossword issue, since anti-racism is one of its main peet-peeves.



"Le Parisien" is a popular paper sold in the Paris area. It has articles about current issues "real people" are concerned about, about the various crimes/disasters which were commited/happened the day before, a lot of sport pages, and a little bit of international news, the ones which are making the headlines. Nothing too complicated, nothing its readers could find boring or irritating. That's the kind of paper bar owners often leave on the corner of the counter for their patrons to read while drinking a beer or sipping their morning coffee. I suppose you get the picture, once again. Just popular press (though not gutter press). You can guess I don't consider it as a reliable and interesting source (well...perhaps it's reliable, but there isn't much to learn reading it, anyway). However it doesn't have the reputation of being antisemitic (or anti or pro-anything, for that matter. Perhaps remotely right-wing). So, I had doubts about them publishing a distasteful crossword puzzle.

clairobscur
06-29-2003, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by Tee
and if the Europeans are tired of hearing it as an excuse for Zionism, I'm not sure what to tell them. The answer isn't going to change, you know..."times up, we need another reason now or no more Jewish state."



I think the Jewish state should never have been created at the first place, Holocaust or not, so, as far as I'm concerned this reason isn't going to satisfy me. The only good reason for Israel to exist in my mind is that now, a large part of its population are people who were born and always lived there. So, now, that's their country. But it has nothing to do with what happened to their parents or grand-parents during WWII.


And I'm not very fond of the selective immigration policy of Isreal, and I particulary dislike thinking that some of these immigrants come to settle in the occupied territories, further complicating the issue. Contrarily to an israeli-born citizen, a recent Jewish immigrant (barring refugees coming for really good reasons, but AFAIK, there aren't much of them nowadays) has no particulary good claim to come and live in this region or at least a claim way less valid than a random Palestinian.

Alien
06-29-2003, 08:06 PM
The site which december linked to is a rasism hate site. He has been asked by others here not to link to that site previously.

Incidently, the quote in the OP also appears on the very same page which december linked too, but the OP links to The Telegraph. May I ask you, december and astro, are any of you involved in running that site, or are you members there?


In the thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=190355) that I know of which december was asked not to link to that site anymore, swami checked the site out and posted some comments from it. It's comments about Palestinians:

- "Every time I think they couldn't disgust me more, they do. I am convinced we are watching evolution-in-reverse."
- "The "Night of the Living Dead" parallels draw ever closer"
- "Yeah...good thing their kids are right smack in the middle of the scene. Islam, Muslims, Palestinians MUST be destroyed...every last one of 'em. "
- "i cannot even dignify these creatures with my hatred... im too exhausted for that,, they simply disgust me on the smae gut level a cockroach would.
i just want to stomp on them already and make them all, all, all, dissapear, to be squasehd and swept up and flushed down the toilet.... and mostly, i cant forgive them for bringing me feel that way.... "

Personally I feel links to such sites should not be on a repectable board as SDMB, or any other board.

Eolbo
06-29-2003, 08:30 PM
I dont think the Holocaust ever did or ever could justify Israeli behaviour towards the Palestinians. It would have justified a Jewish state being created at the German's expense in say what was formerly East Prussia. But People A's crimes against People B does not justify crimes against People C, and nor does People D's guilt over not having done all they could to help People B justify disposing of People C as a colonial chattel.

And yes having looked at the site Alien is referring to, its a hate-site and doesnt belong here.

YourOldBuddy
06-29-2003, 08:30 PM
I fail to see the relevance of Decembers words "Apparently the Holocaust is now a source of humor for some Europeans.." to what he actually quoted. There is the implication that "some" Europeans find the Holocaust funny and then there are those stupid anecdotes and nothing in the form of relevance between them.

Is it ok to spew ignorance and hatred like that in this forum? Is it ok to link to a hatefilled, racist, malignant website like that in here? December, is that a website you frequent?

december
06-29-2003, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by Alien
The site which december linked to is a rasism hate site. Not so. What you have demonstrated is that some offensive comments about Palestinians were posted. However, Charles Johnson's columns in Little Green Footballs are factual. Many are based on translations of Arabic publications. Note that the article I cited was accurate and provided links to its sources.

From time to time, racist comments have been posted in the SDMB, but that doesn't mean that the entire Straight Dope is racist.

Guinastasia
06-29-2003, 09:06 PM
Uh, Alien, I didn't see even one Moderator post in that thread.

Whack-a-Mole
06-29-2003, 09:06 PM
It isn't all that hard to see how Israel keeps its moral leverage from the Holocaust alive and well. They are a country surrounded by enemies dedicated to their destruction and those countries have attempted that very thing on several occasions. Arguing that Israel antagonizes the issue or that Israel maybe should never have been created in the first place is beside the point as far as this discussion is concerned (whether or not the Israelis play the holocaust card too much). Like it or not Israel does exist and there is no reasonable way to expect them to go anywhere. By no means are the Israeli saints in all of this but it isn't hard to see why they have a bunker mentality and feel perpetually persecuted.

As to the Europeans I certainly can't speak for all of them (or even any of them) but I did notice in my travels in Germany that Germans seem to retain a suitable level of chagrin over WWII and the holocaust. They didn't seem (to me) to be abasing themselves but neither had they seemed to have forgotten and I got a mild sense of an abiding embarassment over the whole thing. Mind you these are broad strokes and certainly there are skinhead groups and such in Germany but on the whole this was the sense I got (from some very specific encounters and discussions I had while I was there).

astro
06-29-2003, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Alien
The site which december linked to is a rasism hate site. He has been asked by others here not to link to that site previously.

Incidently, the quote in the OP also appears on the very same page which december linked too, but the OP links to The Telegraph. May I ask you, december and astro, are any of you involved in running that site, or are you members there?

Newbie ... please. :rolleyes:

Alien
06-29-2003, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by december
Not so. What you have demonstrated is that some offensive comments about Palestinians were posted.

Thank you for answering. I will have to look at LGF more closely later. But it strikes me that this is not only user comments. The editor himself wrote the following about the new Palestinian cease-fire offer:

"Islamic Jihad has announced that they will take a short pause to rest, reload, and rearm, before they resume murdering Jews."

That sounds beyond bias too me, and I'm not comfortable with you linking to such from a board, such as SDMB. But I'll look at the site tomorrow.

YourOldBuddy
06-29-2003, 10:10 PM
Rachel Corrie Commentary from Zionist Supremacist Weblog Little Green Footballs:

"Charles, last time you posted that witch, I printed it out, taped it to my bulls eye and unloaded a few magazines at that piece of trash. I though it was finally over, but now this..."

"Will the bitch never die?"

"How 'bout we all get together at Rachel's grave and stage a vomit-in on it."

" I have much too much respect for my own vomit than to waste it on such trash."

"I'm thinking to offer her a tribute by buying a fine bottle of wine and pouring it on her grave, after filtering it through my kidneys."

"We recall dhimmi-dupe Rachel Corrie
In Gaza for human shield glory;
But her outlook turned flat
When a 'dozer went splat
And now she's the left's favorite sob story."

"I am working today but when I get home I will take a leak in Rachel Corrie's honor."

"Can we all just forget about this creep? Jeeze, how many times is Charles gonna force us to look at her twisted up, hate-filled skanky mug?"


Taken from one thread. I ask again. Is it ok to link to this site?

JonBodner
06-29-2003, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by clairobscur
I think the Jewish state should never have been created at the first place, Holocaust or not, so, as far as I'm concerned this reason isn't going to satisfy me. The only good reason for Israel to exist in my mind is that now, a large part of its population are people who were born and always lived there. So, now, that's their country. But it has nothing to do with what happened to their parents or grand-parents during WWII.


And I'm not very fond of the selective immigration policy of Isreal, and I particulary dislike thinking that some of these immigrants come to settle in the occupied territories, further complicating the issue. Contrarily to an israeli-born citizen, a recent Jewish immigrant (barring refugees coming for really good reasons, but AFAIK, there aren't much of them nowadays) has no particulary good claim to come and live in this region or at least a claim way less valid than a random Palestinian.

I think you might be horribly ignorant of history. The Holocaust was just the last stage in a very long history of mistreatment of Jews by not just European countries, but in virtually every country where Jews lived. Zionism was founded by Theodore Hertzl after the Dreyfus trial in 1894. When Dreyfus was convicted of treason soley because he was Jewish, Hertzel realized that unless Jews had a state of their own, they would always be subject to the anti-semetic whims of whatever countries they lived in; there would be no place to escape to.

Considering what happened less than 50 years later, it's hard to argue with Hertzl's conclusion. Before the Holocaust, Hitler first offered to just expel the Jews from Germany. There was a worldwide conference, and shock of all shocks, no one wanted the Jews. So, he exterminated them, with large numbers of non-German Europeans providing all the help they could (for example, the French rounded up their Jewish citizens before the Nazis asked).

Don't think that the Arab world was immune to this, either. Jews either lived in Dhimmi status, or they were exterminated. Most of the population of Israel is descended from Arab Jews who were thrown out of Arab countries post-1948, often arriving in Israel with nothing more than the shirts on their backs.

As for "selective immigration policies", can you point out to me the country which DOESN'T have a selective immigration policy? Every country chooses who they want to let in. In Israel's case, as the Jewish homeland, it lets in Jews. This should not shock, as it is the location of the ancestral home of the Jews.

If there was going to be a refuge for Jews anywhere, why shouldn't it be in their ancestral home? What other piece of land do you think Jews should be able to run to the next time the world decides it wants to blame them for their ills? Or do you think they should just hop on the trains and go off to die again?

JonBodner
06-29-2003, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by Alien
Thank you for answering. I will have to look at LGF more closely later. But it strikes me that this is not only user comments. The editor himself wrote the following about the new Palestinian cease-fire offer:

"Islamic Jihad has announced that they will take a short pause to rest, reload, and rearm, before they resume murdering Jews."

That sounds beyond bias too me, and I'm not comfortable with you linking to such from a board, such as SDMB. But I'll look at the site tomorrow.
Why is that biased? If you mean biased, as in "has a point of view", then yeah, it's a point of view, and I'd love to hear how it's not an accurate one, given the history of Islamic Jihad and their public statements.

If you mean biased as in "bigoted", I'd like you to explain exactly how it is bigoted to take someone at their word. Islamic Jihad hasn't laid down their arms. They haven't forsworn violence. They do not accept a two-state solution. I'll say it again: how is this statement not accurate?

Tee
06-29-2003, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by clairobscur
I think the Jewish state should never have been created at the first place, Holocaust or not, so, as far as I'm concerned this reason isn't going to satisfy me. The only good reason for Israel to exist in my mind is that now, a large part of its population are people who were born and always lived there. So, now, that's their country. But it has nothing to do with what happened to their parents or grand-parents during WWII.

And I'm not very fond of the selective immigration policy of Isreal, and I particulary dislike thinking that some of these immigrants come to settle in the occupied territories, further complicating the issue. Contrarily to an israeli-born citizen, a recent Jewish immigrant (barring refugees coming for really good reasons, but AFAIK, there aren't much of them nowadays) has no particulary good claim to come and live in this region or at least a claim way less valid than a random Palestinian.

And why do people in Europe think they deserve a satisfactory explanation for any of it? I'll bet anything there's a stream of those new immigrants coming straight out of France, in fact. And no, I don't think we Americans are going to get a satisfactory explanation for that, or much of an acknowledgment whatsoever.

I don't know what to make of Little Green Footballs. Yes, maybe it's a hate site underneath the trappings of news coverage...I don't know. But I'll say this, I see no difference between that and the Indymedia Bush=Hitler Zionists=Nazis etc. utter bullshit being passed off as some valid political view. Hate is hate, after all. Isn't it?

JonBodner
06-29-2003, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by astro

In the eyes of Europeans is the moral leverage of the Holocaust experience about used up at this point in Israel justifying their behavior toward the Palestinians?

You've got it exactly backwards. What has happened is that the always-present European anti-semitism is now rearing its head once again. The shame of the Holocaust has worn off, and the abberation of the last 50 years has come to an end. The Intifada just provides an excuse.

Since attacking Jews simply for being Jews is not yet acceptable again, "Zionism" or "Israeli" is now used as the backdoor way to discriminate against Jews. This professor (and the rest of his ilk) wouldn't say the same thing about a Russian army veteran or a Chinese army veteran, despite the fact that their armies are guilty of atrocities that wouldn't even be considered by the Israeli army, much less performed. What is the difference, then? It's hard to point to anything besides the fact that the student is Jewish.

If you read the "apology" issued by Professor Wilkie, he's only sorry that he's been caught. You can be quite sure that in the future, he'll just make up a reason why he won't have any yids in his lab. And you can be quite sure that the university won't discipline him a bit.

JonBodner
06-29-2003, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by Tee
And why do people in Europe think they deserve a satisfactory explanation for any of it? I'll bet anything there's a stream of those new immigrants coming straight out of France, in fact. And no, I don't think we Americans are going to get a satisfactory explanation for that, or much of an acknowledgment whatsoever.

You are correct:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2634781.stm

YourOldBuddy
06-29-2003, 11:38 PM
JonBodner, your bigoted statements aimed at Europeans are appalling. You are no better than December.

There is no collective European shame concerning the jews in particular. Europe fought Nazi Germany and was not responsible for the Holocaust. Meanwhile Americans sat on their hands knowing about the Holocaust url (http://www.kimel.net/fdr.html) until they came in for the kill after Russia had worn Germany down.

Tee
06-29-2003, 11:59 PM
Blame America. Everyone does.

Originally posted by JonBodner
You are correct:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2634781.stm

Hmmph. Well, I don't particularly like being correct then. Not now.

I have no agenda to promote...."ever-present anti-Semitism" on the rise again is just a bit too pat and too vague of a reason. I'm not boycotting France, I think the idea is foolish and the motives suspect and even the graffiti on that war cemetary in the picture beamed over here smacked of fakeness. I mean really, who the hell neatly prints graffiti. We have not seen slavery on the rise again, we have not seen homosexuals jailed again, etc. Total regression isn't seen very often. But supposedly we're seeing it.

Now on the Israeli side, the Palestinians seem to have this well-run propaganda machine with a direct link to European outlets. At times in street shots you'll catch them putting on their grief-stricken faces after checking for the camera, and things like that. "20 dead civilians" and the fact that they're armed and uniformed is just, well, beside the point...I don't even believe half of them are Palestinians but obviously most people will.

I'd love to know what all this propaganda results in. Detrimental to Israel, to France, to the US...yes I know that. But it seems increasingly that wedges are driven between France and the US, France and Israel, France and the UK....looks suspicious after a while, that's all. Any thoughts?

jayjay
06-30-2003, 12:15 AM
A dangerous equivocation in modern politics is the dearly-held belief that disagreement with Israeli government policies is the same thing as antisemitism.

If you can't discern a difference between the state of Israel and the religion of Judaism, you've got a slight problem. There are religious Jews who think Israel was a very bad idea. There are Jewish atheists who cheer Israel like it was the high school football home team.

edwino
06-30-2003, 02:56 AM
I'd like to reiterate what JonBodner pointed out above. The calls out of Europe for academic and economic boycotts seem to be focused on Israel. There is so much bad stuff happening in the world right now that this focus leaves people questioning what makes Israel so special.

Aung San Suu Kyi is beat up and imprisoned in a shithole in Burma. Turkey beats up Kurdish rebels and occupies Cyprus. China occupies Tibet and still imprisons/kills dissidents. Half of Africa is involved in rebellions in which the rebels cut off limbs of children in order to make their point. Hell, America is imprisoning significant chunks of the Afghani male population indefinitely in Cuba, without any sort of legal status or protection.

But the calls focus on Israel. I'm not saying it is totally undeserved, but even the most left-wing European can recognize that in a conflict people will get their hands bloodied.

So I look for an underlying meaning. It could be that Israel is seen as a "western" democracy, and thus held to a higher standard. It could be that such a disproportionate chunk of academia is contributed by Israelis (I'm in molecular biology, just like the OP guy, and I can vouch for this). Or it could be vestiges of European anti-Semitism.

I don't see much anti-Semitism. In places that it really counts, it is loudly shouted down. What follows is a 3 AM rant. What I think is that Israel is put on a pedestal, as a Platonic ideal for Democratic Values in a sea of unwashed masses. Western nations tend to condescend the Arab countries (and African ones and just about any less-than-fully-developed country). Witness Bush in the Iraq war: we needed to go in there and set up a "beacon of democracy" for them, we needed to show the Arab world how good our government is before they will be able to give up their "primitive" way of life. So Israel not only has to be good, it has to be a "beacon." Israel needs to behave itself, to the point of accepting attacks, because the Arabs can't be expected to play by the rules. The Palestinians don't need to give up suicide bombings, they don't need to give up their anti-Semitism, because Israel, as a civilized country, bears the onus and should be the "beacon." So whatever Israel does won't be good enough: Western nations (especially those in Europe) believe Israel should act in an idealized fashion. Nevermind the fact that European nations have dealt with armed insurgency just as brutally as the Israelis. Why is this? Because there is worlds of difference between the refined air of European academia and what happens on the streets when bombs are going off in cafes. End 3 AM rant.

sailor
06-30-2003, 05:48 AM
Let me get this straight: A French newspaper publishes a tasteless crossword puzzle and that is enough to taint all of Europe as racist anti-semites. The French who read that paper and did not object to it, the French who read the paper and objected, the French who do not read that paper, the French who do not even know that paper exists, the Germans, the Italians, the Dutch, etc. All a bunch of racists on account of that.

And yet a website which allows people to routinely post racist anti-Palestinian comments has to be considered a neutral source and the comments only reflect on their authors.

I must be missing something.

Desmostylus
06-30-2003, 06:07 AM
Originally posted by sailor
I must be missing something. Of course you are. You're failing to consider the source. ;)

JonBodner
06-30-2003, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by YourOldBuddy
JonBodner, your bigoted statements aimed at Europeans are appalling. You are no better than December.

There is no collective European shame concerning the jews in particular. Europe fought Nazi Germany and was not responsible for the Holocaust. Meanwhile Americans sat on their hands knowing about the Holocaust url (http://www.kimel.net/fdr.html) until they came in for the kill after Russia had worn Germany down.
So rather than actually argue on merits and cites, you resort to personal attacks. Now that's classy.

The Europeans who shoved Jews onto trains, who ran the death camps, who looked the other way while their fellow citizens were singled out for special treatment, who stole the property of Jews that were deported for extermination certainly enabled the Holocaust. The British refusal to allow more Jews into Palestine enabled the Holocaust. While some countries did not do this, you don't manage to exterminate 6 million people spread across a continent without significant help. Only a half-million of those Jews were actually IN Germany.

Given the treatement of Jews in Europe over the past 1,000 years, you'd be hard-pressed to not find a history of anti-semitism. And given the hate directed towards Israel for engaging in acts that are mild compared to those committed by countries embraced by Europeans (Zimbabwe, anyone?), you'd be hard-pressed to find a reason besides anti-semitism. I'm not saying that Israel is beyond criticism. What I'm saying is that when Israel is criticized for acts that others engage in, what is the reason?

Unless you've got another reason. I figure you'll just find some other way to insult me rather than answering the question, but I like a nice surprise.

JonBodner
06-30-2003, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by edwino
What follows is a 3 AM rant. What I think is that Israel is put on a pedestal, as a Platonic ideal for Democratic Values in a sea of unwashed masses. Western nations tend to condescend the Arab countries (and African ones and just about any less-than-fully-developed country). Witness Bush in the Iraq war: we needed to go in there and set up a "beacon of democracy" for them, we needed to show the Arab world how good our government is before they will be able to give up their "primitive" way of life. So Israel not only has to be good, it has to be a "beacon." Israel needs to behave itself, to the point of accepting attacks, because the Arabs can't be expected to play by the rules. The Palestinians don't need to give up suicide bombings, they don't need to give up their anti-Semitism, because Israel, as a civilized country, bears the onus and should be the "beacon." So whatever Israel does won't be good enough: Western nations (especially those in Europe) believe Israel should act in an idealized fashion. Nevermind the fact that European nations have dealt with armed insurgency just as brutally as the Israelis. Why is this? Because there is worlds of difference between the refined air of European academia and what happens on the streets when bombs are going off in cafes. End 3 AM rant.
I don't buy it for two reasons.

One, Russia is one of the countries with the bloodiest hands. Do left-wing Europeans consider Russia some sort of backwards, broken state? If they do, they've got a lot to answer about their love affair with the USSR.

Secondly, your argument reminds me of a "family values" guy I heard on NPR the other day. He said that he was against legalized sodomy for homosexuals not because he hated gay people, but because sodomy was a terrible health hazzard and he just didn't want to see any more sick men. Clearly, this is a pathetic rationalization. And so is saying that Europeans just have Israel's best interests at heart when they call for boycotts of Israel, call Jews Nazis, consider it morally equivalent to blow up old people sitting down to a religious meal and soldiers fighting street by booby-trapped street to root out terrorists, and treat Israel as a pariah for engaging in acts that aren't even close to beyond the pale.

In short, what you are saying is that Europeans are such incredible racists that they don't think the stupid wogs are even capable of acting like human beings, and they care about Israel so much that they think it's proper for Israel to be destroyed by the aforementioned cretins. You should ask a European about that theory some time and see if they agree. It doesn't even pass the laugh test.

JonBodner
06-30-2003, 07:09 AM
Originally posted by jayjay
A dangerous equivocation in modern politics is the dearly-held belief that disagreement with Israeli government policies is the same thing as antisemitism.

If you can't discern a difference between the state of Israel and the religion of Judaism, you've got a slight problem. There are religious Jews who think Israel was a very bad idea. There are Jewish atheists who cheer Israel like it was the high school football home team.
No, the condemnation of Israel for acts which are routinely ignored or praised when committed by other nations is anti-semitism. Unless you have another reason why Robert Mugabe gets state vists to European countries while the PM of Ireland refuses to meet with Ariel Sharon?

elfje
06-30-2003, 07:29 AM
PM of ireland refused to meet with Ariel Sharon?
do you have a cite for that, please?

YourOldBuddy
06-30-2003, 07:39 AM
Wouldnt surprise me in the least. Mugabe has ways to go to match Sharons murdering reign.

YourOldBuddy
06-30-2003, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by JonBodner
The Europeans who shoved Jews onto trains, who ran the death camps, who looked the other way while their fellow citizens were singled out for special treatment, who stole the property of Jews that were deported for extermination certainly enabled the Holocaust. The British refusal to allow more Jews into Palestine enabled the Holocaust. While some countries did not do this, you don't manage to exterminate 6 million people spread across a continent without significant help. Only a half-million of those Jews were actually IN Germany.
At the same time as the US sat on its hands, Europeans where fighting and risking their lives to keep their Jews alive. Even Mussolini, Hitlers staunchest allie refused to give his Jews up. Even then Europeans and 99% of Germans didnt know about deathcamps. Roosevelt did.

Given the treatement of Jews in Europe over the past 1,000 years, you'd be hard-pressed to not find a history of anti-semitism.
I would take you seriously if you actually wrote from a bastion of racial harmony. A week since the last large scale black riot? 12% of blacks age 20-30 in jail. Your one to talk trash about Europes race relations.

You spew hypocrisy as well as bigotry and Euro hate. At the same time you accuse others of anti semitism and link to a Muslim Hate site.

clairobscur
06-30-2003, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by JonBodner
[B]I think you might be horribly ignorant of history.

And how would you know? I didn't make any comment about history, just stated that I thought the Jewish state should never have been created at the first place.




[ quote]The Holocaust was just the last stage in a very long history of mistreatment of Jews by not just European countries [.....] So, he exterminated them, with large numbers of non-German Europeans providing all the help they could (for example, the French rounded up their Jewish citizens before the Nazis asked). [/quote]


Nothing new here. Or were you thinking that one couldn't possibly have heard about the Zionist movement, the Dreyfus affair, the Holocaust, and still think that the creation of the Jewish state had no legitimacy?


What you said explain *why* the Jews were motivated to create such a state, but it doesn't mean that they had any legitimate right to do so. From my point of view, that was plain colonialism, whether or not the Jews had good reasons to think it was in their best interest is irrelevant.





Don't think that the Arab world was immune to this, either.
Jews either lived in Dhimmi status, or they were exterminated.


Exterminated? Well...I'll leave this statement at that, because there has been a lenghty debate about the dhimmi status on this board very recently, by people much more aknowledgeable than me.



Most of the population of Israel is descended from Arab Jews who were thrown out of Arab countries post-1948, often arriving in Israel with nothing more than the shirts on their backs.


In...1948??? Interesting. Could it be that the Jews being expelled or fleeing Arab countries was the consequence of the creation of the state of Israel? Hmmm? You seem to imply by mentionning this in this part of your post that it could be a *reason* for the its creation, when of course it isn't.



As for "selective immigration policies", can you point out to me the country which DOESN'T have a selective immigration policy? Every country chooses who they want to let in. In Israel's case, as the Jewish homeland, it lets in Jews.

Yep. But in most other countries, there isn't a dispute/war fought over the legitimate owning of the land. Bringing in more "friends" when you're already accused of being stealing the territory of another people and forbidding *their* friends from coming back is a very different situation.

Beside, the religious basis used for immigration is for me an issue in itself, but secondary to my point above.



This should not shock, as it is the location of the ancestral home of the Jews.

Ancestral home? As in 2000 years ago? Totally irrelevant for me. The fact that 80 generations ago, possibly some of your ancestors lived on some piece of land don't you give you any right to this piece of land. And certainly *way* more right than someone who can prove that his father was living on the said place of land 50 years ago.



If there was going to be a refuge for Jews anywhere, why shouldn't it be in their ancestral home?

Possibly because there was already people living in this "ancestral land"??? Hmmm?? And that the european colonial power in charge had no legitimacy in handing out this land to them against the will of the people actually living there?

The Jews might have been victimized by the romans and expelled from their land very, very, long time ago, but that is history (and remote history at that), and irrelevant when considering the current situation (and by the way may I remind you, since we're apparently allowed to come back in time, that the Jewish ancestors were themselves invaders who took over the territory from their original owners, as mentionned in...I can't remember exactly, but must be some old book Jewish people tend to consider with high regard.

But perhaps I should accept your reasonning. I wrote in my post above that most Israelis had now a legitimate claim because they were born and have lived all their live in Israel, but maybe you're right. Perhaps this doesn't give them any right to live there at all, since the grand-parents of other people were there before them, and perhaps they should just leave and let the proven descendants of Palestinians take over (of course, they will in turn leave as soon as someone will be able to prove his ancestors had an even older claim. Eventually, any Jew who will be able to document, showing birth certificates from the last 2000 years, that his ancestors were living in Israel will be allowed to come back).

Let's be serious....a 2000 years old claim is totally meaningless.


What other piece of land do you think Jews should be able to run to the next time the world decides it wants to blame them for their ills? Or do you think they should just hop on the trains and go off to die again?


Once again, the fact that Jews might had good reasons to *want* to have their own country didn't give them the *right* to carve out this country wherever they felt like at the detriment of of the people already living there.


And it most certainly doesn't give them any justification or any moral leverage when they are acccused of oppressing the palestinians.

clairobscur
06-30-2003, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by Tee
And why do people in Europe think they deserve a satisfactory explanation for any of it?



And why do anybody thinks he deserves any satisfactory explanation for any event? Why anybody would deserve an explanation for why palestinian are planting bombs in Jerusalem? They're just doing so. They must have some reason to, that's their business. Why is anybody debatting this issue at all? Why would it be an issue anyway? Please, people, mind your own business and forget about everything which isn't happening inside your hometown.

JonBodner
06-30-2003, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by elfje
PM of ireland refused to meet with Ariel Sharon?
do you have a cite for that, please?
My mistake; it was the Irish foreign minister, not the PM:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull%26cid=1056421660353

Registration is required, so I'll post the first paragraph:


Forced to choose between Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat, Irish Foreign Minister Brian Cowen has opted for Arafat.

JonBodner
06-30-2003, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by clairobscur
And why do anybody thinks he deserves any satisfactory explanation for any event? Why anybody would deserve an explanation for why palestinian are planting bombs in Jerusalem? They're just doing so. They must have some reason to, that's their business. Why is anybody debatting this issue at all? Why would it be an issue anyway? Please, people, mind your own business and forget about everything which isn't happening inside your hometown.
You know, I felt the same way when the Chinese ran tanks over students and threw people in jail for practicing meditation. I figured they just deserved it.

Personally, I'm pulling for another IRA bombing campaign in London, and maybe a return of the Marxist terrorist attacks in France, Germany, and Italy. After all, they probably deserve it, too.

clairobscur
06-30-2003, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by JonBodner
Since attacking Jews simply for being Jews is not yet acceptable again, "Zionism" or "Israeli" is now used as the backdoor way to discriminate against Jews



Yes. And people who criticize the Palestinians are actually all foaming at the mouth scumbags who in fact hate all arabs. It's just a backdoor way to express their strongly racist views and to discriminate against brown-colored people.

clairobscur
06-30-2003, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by JonBodner
What I'm saying is that when Israel is criticized for acts that others engage in, what is the reason?



1) Israel is a high profile case. You hear about it all the time in the news. When 12 Israelis or Palestians are killed, it's all over the medias. When 12 000 people from some-shitty-country-I-can't-even-remember-the-name-of are killed it's barely mentionned. Were the Israelis of non-western culture and background, you'd essentially never hear about them. The issue would be discussed as often as, say, the Tamils issue. Nobody would care, nobody would draft "peace-plans", and of course nobody would boycott.


2) Israel is held to higher standarts as a western democracy. You can't have it both ways, claiming at the same time that you're a modern democracy and comparing your actions with the actions of third-world dictatorship.


3)Because it's an issue people disagree about. There's not much in the way of arguments concerning Burma, because you'll have a hard finding someone who will be supportive of its government.

clairobscur
06-30-2003, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by JonBodner
You know, I felt the same way when the Chinese ran tanks over students and threw people in jail for practicing meditation. I figured they just deserved it.




Had you paid attention the post I was responding to, you'd probably have guessed I was sarcastic.

Alien
06-30-2003, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by elfje
PM of ireland refused to meet with Ariel Sharon?
do you have a cite for that, please?

Originally posted by JonBodner
My mistake; it was the Irish foreign minister, not the PM:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull%26cid=1056421660353


Actually, this article JonBodner is referring to is on the webpage december linked to too.

The page contains a copy of the article. As an intro to the article, an editor of LGF wrote:
"Irish Foreign Minister Brian Cowen was told that if he met with the bloodstained murderer Yasser Arafat, he would not be allowed to meet with Israeli officials.
He chose to meet with the terrorist."

Could you tell us JonBodner, did you originally get that article from jpost.com or LGF? I'm only asking because it seems quotes in this thread, while also appering elsewhere as on jpost.com, the shared source is decembers link.

TwistofFate
06-30-2003, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by JonBodner
My mistake; it was the Irish foreign minister, not the PM:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull%26cid=1056421660353

Registration is required, so I'll post the first paragraph:


What you neglect to mention is that Sharon would refuse to meet with Brian Cowen if he met with Arafat.

So Sharon's imposed rules on who dignataries are allowed to meet are responsible for the fiasco.

And it gets spun around to make it look like Cowen refused to meet with them?

What a poor attempt at spin.

Are you december in disguise?

MC Master of Ceremonies
06-30-2003, 08:55 AM
I'm saying I agree with the academic boycott (I have grave reservations about it), but to call it antisemtic is just ignorant. The boycott takes it's precednt from the academic boycott of South Africa. Steve Rose the man behind the boycott like many of it's leading proponents is Jewish himself (the son of an anti-facist campaigner to boot).

JonBodner
06-30-2003, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by clairobscur
And how would you know? I didn't make any comment about history, just stated that I thought the Jewish state should never have been created at the first place.

Well, I guess you aren't ignorant about history; you just don't care if Jews die.

What you said explain *why* the Jews were motivated to create such a state, but it doesn't mean that they had any legitimate right to do so. From my point of view, that was plain colonialism, whether or not the Jews had good reasons to think it was in their best interest is irrelevant.

Because survival isn't a legitimate right when you're a Jew.

In...1948??? Interesting. Could it be that the Jews being expelled or fleeing Arab countries was the consequence of the creation of the state of Israel? Hmmm? You seem to imply by mentionning this in this part of your post that it could be a *reason* for the its creation, when of course it isn't.

No, it shows that once again, Jews will need a place to flee to, when the age-old hatreds rise again. Every other ethinic group has a homeland and is considered to have the right to a homeland. Jews aren't. Why the difference? Couldn't be anti-semitism, nope, not at all.

Yep. But in most other countries, there isn't a dispute/war fought over the legitimate owning of the land. Bringing in more "friends" when you're already accused of being stealing the territory of another people and forbidding *their* friends from coming back is a very different situation.

Yeah, and that's why you should start boycotting the US. After all it stole land from the Indians, and then invited in more people to settle it!

Of course, the same is true for Egypt. The Copts are the native Egyptians, who are now brutally repressed. The Arabs are foreign conquerors. I take it that you have just as much indignation for the Egyptians as you do for Israelis.

Beside, the religious basis used for immigration is for me an issue in itself, but secondary to my point above.

Why exactly are religious restrictions an issue? What makes them worse than education-level restrictions or country of origin restrictions or the Francophone restrictions that Quebec and Canada use?

Ancestral home? As in 2000 years ago? Totally irrelevant for me. The fact that 80 generations ago, possibly some of your ancestors lived on some piece of land don't you give you any right to this piece of land. And certainly *way* more right than someone who can prove that his father was living on the said place of land 50 years ago.

Arafat was born in Cairo. Sharon was born in Palestine. Who has the right to stay? I'm waiting for your answer, but I think you're just going to skip this one.

Possibly because there was already people living in this "ancestral land"??? Hmmm?? And that the european colonial power in charge had no legitimacy in handing out this land to them against the will of the people actually living there?

The number of people living in Palestine when Jews started returning from Europe was tiny, less than 10% of the current population. And population figures for Jerusalem at this time show that it was overwhelmingly Jewish. It's not like these foreign invader Jews were pushing the natives out.

Jews had as much right to go to Palestine as Europeans had a right to go to the New World and AU/NZ. Do you consider those countries illigitimate, too?

The Jews might have been victimized by the romans and expelled from their land very, very, long time ago, but that is history (and remote history at that), and irrelevant when considering the current situation (and by the way may I remind you, since we're apparently allowed to come back in time, that the Jewish ancestors were themselves invaders who took over the territory from their original owners, as mentionned in...I can't remember exactly, but must be some old book Jewish people tend to consider with high regard.

And, unlike virtually every other people, Jews are honest about where they got their land from. There's no myth that God fashioned Jews from the soil of Israel (Abraham came from what is now Iraq). Jews consider the land of Israel to have been God-given. It's more of a reason than any other nation gives for its right to exist. Do you have a problem with the expulsion of the Jews from Mecca, when Mohammed claimed it as the seat of Islam? Or is that history too ancient for it to count?

But perhaps I should accept your reasonning. I wrote in my post above that most Israelis had now a legitimate claim because they were born and have lived all their live in Israel, but maybe you're right. Perhaps this doesn't give them any right to live there at all, since the grand-parents of other people were there before them, and perhaps they should just leave and let the proven descendants of Palestinians take over (of course, they will in turn leave as soon as someone will be able to prove his ancestors had an even older claim. Eventually, any Jew who will be able to document, showing birth certificates from the last 2000 years, that his ancestors were living in Israel will be allowed to come back).

So, what country do you live in? How far back can we trace the property rights to the piece of land you call your home?

Let's be serious....a 2000 years old claim is totally meaningless.

Please tell me the exact number of years that makes a claim valid. Right now, it's somewhere between 53 years and 2000 years. And then tell me if you will apply this standard to the Palestinians.

Once again, the fact that Jews might had good reasons to *want* to have their own country didn't give them the *right* to carve out this country wherever they felt like at the detriment of of the people already living there.

Please list the natural-born rights that you think that people have, and tell me where they come from.

Jews had as much right to create the State of Israel as Australia has a right to exist, as New Zealand has a right to exist, as America has a right to exist, as Canada has a right to exist. I take it that you question these other countries, too? And if not, why not?

And it most certainly doesn't give them any justification or any moral leverage when they are acccused of oppressing the palestinians.

No, no it doesn't. But whether or not Israel is oppressing the Palestinians is not the issue. Every Arab country oppresses the Palestinians. The legitimacy of the State of Israel is the issue. Was Israel legitimate before 1967, when the West Bank and Gaza were Jordanian and Egyptian?

Look, you clearly have a problem with Israel that you don't have with other countries in similar situations. You need to ask yourself why you feel this way. Being honest about your feelings will make this all quite a bit easier.

JonBodner
06-30-2003, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by clairobscur
Had you paid attention the post I was responding to, you'd probably have guessed I was sarcastic.
Oh, horseflop. You were implying that Israelis deserve to be attacked by the Palestinians. So, I'm asking if this is true of any terroristic attack, or only those against Israelis?

MC Master of Ceremonies
06-30-2003, 09:05 AM
*I'm not saying I agree with the....

JonBodner
06-30-2003, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by MC Master of Ceremonies
I'm saying I agree with the academic boycott (I have grave reservations about it), but to call it antisemtic is just ignorant. The boycott takes it's precednt from the academic boycott of South Africa. Steve Rose the man behind the boycott like many of it's leading proponents is Jewish himself (the son of an anti-facist campaigner to boot).
And an academic boycott of South Africa (I didn't realize there was one) was repugnant, too. It reminds me of the people who criticized Paul Simon for recording Graceland with Black South Africans, because it was breaking an economic boycott. Never mind that Graceland was featuring Black artists and giving them money.

MC Master of Ceremonies
06-30-2003, 09:12 AM
Well again as I said I don't agree with it (I actually know someone in a very simlair situation: Israeli, served in IDF, currently studying for a PhD at Cambridge, who hasn't had any problems with the boycott), particlularly as the people who it hits hardest tend to be members of the Israeli peace camp.

JonBodner
06-30-2003, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by TwistofFate
What you neglect to mention is that Sharon would refuse to meet with Brian Cowen if he met with Arafat.

So Sharon's imposed rules on who dignataries are allowed to meet are responsible for the fiasco.

And it gets spun around to make it look like Cowen refused to meet with them?

What a poor attempt at spin.

Are you december in disguise?
I don't know December at all.

And Brian Cowen chose to meet with a terrorist (who is, according to recent reports, getting money from Libya to continue to fund terror attacks against Israelis) instead of the democratically elected leader of a "western democracy." Do you think that Bush would meet with someone who decided to have a chat with bin Laden? Would Vicente Fox meet with someone who insisted on meeting with the head of the Zapatistas?

I could keep on citing terror groups and their associated countries, but I hope you get the hint. Arafat is still a terrorist, not a statesman. Calling him democratically elected would be like calling Mubarak or Assad democratically elected. The representative of the Irish government chose a side, and it's a side that would not have been chosen with any other country.

JonBodner
06-30-2003, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by MC Master of Ceremonies
Well again as I said I don't agree with it (I actually know someone in a very simlair situation: Israeli, served in IDF, currently studying for a PhD at Cambridge, who hasn't had any problems with the boycott), particlularly as the people who it hits hardest tend to be members of the Israeli peace camp.
Apologies; I posted before your correction appeared.

JonBodner
06-30-2003, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by Alien
Could you tell us JonBodner, did you originally get that article from jpost.com or LGF? I'm only asking because it seems quotes in this thread, while also appering elsewhere as on jpost.com, the shared source is decembers link. [/B]
No, I got it from the Jerusalem Post. I have a membership there.

Whether or not you think it's a bastion of bigotry, LGF is one of the most popular blogs, and it is updated quite frequently with news on Israel. It's not too surprising that you'll see something from the Jerusalem Post referenced on LGF.

JonBodner
06-30-2003, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by clairobscur
1) Israel is a high profile case. You hear about it all the time in the news. When 12 Israelis or Palestians are killed, it's all over the medias. When 12 000 people from some-shitty-country-I-can't-even-remember-the-name-of are killed it's barely mentionned. Were the Israelis of non-western culture and background, you'd essentially never hear about them. The issue would be discussed as often as, say, the Tamils issue. Nobody would care, nobody would draft "peace-plans", and of course nobody would boycott.


2) Israel is held to higher standarts as a western democracy. You can't have it both ways, claiming at the same time that you're a modern democracy and comparing your actions with the actions of third-world dictatorship.


3)Because it's an issue people disagree about. There's not much in the way of arguments concerning Burma, because you'll have a hard finding someone who will be supportive of its government.
So, what you're saying is that Israel is just so highly respected and admired by the world, the world feels the need to hold it to a higher standard than the poor, stupid Arabs. And due to that high respect, the French Ambassador to London couldn't help but refer to Israel as a "shitty little country"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1721172.stm

Are you serious? From what I can tell, you share these beliefs. That makes you a rather intolorable bigot. Are you ashamed that you think so little of Arabs?

TwistofFate
06-30-2003, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by JonBodner
I don't know December at all.

And Brian Cowen chose to meet with a terrorist (who is, according to recent reports, getting money from Libya to continue to fund terror attacks against Israelis) instead of the democratically elected leader of a "western democracy." Do you think that Bush would meet with someone who decided to have a chat with bin Laden? Would Vicente Fox meet with someone who insisted on meeting with the head of the Zapatistas?

I could keep on citing terror groups and their associated countries, but I hope you get the hint. Arafat is still a terrorist, not a statesman. Calling him democratically elected would be like calling Mubarak or Assad democratically elected. The representative of the Irish government chose a side, and it's a side that would not have been chosen with any other country.


Cowen offered to meet with both sides, it was the Israeli's who refuesed to meet with Cowen because he planned on meeting with Arafat aswell.

Using your logic, foreign dignataries could refuse to meet with Sharon because of his previous Cosy Cartel with the Phalangists, or is assisting terrorism ok as long as its your enemies getting slaughtered?

JonBodner
06-30-2003, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by YourOldBuddy
[B]At the same time as the US sat on its hands, Europeans where fighting and risking their lives to keep their Jews alive. Even Mussolini, Hitlers staunchest allie refused to give his Jews up. Even then Europeans and 99% of Germans didnt know about deathcamps. Roosevelt did.

Yes, and it's shameful what the US did. The US refused to take in Jewish refugees. It sent back a boat full of them, and they all later perished in the camps. Anti-semitism in the US has died down quite a bit from its peak, but it's not perfect. For example, in Northern California (home of San Francisco and Berkeley), attacks on Jews doubled last year.

As for Germans not knowing, it's absurd. There are documents that show companies requesting Jewish slaves for medical experiments and slave labor. The Poles certainly knew what was going on, as the death camps were all in Poland, not Germany. The smoke from the cremetoria carried quite a distance. If they were ignorant, they were willfully ignorant.

I would take you seriously if you actually wrote from a bastion of racial harmony. A week since the last large scale black riot? 12% of blacks age 20-30 in jail. Your one to talk trash about Europes race relations.

Because Black people in Michigan burned down a town with a majority Black population and a Black mayor, I can't point out that Europeans have a 1,000 year history of Jew hatred? I'm confused. Did I miss a step in your logic?

You spew hypocrisy as well as bigotry and Euro hate. At the same time you accuse others of anti semitism and link to a Muslim Hate site.
Which Muslim hate site did I link to? The BBC? The Jerusalem Post?

As I suspected, you descended into vitrol and hate rather than debate. I'm through replying to you.

JonBodner
06-30-2003, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by TwistofFate
Cowen offered to meet with both sides, it was the Israeli's who refuesed to meet with Cowen because he planned on meeting with Arafat aswell.

Using your logic, foreign dignataries could refuse to meet with Sharon because of his previous Cosy Cartel with the Phalangists, or is assisting terrorism ok as long as its your enemies getting slaughtered?
Again, Sharon's refusal made perfect sense, as any head of state would make the exact same choice.

And no, terrorism is never OK. Sharon never said, "OK Lebanese Christians, go slaughters those Muslims for me!" He was told that they were going to go into the refugee camps to get PLO terrorists and instead they killed women and children, too. For this serious error in judgement, there were massive demonstrations in Israel (something like 10% of the country turned out) and he was sacked. It wouldn't be the first time that a group allied with a government committed an atrocity, and Sharon shouldn't have been so trusting.

But there is no valid comparison between Sharon and Arafat. If Arafat had foresworn terrorism and was working for peace, that would be one thing, and Sharon would be seriously wrong in insisting that it was either him or Arafat. But Sharon isn't wrong. Arafat is still a terrorist. He encourages other people (especially children) to be terrorists, and he provides money to help people commit terrorist acts.

Compare Sharon's attitude towards Arafat with his attitude towards Abu Mazen. Mazen has quite a lot of blood on his hands, and holds some quite disgusting views on the Holocaust. But he is, as far as anyone can tell, an honest broker for peace. The Irish FM's meeting with Arafat not only undermined Sharon, it also undermined Abu Mazen. Why did they do that? Don' t the Irish want peace in the Middle East? Or is the need to snub Israel more important than strengthening the Palestinians who are working for peace?

TwistofFate
06-30-2003, 10:04 AM
You're simply demonising your enemy to justify your allies actions. Sharon knew exactly what the Phalangists were capable of, it's not like it was a break from their normal charitable work or anything.


The Irish certainly want peace in the Middle East, and we have learned the hard way that the only way to work towards peace is to meet with all sides.

JonBodner
06-30-2003, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by TwistofFate
You're simply demonising your enemy to justify your allies actions. Sharon knew exactly what the Phalangists were capable of, it's not like it was a break from their normal charitable work or anything.

Please point out where I demonized. I never said the Phalangists were the Salvation Army. I said that Sharon screwed up. I don't think Sharon encouraged the Phalangists to commit the atrocity, and I don't think there is any evidence supporting the belief that Sharon encouraged them. Arafat does indeed support terrorism to this day. There's incontrovertable evidence of this. It's not demonization when it's true.

The Irish certainly want peace in the Middle East, and we have learned the hard way that the only way to work towards peace is to meet with all sides.
Then why not meet with Abu Mazen alone? It would have been the diplomatic thing to do, and it would have helped isolate a terrorist from popular support. Seems to me that reducing support for a terrorist would be a pro-peace move.

TwistofFate
06-30-2003, 10:17 AM
Because it is not up to Israel to pick and choose which foreign dignataries Irish representatives can meet with.

RandySpears
06-30-2003, 10:26 AM
Arafat does indeed support terrorism to this day. There's incontrovertable evidence of this.

cite?

JonBodner
06-30-2003, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by TwistofFate
Because it is not up to Israel to pick and choose which foreign dignataries Irish representatives can meet with.
So it was just to snub Israel, and damn the consequences of supporting a terrorist. That's the way to build a road to peace.

When did the Irish adopt the "cut off your nose to spite your face" philosophy in their foreign policy?

Kal
06-30-2003, 10:31 AM
I have no dog in this fight, but this statement:

Originally posted by JonBodner
Every other ethinic group has a homeland and is considered to have the right to a homeland.

Is wrong.

clairobscur
06-30-2003, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by JonBodner
[B]Well, I guess you aren't ignorant about history; you just don't care if Jews die.

Because survival isn't a legitimate right when you're a Jew.

Survival is certainly a legitimate right. But people have a legitimate right to be pissed off when other people insure their safety by taking over their land.



No, it shows that once again, Jews will need a place to flee to, when the age-old hatreds rise again. Every other ethinic group has a homeland and is considered to have the right to a homeland.

Of course, plenty of ethnic group don't have a homeland. You just have to look a round, and you'l find hundreds of example. What you should say is that all other ethnic goups have a claim on a homeland, which isn't necessarily recognized by the country where this homeland is situated. All except one, that you seem to have forgotten : the gypsies.

And *wanting* a homeland and deciding that *this* place should be your homeland still doesn't give you the right to take it away from the people living there and who, for some mysterious reason, think it's *their* homeland.


Jews aren't. Why the difference? Couldn't be anti-semitism, nope, not at all.

Of course. How could there be any other reason than antisemitism for stating that a mass immigration to a place ruled by a colonial power with the backing of said colonial power and against the will of the people living there isn't legitimate?

Let's go on arguing. You know I'm an antisemitic scumbag who hate Jews since I think they had no legitimate right to create Israel, I know you're a racist scumbag who hates arabs since you think arabs could be legitimely displaced to make room for the Jews. Things are much clearer this way.



Yeah, and that's why you should start boycotting the US. After all it stole land from the Indians, and then invited in more people to settle it!

You're making me smile. I considered using this argument to argue against *your* position that the Jews had a legitimate claim on this land because it was their "ancestral land" 2000 years ago.

Of course, the same is true for Egypt. The Copts are the native Egyptians, who are now brutally repressed. The Arabs are foreign conquerors. I take it that you have just as much indignation for the Egyptians as you do for Israelis.

Once again, you seem to forgot that *you* were the one who stated that having a 2000 years old claim made sense. You're giving arguments against your own position.

*I* stated that refering to what happened 2000 years ago when deciding whether someone has a legitimate claim or not is ludicrous. Refering to the copts has the sole legitimate "owners" of Egyptia because they were invaded 1300 years ago is equally ludicrous. That's perfectly consistent with my position.



Why exactly are religious restrictions an issue? What makes them worse than education-level restrictions or country of origin restrictions or the Francophone restrictions that Quebec and Canada use?

maybe we should left this one for another debate. I've an issue with religious discrimination, and more generally an issue with religion in general.


Arafat was born in Cairo. Sharon was born in Palestine. Who has the right to stay? I'm waiting for your answer, but I think you're just going to skip this one.

No need to skip this one, since I actually already answered it. If you actually read my first post in this thread, you'll notice that i stated that Israelis have now a valid claim on israel territory since most of them were born and had lived all their life there.

So, when you don't give ammunitions against your own arguments (the "Us should be given back to the amerindians and Egyptia to the copts"), you're trying to convince me that my statements are correct.

Instead of assuming various thoughts I might hold in your opinion, perhaps you should read my posts (and apparently also your own) before responding.


The number of people living in Palestine when Jews started returning from Europe was tiny, less than 10% of the current population.

Irrelevant, once again. Tiny population or not, it was the *local* population. The population density of the US is very low by european standarts. Can the dutch (the Netherlands is the european country with the highest population density) or people from Singapour settle there and create their own independant country somewhere in the US? If I think your house is too large considering the size of your family, can I take part of it?


And population figures for Jerusalem at this time show that it was overwhelmingly Jewish.

That might be possible. Did I say that Jewish people who were living in Jerusalem didn't have a legitimate right to stay?


It's not like these foreign invader Jews were pushing the natives out.

It's exactly what happened. There was only a tiny number of Jews living there. A massive number of other people came in from other (western, colonialist) countries settle down there and these newcomers eventually got an independant state against the will of the previously existing population.


Jews had as much right to go to Palestine as Europeans had a right to go to the New World and AU/NZ.

And europeans didn't have such a right. That is called colonialism. And that's exactly why I say that Jewish immigration in what is now Israel was colonialism.


Do you consider those countries illigitimate, too?

Illegitimate now? No, I don't. In the same way I don't consider Israel as illegitimate now, as I stated in my very first post. But european people originally settling in the New World and Australia at the expense of the local people was definitely illegitimate, in the same way that Jews settling in Israel at the expense of the local people was illegitimate.


And, unlike virtually every other people, Jews are honest about where they got their land from. There's no myth that God fashioned Jews from the soil of Israel (Abraham came from what is now Iraq). Jews consider the land of Israel to have been God-given. It's more of a reason than any other nation gives for its right to exist.

Religious motivations and justifications just don't fly with me. "God gave me that" is the last argument i would acccept. Essentially any other justification i would find more acceptable, or at least would make more sense in my book.


Do you have a problem with the expulsion of the Jews from Mecca, when Mohammed claimed it as the seat of Islam? Or is that history too ancient for it to count?

I couldn't say whether I've a problem or not, because I'm not familiar of the details of the struggle between Mohammed and the Jewish tribe he was opposed to, and anyway, as far as I know, the only things we know about this came through the filter of the muslim religious tradition. So, there's no way for me to tell who was right or wrong in this instance.

And yes, that's definitely history too ancient to be relevant in the current context. Have you any problem with the Hebrew, according to the Jewish religious traditions, expulsing and massacring the local population when they invaded the "god-given" land? Do you think it's recent enough history to count?



So, what country do you live in? How far back can we trace the property rights to the piece of land you call your home?


I'm living in France. I can trace back my family here up to around 1570. And it's still irrelevant. It wouldn't make any difference if my parents had immigrated here 30 years ago (especially if they had immigrated with the *agreement* of the local population). And remember for the umpteenth time that *you* were the one stating that the fact your ancestor lived in a piece of land 2000 years ago could be relevant in the current context. Not me.


Please tell me the exact number of years that makes a claim valid. Right now, it's somewhere between 53 years and 2000 years. And then tell me if you will apply this standard to the Palestinians.

That's an interesting question, for once, and something I often wondered about. I even considered opening a thread on this very subject. For how long could one's or one's parents or ancestors victimization should be taken into account or should be goung for a redress of grievances? Not specifically in the context of Israel, but there are many other related issues. One of them, if i'm not mistaken was strongly argued about recently in the US. Should black people be compensated for the fact that their ancestors were enslaved?

I don't have an answer to this question. I would say that at least when there are still people around who lived through the events, their claims are definitely valid. Beyond that, it becomes blurry. In the case of Israel, a Palestinian who personnaly lived in israel proper has certainly a most valid claim. What about his children? Do they have a moral right to be allowed to live in Israel? Do they have only the right to be indemnized for, say a property their father owned and which was seized? What about his grand-children? His descendants 100 years down from now if they find in the drawer a 150 year-old property title?


Please list the natural-born rights that you think that people have, and tell me where they come from.

No way. There has been (and there currently are) endless threads on this very board about the topic of what is or is not a right, i'm not going to begin to argue about this issue in this thread.



Jews had as much right to create the State of Israel as Australia has a right to exist, as New Zealand has a right to exist, as America has a right to exist, as Canada has a right to exist. I take it that you question these other countries, too? And if not, why not?

I already answered. just look above :

-Israel as a right to exist now, given the current context (which doesn't mean that the Palestinian don't have a right to live in some other place than a refugee camp), and the US and Canada have such a right to.

-People who created israel had no right to do so, and the people who pushed away the local population to settle in the New World had no right to do so, either.


No, no it doesn't. But whether or not Israel is oppressing the Palestinians is not the issue. Every Arab country oppresses the Palestinians. The legitimacy of the State of Israel is the issue. Was Israel legitimate before 1967, when the West Bank and Gaza were Jordanian and Egyptian?

The fact that the West Bank and Gaza were Jordanian and Egyptian is irrelevant to the issue of the legitimacy of Israel. I couldn't tell when exactly the continued existence of israel became legitimate. All i know is that this existence is now a fact, and that the original masive jewish settlement in what is now Israel during the first half of the XXth century wasn't legitimate.



Look, you clearly have a problem with Israel that you don't have with other countries in similar situations.

And how would you know that? What countries "in similar situations" are you refering to, for a start?



You need to ask yourself why you feel this way. Being honest about your feelings will make this all quite a bit easier.

I feel that : "I've a big issue and I want a piece of land somewhere...this one seems fine to me. Let's go there, and push away the people who are already living there. Beside, we've the agreement of this powerful country which decided it had the right to rule the place and there's nothing the locals can do, anyway" is grossly unjust. Why is that so difficult to understand for you?


What part of your house can I take over and consider mine forever if I run into troubles someday?

clairobscur
06-30-2003, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by JonBodner
Oh, horseflop. You were implying that Israelis deserve to be attacked by the Palestinians. So, I'm asking if this is true of any terroristic attack, or only those against Israelis?



What????? :confused: :confused: :confused: Where did you read that??????

A poster wrote that the europeans didn't have any right to be given any justification for Israel's policies. So, I replied that then, nobody had any right to be given any justifications for anything, that we don't need to be given any justifications for the palestinians planting bombs in Israel, either, and that everybody should never bother, ask any questions, or discuss any issue about anything not happening in his hometown.


How did you understand that as implying that the Israelis deserve to be bombed?????????? Where did you even find the word "deserve" that you're bolding??????

elfje
06-30-2003, 11:03 AM
JonBodner, so in your book
not letting yourself be bullied or manipulated = a snub?

Ireland did not make demands, Israel did.
Not meeting those demands was perfectly within Irish rights, and was not meant to be a snub.

If Mr Cowen had met with Mr Sharon over mr Arafat, then the Arab nations' leaders, whom he was there to meet in the first place, would've felt snubbed.

it's a no-win situation, really.

As twisty has stated:
the solution is sitting both parties down, and start talks.

Israel is shooting itself in the foot, if it keeps on sabotaging and blatantly acting against the Roadmap's regulations.

http://www.jordantimes.com/Thu/news/news3.htm

Besides, the Roadmap is full of concessions to Israel, and yet, Israle did not even want to accept it.
Palestinians did, and they're far worst off if everything in the Roadmap comes about.

And before you refute:
Phase Two (of the Roadmap), described as a transition to run from June to December 2003, is to be focused on the "option of creating an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders and attributes of sovereignty" -- none are specified--culminating in an international conference to approve and then "create" a Palestinian state, once again with "provisional borders."
Israel's role in all this (Roadmap implementation) is to cooperate; the real onus is placed on the Palestinians, who must keep coming up with the goods in rapid succession, while the military occupation remains more or less in place, though eased in the main areas invaded during the spring of 2002. No monitoring element is envisioned, and the misleading symmetry of the plan's structure leaves Israel very much in charge of what--if anything--will happen next. As for Palestinian human rights, at present not so much ignored as suppressed, no specific rectification is written into the plan: apparently it is up to Israel whether to continue as before or not.


bolding mine
http://www.counterpunch.org/said06142003.html
from this site.

TwistofFate
06-30-2003, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by JonBodner
So it was just to snub Israel, and damn the consequences of supporting a terrorist. That's the way to build a road to peace.

When did the Irish adopt the "cut off your nose to spite your face" philosophy in their foreign policy?

no, it wasn't, I never said it was, so stop trying to twist my words to suit you. Israel ruled themselves out of meeting with the Irish delegation because of their petty vendetta against Arafat, and Cowen was completely right to meet with him. regardless of what you may think of him, he sitll has alot of influence with the Palestinian people, and his recent calls for a cessation of violence have certainly helped Hamas and other groups to call the ceasefire.

You're demonising again, and sooner or later you'll wake up to the fact that it just won't work.

Guinastasia
06-30-2003, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by JonBodner
So it was just to snub Israel, and damn the consequences of supporting a terrorist. That's the way to build a road to peace.

When did the Irish adopt the "cut off your nose to spite your face" philosophy in their foreign policy?

Okay, so what if Ireland decided that they would refuse to meet with Sharon if was also meeting with a representative from Northern Ireland?

Or back in the day, Great Britain?

clairobscur
06-30-2003, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by JonBodner
[B]So, what you're saying is that Israel is just so highly respected and admired by the world, the world feels the need to hold it to a higher standard than the poor, stupid Arabs.

I didn't write that. I would like you stopping miscronstructing and misrtepresenting my posts, and instead actually read what I write and respond to what I write, rather than adressing a strawman.


However, yes, I do think that the western world hold a western democracy populated mostly by western white people under higher standart and scrutinity, and feel much more concerned with what happens in this country, than with poor stupid third-worlders with a rather brownish skin.




And due to that high respect, the French Ambassador to London couldn't help but refer to Israel as a "shitty little country"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1721172.stm

Are you serious? From what I can tell, you share these beliefs.
That makes you a rather intolorable bigot.


And can you point me to something i wrote which shows I share these beliefs? Or to some bigotted statement I made? Or is just your imagination, the strawmen you're busy building, and your own assumptions about what *must* actually think, someone who say that the creation of the jewish state wasn't legitimate? (In particular you constantly implying that I must be antisemitic...)






Are you ashamed that you think so little of Arabs?

Can you point me to something I wrote which meant I think so little of Arabs?

Tee
06-30-2003, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by clairobscur
How did you understand that as implying that the Israelis deserve to be bombed?????????? Where did you even find the word "deserve" that you're bolding??????

People - not anyone in particular - often imply that the Palestinians have a right to fight for the return of their land because the Jews stole it. Bombings are the method of choice in this fight. If he's wrong, then I must be too...you're saying that Israelis don't deserve to be blown up?

TwistofFate - There's no cease-fire. Suspending suicide bombings for three months - the exact time period helpfully supplied - is not a goddamned cease-fire.

JonBodner
06-30-2003, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by TwistofFate
no, it wasn't, I never said it was, so stop trying to twist my words to suit you. Israel ruled themselves out of meeting with the Irish delegation because of their petty vendetta against Arafat, and Cowen was completely right to meet with him. regardless of what you may think of him, he sitll has alot of influence with the Palestinian people, and his recent calls for a cessation of violence have certainly helped Hamas and other groups to call the ceasefire.

You're demonising again, and sooner or later you'll wake up to the fact that it just won't work.
Why do you think Israel's "vendetta" against Arafat is "petty?" Do you think that America's "vendetta" against bin Laden is "petty?" You are trivializing the murder of hundreds of people.

It's not like Sharon won't meet with Arafat because his breath is bad. It's because Arafat sponsors and supports terrorism. This isn't what I "think" of him; it's fact. The Irish chose to talk with an unrepentant terrorist rather than the sitting prime minister of a sovereign state. They could have spoken only to Abu Mazen, but chose to include Arafat. The question you keep on refusing to answer is: how is this helpful to the peace process?

I'm not demonizing at all, and it doesn't matter how many times you repeat that word, it won't make it true.

JonBodner
06-30-2003, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by Guinastasia
Okay, so what if Ireland decided that they would refuse to meet with Sharon if was also meeting with a representative from Northern Ireland?

Or back in the day, Great Britain?
If Sharon was going to Ireland to promote peace, and the Irish PM said, "we want peace, but we will not deal with X or with people who deal with X because he is a terrorist. We prefer if you talk with Y instead, as we belive that Y honestly wants peace, and we would like to have international support for Y in order to increase his standing with his people.", and Sharon went ahead and talked with X anyway, then yeah, I'd think the Irish PM would be well within his rights to tell Sharon to sod off.

If you are on a mission for peace, outright ignoring the well-justified feelings of one side does not make you a fair arbiter.

TwistofFate
06-30-2003, 11:59 AM
the same could be said for Sharon and the Israeli administration's wilful neglect for human life by using rocket attacks in crowded civillian areas against Hamas leaders. regardless of their motives, it is certain to involve the loss of innocent lives.

I certainly do not condone terror attacks against civilians, and the Irish policy is involving ALL opinions in a dispute. If we were to follow Israeli's current policy there would be no peace in my country. All sides must be involved in negotiations, and it was Israel's loss not to speak with the Irish delegation as we have a hell of a lot of experience in these matters.

TwistofFate
06-30-2003, 12:02 PM
If you are on a mission for peace, outright ignoring the well-justified feelings of one side does not make you a fair arbiter.

and insisting that other people don't meet with your rivals is no way to deal with foreign delegations with alot of experience that you can justifiably learn from.

JonBodner
06-30-2003, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by clairobscur
However, yes, I do think that the western world hold a western democracy populated mostly by western white people under higher standart and scrutinity, and feel much more concerned with what happens in this country, than with poor stupid third-worlders with a rather brownish skin.

"poor stupid third-worlders with a rather brownish skin?"

As I mentioned earlier, the majority of the Israeli Jewish population is not from Western countries; they are from Arab countries. And that 20% of the population that's Arab didn't come from Europe, either. So calling them "white" is not exactly true.

And can you point me to something i wrote which shows I share these beliefs? Or to some bigotted statement I made? Or is just your imagination, the strawmen you're busy building, and your own assumptions about what *must* actually think, someone who say that the creation of the jewish state wasn't legitimate? (In particular you constantly implying that I must be antisemitic...)

Well, you did just call people "stupid third-worlders" and I didn't detect a hint of sarcasm or irony. In a previous post, you also referred to some hypothetical third-world country with strife as "shitty." Where I come from, those words are biased.

And you are, by your own admission, holding Israel to a different standard than other countries. Are you insisting that you hold Israel to this standard because you respect Israel so much? Or are you doing so because you are looking for a reason to demonize it? If you respect Israel so much, where are your words of praise for it?

Can you point me to something I wrote which meant I think so little of Arabs?
Well, there are all those cracks about people with brown skin.

flonks
06-30-2003, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by Tee
People - not anyone in particular - often imply that the Palestinians have a right to fight for the return of their land because the Jews stole it.


The truth is: people will always fight for their land. If they can avoid then they don't use violence but other means (then, "fight" being a non literal term). If they need to rely on violence and they can avoid it, then they don't use suicide bombings; If they do not have any other option left, people will eventually do suicide bombings.

That is not a justification, but an explanation, and it should tell us in what condition the palestineans are living in.

JonBodner
06-30-2003, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by TwistofFate ]the same could be said for Sharon and the Israeli administration's wilful neglect for human life by using rocket attacks in crowded civillian areas against Hamas leaders. regardless of their motives, it is certain to involve the loss of innocent lives.

If the Israelis didn't care about civilian lives, they wouldn't use a helocopter firing a rocket; they'd drop a very large bomb, just as the Americans did when trying to get Saddam. Repeatedly, the target of the attack has had a chance to duck out of the way of the missile. If Israel used larger ordinance, this wouldn't be a problem. Yet they don't. (Unlike the US attempt to get Saddam at a Baghdad restaurant, Israel has been pretty spot-on in being sure that the target is actually in the vicinity when the attack occurs)

I certainly do not condone terror attacks against civilians, and the Irish policy is involving ALL opinions in a dispute. If we were to follow Israeli's current policy there would be no peace in my country. All sides must be involved in negotiations, and it was Israel's loss not to speak with the Irish delegation as we have a hell of a lot of experience in these matters.
Really? Do the Irish meet with unrepentant Ulster terrorists?

JonBodner
06-30-2003, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by elfje
JonBodner, so in your book
not letting yourself be bullied or manipulated = a snub?

Going out of your way to spite one side in a disagreement is a snub, yes.

Ireland did not make demands, Israel did.
Not meeting those demands was perfectly within Irish rights, and was not meant to be a snub.

Of course Ireland has the right to talk to Arafat. But they should be under no illusion that this will help with peace. If anything, it will show that you blow up enough people, and you'll get attention from world leaders. This is not a good example to set.

If Mr Cowen had met with Mr Sharon over mr Arafat, then the Arab nations' leaders, whom he was there to meet in the first place, would've felt snubbed.

it's a no-win situation, really.

No, there was a win-win situation (or win-win-win, really). The Irish FM could have met with Abu Mazen alone. Then he could have met with Sharon, met with the leader of the Palestinians, and gave a boost to Abu Mazen's standing with his own people. Abu Mazen will not get any respect until people start meeting with him independantly of Arafat. I thought the idea was to encourage the moderates.

Israel is shooting itself in the foot, if it keeps on sabotaging and blatantly acting against the Roadmap's regulations.

Besides, the Roadmap is full of concessions to Israel, and yet, Israle did not even want to accept it.
Palestinians did, and they're far worst off if everything in the Roadmap comes about.

And before you refute:
Phase Two (of the Roadmap), described as a transition to run from June to December 2003, is to be focused on the "option of creating an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders and attributes of sovereignty" -- none are specified--culminating in an international conference to approve and then "create" a Palestinian state, once again with "provisional borders."
Israel's role in all this (Roadmap implementation) is to cooperate; the real onus is placed on the Palestinians, who must keep coming up with the goods in rapid succession, while the military occupation remains more or less in place, though eased in the main areas invaded during the spring of 2002. No monitoring element is envisioned, and the misleading symmetry of the plan's structure leaves Israel very much in charge of what--if anything--will happen next. As for Palestinian human rights, at present not so much ignored as suppressed, no specific rectification is written into the plan: apparently it is up to Israel whether to continue as before or not.

That's all well and good. But you skipped phase one of the road map. Supposedly, by the end of May 2003, there was supposed to be:


Palestinians declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere.

Rebuilt and refocused Palestinian Authority security apparatus begins sustained, targeted, and effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. This includes commencing confiscation of illegal weapons and consolidation of security authority, free of association with terror and corruption.


http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/20062.htm

The poor Bulgarian murdered this morning would probably disagree that there's a cease-fire going on. And no one is taking away the guns and bombs from the terror groups. In any event, the "cease fire" statement from Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah says that they will only cease fire if Israel releases every Palestinian prisoner and withdraws its military to the September 28, 2000 positions.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/06/29/international1542EDT0510.DTL

This is NOT what the road map calls for.

Now, I will grant you that Israel has not fufilled every step in Phase I, either. But let's not pretend the Palestinians are following the road map to the letter while the Israelis aren't.

Alien
06-30-2003, 01:30 PM
Ref. the discussion whether the LGF website which december linked to is a hate site or not, or for that matter what constitutes a hate-site, I've open this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=194444) about it in the Pit.

clairobscur
06-30-2003, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Tee
[B]People - not anyone in particular - often imply that the Palestinians have a right to fight for the return of their land because the Jews stole it. Bombings are the method of choice in this fight. If he's wrong, then I must be too...you're saying that Israelis don't deserve to be blown up?


Not only I didn't say that Israelis deserve to be bombed, but I didn't even adress the issue. I just made a sarcastic comment in response to an "europeans don't deserve to be given any justification for anything" or somesuch. So not only I don't know why you're even asking this question, but I resent this question as implying that I have to justify myself. I'm more and more irritated by the apparent assumptions being made in this thread about the unexpressed thoughts I might have.

JonBodner
06-30-2003, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by flonks
The truth is: people will always fight for their land. If they can avoid then they don't use violence but other means (then, "fight" being a non literal term). If they need to rely on violence and they can avoid it, then they don't use suicide bombings; If they do not have any other option left, people will eventually do suicide bombings.

That is not a justification, but an explanation, and it should tell us in what condition the palestineans are living in.
No, it's an excuse for Palestinian atrocities. Please give me a series of cites for other groups that resorted to suicide bombings. The Tamil Tigers come to mind, but I can't think of any other liberation movement that used suicide bombing.

clairobscur
06-30-2003, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by JonBodner
[B]"poor stupid third-worlders with a rather brownish skin?"

[quote]As I mentioned earlier, the majority of the Israeli Jewish population is not from Western countries; they are from Arab countries. And that 20% of the population that's Arab didn't come from Europe, either. So calling them "white" is not exactly true.


It doesn't matter who they are. What matters is who they're perceived to be. A jewish Israeli is perceived as "white westerner". An arab isn't. An Israeli is "like us". An arab is "not like us". You can point me to as many sephardic Jews whose family lived for centuries amongst arab neighbors, it doesn't change the overall perception in western countries.



Well, you did just call people "stupid third-worlders" and I didn't detect a hint of sarcasm or irony. In a previous post, you also referred to some hypothetical third-world country with strife as "shitty." Where I come from, those words are biased.


Then you should buy a new sarcasm and irony detector. Though in the case you're mentionning it's not exactly sarcasm or irony but a reference to the fact that there's a significant part of the population in western countries which do despise people living in third-world countries, and look down on said countries (and incidentally couldn't care less about what's happening in said countries, as long as it doesn't result in the death or kidnapping of some westerners).


I'm pretty certain you know perfectly well that if religious or ethnical strife result in the kiling of of dozen people in India or Sri-Lanka, it will barely be mentionned by the medias. If same happens in Israel, it will be all over the the news. How do you explain the difference, if not by a far geater interest in Israeli issues. And how do you explain this greater interest? Or similarily, how do you explain there are on this board so many threads about the situation in Israel, and so few about the situation in, say, Congo?


And you are, by your own admission, holding Israel to a different standard than other countries.

I didn't say that these were the reasons why *I* hold Israel to different standarts, but the reason why people criticize Israel but not as much various other countries which have worse records.

But certainly, I'm not going to compare Israel with a tinpot dictatorship because i don't expect said dictatorship to act in a way a democratic state should. Remember, the Israli government is elected by the people, in case you didn't notice. It doesn't follow the whims of a self-appointed leader.

Beside, the pro-Israel crowd commonly points out that Israel is the only democracy in the region, etc...If one stress this fact, then one must expect to be told that Israel must live up to the standarts which are expected from a democratic country. Yes, that's definitely higher standarts. But if you prefer Israel to be held by looser standarts, and intend to argue that it only needs to be marginally better than Syria, then go on...


Also, I rarely have to criticize a tinpot dictatorship simply because there won't be a crowd of posters trying to tell me that whatever they're doing is rightful and blameless. People have strongly divergent opinions about Israel. Rarely so about Burma. If someone tells me "Jewish people had every right to move in Israel and settle there" I say no. If someone tells me "Chinese people had every right to move in Tibet and settle there", I also say no. But it happens there are scores of posters supporting Israel, and not much supporting China. If the board was swarmed for some reason by people stating "Tibet historically belongs to China", you may be sure that there would be plenty of posters contradicting them and criticizing China. But it's not going to happen.


If it really makes you feel better, I can tell you that North-Korea is way worst than Israel. Is your intent merely to convince people of such a thing? Then, certainly, you won't find many people arguing against you. But I doubt it's actually what you hope to achieve.




Are you insisting that you hold Israel to this standard because you respect Israel so much? Or are you doing so because you are looking for a reason to demonize it?

I don't particulary respect Israel. There isn't much in the way of country I respect. Actually, I don't feel much about countries, though I certainly feel concerned about their policies.

And why, according to you, would I want a reason to demonize Israel? For once, *I* am going to make assumptions about *you*. You're the kind of person who's so enamored with Israel that you can't admit any criticism about it, and find convenient to regard anybody who doesn't share your opinions as being antisemitic, because it's way easier to point finger and make ad hominem attacks (and build some strawmen in the process) than to actually argue about an issue. Perhaps also it's conforting because you can tell to yourself : "I'm of course right, and my opponents are all just evil antisemites, I don't even have to pay attention to what they say".


If you want to argue about the legitimacy of the creation of Israel , then give relevant arguments, and quit trying to imply that anybody who hold a different view is an evil racist. If you just can't think otherwise, then maybe you need to buy a brand new worldview, where people aren't divided in three categories : those who praise Israel, those who are just ignorant, and those who are plain antisemites.

JonBodner
06-30-2003, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by clairobscur
Survival is certainly a legitimate right. But people have a legitimate right to be pissed off when other people insure their safety by taking over their land.

The land wasn't taken. The original Jewish settlers bought the land from Arabs in the area. I would love for you to provide me a single cite.

Now in 1948, somewhere around 500,000-700,000 Arabs fled. Many of them left because the Arab leaders told them to "temporarily" get out of the way of the invading Arab armies. Some fled from fear of being caught in a war zone. Others were probably forced from their homes by the IDF. Why these Arabs have a right to return to Israel while Sudeten Germans don't have a right to return to the Czech Republic after their expulsion post-WW II is beyond me. Has the clock run out for the Sudeten Germans, but not for the Palestinians?


What you should say is that all other ethnic goups have a claim on a homeland, which isn't necessarily recognized by the country where this homeland is situated. All except one, that you seem to have forgotten : the gypsies.

Nope, I haven't forgotten about the Romany. The general consensus of the Romany is that they don't want a homeland, from what I recall from articles I've read about them.

And *wanting* a homeland and deciding that *this* place should be your homeland still doesn't give you the right to take it away from the people living there and who, for some mysterious reason, think it's *their* homeland.

Why does Arafat think that Palestine is his home? He was born in Cairo.

Of course. How could there be any other reason than antisemitism for stating that a mass immigration to a place ruled by a colonial power with the backing of said colonial power and against the will of the people living there isn't legitimate?

See, you're hung up on the colonial bit. And I think this is where things are going wrong. To Jews, there is nothing colonial about Israel. Jews see going to Israel as returning home. I know that this is impossible for you to grasp. But your hostility about religion prevents you from even trying to understand the Jewish side. All you can see is brown people and "white" people. You've been brainwashed into believing that in any conflict between brown people and people you consider white, especially over land, the brown people are in the right and the "white" people are wrong.

Let's go on arguing. You know I'm an antisemitic scumbag who hate Jews since I think they had no legitimate right to create Israel, I know you're a racist scumbag who hates arabs since you think arabs could be legitimely displaced to make room for the Jews. Things are much clearer this way.

Nope, I don't hate Arabs a bit. I hate people who murder and I hate people who celebrate murder. I don't care what their skin color or ethnicity is.

You're making me smile. I considered using this argument to argue against *your* position that the Jews had a legitimate claim on this land because it was their "ancestral land" 2000 years ago.


Once again, you seem to forgot that *you* were the one who stated that having a 2000 years old claim made sense. You're giving arguments against your own position.

*I* stated that refering to what happened 2000 years ago when deciding whether someone has a legitimate claim or not is ludicrous. Refering to the copts has the sole legitimate "owners" of Egyptia because they were invaded 1300 years ago is equally ludicrous. That's perfectly consistent with my position.

Near as I can tell, your position is "whatever is done is done, except for the Palestinians, who should have a right to go back to Israel".

maybe we should left this one for another debate. I've an issue with religious discrimination, and more generally an issue with religion in general.

If you ignore the religious aspect to the entire conflict, then you miss most of the point.

No need to skip this one, since I actually already answered it. If you actually read my first post in this thread, you'll notice that i stated that Israelis have now a valid claim on israel territory since most of them were born and had lived all their life there.

So, when you don't give ammunitions against your own arguments (the "Us should be given back to the amerindians and Egyptia to the copts"), you're trying to convince me that my statements are correct.

No, I'm just trying to figure out if there is ANY other country that you hold to the same standard as Israel. So far, I can't find one.


Irrelevant, once again. Tiny population or not, it was the *local* population. The population density of the US is very low by european standarts. Can the dutch (the Netherlands is the european country with the highest population density) or people from Singapour settle there and create their own independant country somewhere in the US? If I think your house is too large considering the size of your family, can I take part of it?

Any Dutch person who wants to move to the US can do so. People will sell them land and won't shoot at them or anything. They can live in peace. And if one day the US gets swept up in anti-Dutch hysteria and the mobs are chasing after people in wooden shoes, they can flee back to Holland. That's because they have a place they can call home.

That might be possible. Did I say that Jewish people who were living in Jerusalem didn't have a legitimate right to stay?

You are aware that the descendants of those Jews will be thrown out of their homes if a Jew-free Palestinian state is created with East Jerusalem as its capital, right?

It's exactly what happened. There was only a tiny number of Jews living there. A massive number of other people came in from other (western, colonialist) countries settle down there and these newcomers eventually got an independant state against the will of the previously existing population.

And europeans didn't have such a right. That is called colonialism. And that's exactly why I say that Jewish immigration in what is now Israel was colonialism.

And that's why you're daft. As a European who feels very guilty about Europe's colonial past, you think of Israel as a colonial outpost. It isn't. It is a homeland for Jews. It's not like they picked the spot at random; that would have been the Uganda plan that was originally proposed. The first Jews returned when the Turks ruled Palestine.

Until you can even consider the possibility that Israeli Jews don't see themselves as colonists, but rather as people who have finally returned home after 80 generations of exile, you don't have much of a point.

Illegitimate now? No, I don't. In the same way I don't consider Israel as illegitimate now, as I stated in my very first post. But european people originally settling in the New World and Australia at the expense of the local people was definitely illegitimate, in the same way that Jews settling in Israel at the expense of the local people was illegitimate.



[quote]
Religious motivations and justifications just don't fly with me. "God gave me that" is the last argument i would acccept. Essentially any other justification i would find more acceptable, or at least would make more sense in my book.

So the justification of "I killed everyone else up to this here border" is OK in your book, but "God gave it to me" isn't?

And yes, that's definitely history too ancient to be relevant in the current context. Have you any problem with the Hebrew, according to the Jewish religious traditions, expulsing and massacring the local population when they invaded the "god-given" land? Do you think it's recent enough history to count?

So we can now say that the upper limit on the statute of limitations is around 1300 years. We're now between 53 years and 1300. That's progress.

I'm guessing that you haven't actually read the Bible, and certainly aren't familiar with it in Hebrew, nor are you familiar with the commentary and history that is associated with it. And given your already-expressed views towards religion, I'm sure you hold nothing but animosity towards the Bible, what it says, and people who live their lives according to it. That's mighty tolerant of you.

But I digress. I'm going from memory, so I might not get details right. There were two tribes of people who were marked for death in the Bible: Amalekites and Moloch worshipers. The Amalekites did a sneak attack on the Children of Israel right after they crossed the Sea of Reeds. Rather than face the men in the front, they attacked the weak, the women, and the children in the back. For this cowardly attack, Jews are commanded to exterminate them.

Moloch worship involved people burning their children alive so that their crops would be good for the upcoming year. Now, in a multi-cultural world, maybe it's OK to accept that some people burn babies because they think it makes the wheat grow. For some reason, that stuffy old Bible doesn't think that such people are fit to live.

I'm living in France. I can trace back my family here up to around 1570. And it's still irrelevant. It wouldn't make any difference if my parents had immigrated here 30 years ago (especially if they had immigrated with the *agreement* of the local population). And remember for the umpteenth time that *you* were the one stating that the fact your ancestor lived in a piece of land 2000 years ago could be relevant in the current context. Not me.

Ah, that's because you are home. It's like asking a fish what he thinks of water. You've never known a place where you are the outsider. You've had a place to go back to when you are away. Must be nice that no one condemns you or calls you a Nazi for having such a place.

That's an interesting question, for once, and something I often wondered about. I even considered opening a thread on this very subject. For how long could one's or one's parents or ancestors victimization should be taken into account or should be goung for a redress of grievances? Not specifically in the context of Israel, but there are many other related issues. One of them, if i'm not mistaken was strongly argued about recently in the US. Should black people be compensated for the fact that their ancestors were enslaved?

I don't have an answer to this question. I would say that at least when there are still people around who lived through the events, their claims are definitely valid. Beyond that, it becomes blurry. In the case of Israel, a Palestinian who personnaly lived in israel proper has certainly a most valid claim. What about his children? Do they have a moral right to be allowed to live in Israel? Do they have only the right to be indemnized for, say a property their father owned and which was seized? What about his grand-children? His descendants 100 years down from now if they find in the drawer a 150 year-old property title?

I'll make it easier for you. Can you find any other people on the planet who you think have a legitimate complaint along the lines of the Palestinians?

No way. There has been (and there currently are) endless threads on this very board about the topic of what is or is not a right, i'm not going to begin to argue about this issue in this thread.

See, you're ducking all the tough questions, and falling back on a fallicious "colonialism" argument. You don't want to have an opinion on religious arguments. You don't want to talk about a statute of limitations, and you don't want to talk about rights of people (and peoples), even though you keep bringing up rights. So what exactly are you arguing? "Israel is wrong, but I won't give a intellectually-defensible reason why."?

I already answered. just look above :

-Israel as a right to exist now, given the current context (which doesn't mean that the Palestinian don't have a right to live in some other place than a refugee camp), and the US and Canada have such a right to.

-People who created israel had no right to do so, and the people who pushed away the local population to settle in the New World had no right to do so, either.

The fact that the West Bank and Gaza were Jordanian and Egyptian is irrelevant to the issue of the legitimacy of Israel. I couldn't tell when exactly the continued existence of israel became legitimate. All i know is that this existence is now a fact, and that the original masive jewish settlement in what is now Israel during the first half of the XXth century wasn't legitimate.

That's because I'm trying to pin down an answer from you, and you won't give it. You keep falling back on non-deterministic emptiness. If a country is founded illigitimately, how does it magically become legitimate?

And how would you know that? What countries "in similar situations" are you refering to, for a start?

The Chechens, actually, are pretty similar to the Jews. They were conquered by Russia in the 1800's, expelled from their land by Stalin, and they came back, and they're fighting for it. So, are the Chechens entitled to their land or not?

I feel that : "I've a big issue and I want a piece of land somewhere...this one seems fine to me. Let's go there, and push away the people who are already living there. Beside, we've the agreement of this powerful country which decided it had the right to rule the place and there's nothing the locals can do, anyway" is grossly unjust. Why is that so difficult to understand for you?

Because you keep putting colonialism into it. It isn't. Why not try this story line on: "2000 years of being kicked in the ass is enough. Let's go back to our ancestral homeland. It's mostly empty, and we might have to fight for our right to live there, but better to fight for your home than to be chased around the world and live or die at the whims of others."

What part of your house can I take over and consider mine forever if I run into troubles someday?
If I can't fight you off, all of it. If I can fight you off, none of it. Or are you claiming that my house is your ancestral homeland?

Tamerlane
06-30-2003, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by JonBodner


Of course, the same is true for Egypt. The Copts are the native Egyptians, who are now brutally repressed. The Arabs are foreign conquerors. I take it that you have just as much indignation for the Egyptians as you do for Israelis.

Without dipping my toe into the rest of this argument ( which I've done before ), I'll just note that the above is largely inaccurate. Both Egyptian Arabs and Egyptian Copts are substantially descended from the same people. Permanent Arab immigration into Egypt was never very significant - far less than into regions like Syria and Iraq ( where it had been an ongoing trend, with significant Arab presense even before the rise of Islam ) and even rather less, possibly, than the Maghreb and al-Andalus. For the most part the early Arab presense was limited to the single garrison city of Fustat. Egypt was predominately Christian until about the 10th century ( though conversions started as early as the 8th ), when a variety of pressures ( most notably perhaps, Fatimid intolerance ) triggered a wave of conversion which in part brought with it an adoption of Arabic. But even before and after this, the use of Arabic as a lingua franca of not just religion, but also literature and governance in many areas of the Caliphate ( it never displaced Persian in those latter spheres for a couple of reasons ), caused many to adopt it, just as many had adopted Latin during the Roman period. In fact Arabic spread faster in the western part of the empire than Islam did.

- Tamerlane

Tee
06-30-2003, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by flonks
The truth is: people will always fight for their land. If they can avoid then they don't use violence but other means (then, "fight" being a non literal term). If they need to rely on violence and they can avoid it, then they don't use suicide bombings; If they do not have any other option left, people will eventually do suicide bombings.

That is not a justification, but an explanation, and it should tell us in what condition the palestineans are living in.

yes, it should...unfortunately we're being told more than that during the worst atrocities when one faction or another claims responsibility. We're being told that Jews don't belong there, that Jews are legitimate targets in Israel, so obviously there's a huge difference of opinion on what constitutes "their land." The Palestinians themselves are being told by Hamas et al that martyrdom is a religious duty, that they will be rewarded in heaven for blowing things up. They are recruited. This is different from young boys throwing rocks at tanks in their Gaza neighborhoods. Those boys I can sympathize with, they are "resisting"...the others are pawns used by organized gangs of thugs who have manipulated and deviated a mainsteam religion to suit their need. Which I believe is the destruction of the Jewish state. And their desperation, having to "rely on violence" and having no other options to achieve that, is something I could never sympathize with...on the contrary, here we're actively throwing people like that in jail where they belong along with people who fund them. Good riddance.

TwistofFate
06-30-2003, 06:18 PM
re: Unrepentant Ulster terrorists

(by that I take it you mean Loyalist forces).

If the Loyalists wished to meet with the Irish government, then they would. As it is the Irish government fully supports the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement and all the groups that abide by it (or are at least willing to discuss them).

clairobscur
06-30-2003, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by JonBodner
[B]The land wasn't taken. The original Jewish settlers bought the land from Arabs in the area. I would love for you to provide me a single cite.

1) You certainly know that the land which was bought was essentially bought from great landlords, rather than from the locals who were, I understand, sort of hereditary tenants for the most part

2)More important : having bought the land doesn't give the right to install your own state, make your own laws, at the detriment of the already existing population. Especially not when said population has no say in the matter at the first place, since the area is actually ruled by another brand of foreigners (the british). The only ones who could have legitimately allowed the jews to settle, decided under which conditions they could have bought land and created their own state (which wouldn't have happened, of course) would have been the palestinians, not the british. The process was flawed from the start, since it was imposed on the local population by exterior forces (the zionists, the british, and eventually the major powers aka the UN).


Now in 1948, somewhere around 500,000-700,000 Arabs fled. Many of them left because the Arab leaders told them to "temporarily" get out of the way of the invading Arab armies. Some fled from fear of being caught in a war zone. Others were probably forced from their homes by the IDF.

Not entering the issue of why they left, I personnally see no reason for not allowing civilian to come back to their home or land.

IMO, the zionists were rightfully considered as invaders (though using a relatively peaceful form of invasion, with the backing of the colonial power, that's why I prefer to call them "colonists"). The arabs had every right not to accept a situation (settlement in Palestine, creation of a jewish state, and even the way the land was shared between the jewish and arab state) fully imposed on them by outside forces and to try to send back to where they were coming, wherever that could be. How desesperate the Jews could have been to find a "home" is not relevant.

To put it more clearly, I think the arabs were on the "right" side and the Jews on the "wrong" side in 1948. Hence, that, despite having lost the war, their claims were still legitimate, and that not allowing them to come back was a final step in a process that I would call an invasion. The presence of foreigners was imposed on them, said foreigners were allowed to create a state on these people's land by outside forces, and finally, they were definitely driven away from their territory following an unsuccessfull but IMO legitimate war to repell them. This whole process i find grossly unjust.



Why these Arabs have a right to return to Israel while Sudeten Germans don't have a right to return to the Czech Republic after their expulsion post-WW II is beyond me. Has the clock run out for the Sudeten Germans, but not for the Palestinians?

It seems to me I tried to avoid the issue of the "right of return" (as it stands currently, as opposed to 1948, I just done that) except in the post where I wondered about the status of limitation. So, I didn't state my opinion on this issue. So, why are you responding to a statement I didn't make?

As it stands now, anyway, though there are some german people who still feel they've been wrongfully deprived of their property and deported (and worse...I understand the deplacement was done in exactly ideal conditions), there aren't any german from the Sudeten living in a refugees camp. So, the issue seems rather secondary to me when compared to the situation of the Palestinians.


Nope, I haven't forgotten about the Romany. The general consensus of the Romany is that they don't want a homeland, from what I recall from articles I've read about them.

OK..then fine...But I'm still not sure why you stated that no ethnicity was deprived of a homeland except for the Jews. Plenty of people don't. Except if you were thinking about people not having a homeland *at all* (contrarily to a people living in his homeland, but it not being independant). That's why I mentionned the gypsies, who were the only one currently in this situation I could think of. There used to be the armenians, and the various people displaced by Staline.

By the way, I'm glad you're mentionning that they "don't want a homeland". Which means that apparently, a people which has been persecuted essentially everywhere too can have no such claim. In other words, you're saying that the reason why the jews should have had a homeland is that they wanted one. Wanting something doesn't necessarily means that you can get rightfully get it.



Why does Arafat think that Palestine is his home? He was born in Cairo.

I read everything and its contrary about the links (or lack thereof) Arafat had with Palestine. Anyway :

1) I find it's a disingeneous tactic to focus on Arafat. Even if he were an hinduist from Iceland of african ancestry, he doesn't change the fact that there was and there are still currently hundred of thousands of palestinian people with a clear direct link with Palestine. Picking one amongst so many and pointing at him saying : "see! this one has no good case" just isn't a sensible argument.

2)Even if Arafat link with Palestine were really teneous (and I believe they aren't *that* teneous), they are certainly stronger than the link of someone whose family has lived during the last ten centuries in a faraway country. Were the russian "Jews" who immigrated in Israel after the fall of the Soviet Union born in Palestine, for instance? Had they stronger links with Palestine than Arafat? If Arafat has to be excluded because he was born in Egyptia, shouldn't they, too?



See, you're hung up on the colonial bit. And I think this is where things are going wrong. To Jews, there is nothing colonial about Israel. Jews see going to Israel as returning home. I know that this is impossible for you to grasp.

It might be possible for me to grasp in some way, but it still doesn't makes me think that this feeling gives them a legitimate claim on the land. Once again, a claim dating back to 2000 years is totally meaningless to me it could not be meaningless, culturally speaking, for the Jews. Once again, their desire, or their feelings doesn't make their claim legitimate. Such a claim would be deemed ludicrous if made by essentially anybody else and just shrugged off.



But your hostility about religion prevents you from even trying to understand the Jewish side.

My hostility to religion precisely comes in part from the fact it has a strong tendency to complicate things a lot and to lead to a lot of bloodbaths. That's written in this book! That's mine! i just can take it! Actually, I must take it! when there are no other rationally acceptable reasons not only doesn't give any validity to the claim but is likely to make things much worse (I guess I don't need to point out how religious extremisn is making the situation worse in Israel and Palestine?)


All you can see is brown people and "white" people. You've been brainwashed into believing that in any conflict between brown people and people you consider white, especially over land, the brown people are in the right and the "white" people are wrong.

Funny enough, I feel the same about you. No surprise.



Nope, I don't hate Arabs a bit. I hate people who murder and I hate people who celebrate murder. I don't care what their skin color or ethnicity is.

Actually, I wasn't really thinking that you hated the arabs, but it was only a response in kind to you implying again and over again that I must be antisemitic.



I must stop responding to your post because it's now very late here. Perhaps tomorrow if I can gather the courage to write another kilometric post....

jaybo
06-30-2003, 06:57 PM
well, this thread has gotten way off base from the subject matter of the europeans. rather than go through a history lecture, or supplementing the earlier posts w/the balfour declaration and the expulsion of jews by the romans, suffice it to say that israel exists, was established by international law, and a palestinian state is currently forming w/a lot of fits and starts.

europeans continually displayed antisemitism. actually the last fifty years is the exception, not the rule. apparently antisemitism can now return from the closet. before anyone disagrees, israelis have not routinely raised up the holocaust to throw in anyone's face.

germans have been acutely sensitive to it, until recently. but why now has there been a change. one reason is the growth of muslim populations in europe who have no sensitivity about judaism and agitate in every country they are residents. this has provided cover for anti-semites.

there are legitimate complaints about israel that can be made w/o being an anti-semite. however, the level of vitriol emanating from the newspapers, cartoonists who use classic antisemitic cariactures in their work, holding unequal standards in criticism are examples of antisemitism.

how do you think nazism got a foothold in germany. one day everyone woke up and say "hey let's be vicious jew killing nazis?" no, it came over time as each extension was unchallenged and each extreme measure was accepted. that's the danger of all of this zionist/jewbashing taking place throughout western europe: making it increasingly acceptable to be an antisemite. why else is there a large increase in antisemitic acts like synagogue bombings in france? or i guess it's just merely a coincidence.

the question that needs to be answered now is how does europe put the genie back in the bottle, or ultimately find a way to purge antisemitism once and for all from its midst.

sailor
06-30-2003, 07:13 PM
Stalin deported the Jews to the ends of Siberia and created the Jewish Autonomous Region (http://www.eao.ru/history_e.html) there long before 1948.

december
06-30-2003, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by jaybo
the question that needs to be answered now is how does europe put the genie back in the bottle, or ultimately find a way to purge antisemitism once and for all from its midst. At a European conference, the American speakers recommended zero tolerance for antisemitism (http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB105692157554656300,00.html?mod=opinion)....the past year has seen a marked increase in attacks on Jewish graves, communal centers and Jews themselves...."most anti-Semitic violence in 2002 took place in Western Europe, especially Belgium and France." Disturbingly, reports from the past few months show the problem is only getting worse....

... delegates from 55 countries met on the 19th and 20th of June....Unfortunately, the talk-fest seems to have accomplished little.

Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani led the America delegation and warned the conference that Europe must stop pretending that anti-Semitism does not exist here. Mr. Giuliani, along with other delegates, told countries that they should learn from the techniques used to combat anti-Semitism in the U.S., which he summarized as "laws, education and the keeping of statistics."

America has set an admirable example to the world in its fight against anti-Semitism. Politicians have been vocal in denouncing anti-Semitism publicly and have passed hate crime legislation. In addition, the U.S. Justice Department monitors anti-Semitism across the country. Mr. Giuliani argued that similar mechanisms and educational programs should be set up within the OSCE. These calls were echoed by organizations such as the International League for Human Rights, the Anti-Defamation League, and by the Israeli delegation.

It appears that the European delegates weren't prepared to accept this sort of advice....A number of major European countries refuse to recognize anti-Semitism as a serious problem or as a unique phenomenon and believe it should be dealt with as part of the larger problem of racism and xenophobia....No concrete recommendations were made...

In other words, nothing much has changed since the EU last visited the issue in its 1990 OSCE conference in Copenhagen. At that conference EU delegates declared that member states would "unequivocally condemn" anti-Semitism, and deal with anti-Semitism as part of the problem of racism and xenophobia. The steady rise in anti-Semitic attacks over the years shows that this method has failed. Europe needs to adopt America's approach.

Although it is true that anti-Semitism exists beyond Europe, in Europe the trend is most worrying.... (cite requires paid subscription)

JonBodner
06-30-2003, 09:40 PM
You didn't say horribly much (ducked the tough questions again), so I'm only going to respond to one bit of what you said:

Originally posted by clairobscur
My hostility to religion precisely comes in part from the fact it has a strong tendency to complicate things a lot and to lead to a lot of bloodbaths. That's written in this book! That's mine! i just can take it! Actually, I must take it! when there are no other rationally acceptable reasons not only doesn't give any validity to the claim but is likely to make things much worse (I guess I don't need to point out how religious extremisn is making the situation worse in Israel and Palestine?)

As the Great One himself answered about a year ago, the top murderers of all time were all Athiests, and were mainly Communist. I don't think a religious-based democide made the top 10:
(1) USSR, 62 million deaths, 1917-'87
(2) People's Republic of China, 35 million, 1949-'87
(3) Germany, 21 million, 1933-'45
(4) nationalist China, 10 million, 1928-'49
(5) Japan, 6 million, 1936-'45
(6) prerevolutionary Chinese communists ("Mao Soviets"), 3.5 million, 1923-'49
(7) Cambodia, 2 million, 1975-'79
(8) Turkey (Armenian genocide), 1.9 million, 1909-'18
(9) Vietnam, 1.7 million, 1945-'87
(10) Poland, 1.6 million, 1945-'48

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/021018.html

So, if anything seems to cause lots and lots of deaths, it's Communism, not God (Communists are responsible for 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, and 10).

Monty
06-30-2003, 10:52 PM
I noticed someone was crying about Israel's immigration policy. Now this very well may be an assumption on my part, but here goes anyway: they're crying about the Right of Return, right? IIRC, Jews have the Right of Return; however, anyone of any religion can be admitted as an immigrant. Is that correct or am I misremembering?

Hank Fescue
07-01-2003, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by Monty
I noticed someone was crying about Israel's immigration policy. Now this very well may be an assumption on my part, but here goes anyway: they're crying about the Right of Return, right? IIRC, Jews have the Right of Return; however, anyone of any religion can be admitted as an immigrant. Is that correct or am I misremembering?

Your statement is very broad. Off hand I would say, no, not just anyone can be admitted. Any Jew can immigrate as a religious pilgrim. Anyone else is left to the discretion of Israeli immigration. It would be more realistic to say that anyone can apply but if you aren't Jewish the odds are against you.

bugg
07-01-2003, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by JonBodner

Don't think that the Arab world was immune to this, either. Jews either lived in Dhimmi status, or they were exterminated. Most of the population of Israel is descended from Arab Jews who were thrown out of Arab countries post-1948, often arriving in Israel with nothing more than the shirts on their backs.

As for "selective immigration policies", can you point out to me the country which DOESN'T have a selective immigration policy? Every country chooses who they want to let in. In Israel's case, as the Jewish homeland, it lets in Jews. This should not shock, as it is the location of the ancestral home of the Jews.


I don't think this is fair. In many Arab countries, most prominently Yemen, Jews were treated very well and held very nice positions in society. It's true that they weren't treated so well in and after 1948, but that was because they were "blamed" for the plight of the Palestinians. Not very fair, no, but there is reason to believe that Mossad agents were indeed active in most Arab countries, and the result (Sephardim being deported and winding up in Israel) is most certainly something they were happy with.

I'm also very curious as to what evidence you have of any sort of widespread murder of Jews in the Arab world at this time- enough to be considered a massacre, by your standard. Your argument suggested, in my opinion, a false pairty between the treatment of Jews in Europe and in the Middle East- and in my opinion, the former is far less excusable than the latter.

As for immigration policies, last I checked the only requirements for immigrating to Canada were financial and language-related. What's more of note, however, is that Israel's policy is to *only* admit Jews, when Palestinians too have an ancestral- and indeed, far more recent- home in the same land. It's not the admittance of Jews but rather the denial of Palestinians that's most disturbing. What countries, I ask you, deny recent inhabitants the right to live there, and indeed, what countries require immigrants to be of a certain religion or ethnicity? The only example I can think of off-hand, and I'm not even fully sure, is Saudi Arabia.

bugg
07-01-2003, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by JonBodner

No, it shows that once again, Jews will need a place to flee to, when the age-old hatreds rise again. Every other ethinic group has a homeland and is considered to have the right to a homeland. Jews aren't. Why the difference? Couldn't be anti-semitism, nope, not at all.
Woah, hold on a second here. Talk about a false assumption! Kurds. Romas (Gypsies). Countless Native American tribes. Aboriginal. Countless African tribes- in fact, most of them. Punjabi, and various other central asian ethnicities. Until the fall of the Ottoman Empire and some 80 years later the Soviet Union, most ethnic groups did not have soverign states. The area most commonly cited for its nation-states is Europe, and in the 20th century Europe saw no less than two world wars.

That being said, I believe that the ideal we should be striving for is everyone having the freedom to live anywhere, but as equals. Not as oppressors. Therefore, I have no problem with the Jews in Israel, or continued Jewish immigration. I do have a problem, however, with the resulting Palestinian dispossession, disenfranchisement, and occupation.


Of course, the same is true for Egypt. The Copts are the native Egyptians, who are now brutally repressed. The Arabs are foreign conquerors. I take it that you have just as much indignation for the Egyptians as you do for Israelis.

Actually, I have little respect for either regime. Personally, the amount it's worth speaking out against a regime is roughly proportional to the amount of aid they receive from my country (USA). Israel is therefore most susceptible, followed by Egypt. I also don't care for Egypt's oppression of peaceful Islamist groups. However, Egypt has not dispossessed millions of people who now live as refugees, have they?


Arafat was born in Cairo. Sharon was born in Palestine. Who has the right to stay? I'm waiting for your answer, but I think you're just going to skip this one.

I'll answer that for him: Both of them, but only if each is willing to live as equals. Arafat's mother hails from Jerusalem.


The number of people living in Palestine when Jews started returning from Europe was tiny, less than 10% of the current population. And population figures for Jerusalem at this time show that it was overwhelmingly Jewish. It's not like these foreign invader Jews were pushing the natives out.

Then why were they forced out and denied to return in 1948? It's well documented that the 750,000 refugees of 1948 were either forced out or left in terror, and if there is indeed room for there both- I think there is- why can't they be allowed back in a shared state between equals?


And, unlike virtually every other people, Jews are honest about where they got their land from. There's no myth that God fashioned Jews from the soil of Israel (Abraham came from what is now Iraq). Jews consider the land of Israel to have been God-given. It's more of a reason than any other nation gives for its right to exist.

Religious reasons do not have much of a place in politics, justice, and human rights.


Do you have a problem with the expulsion of the Jews from Mecca, when Mohammed claimed it as the seat of Islam? Or is that history too ancient for it to count?

I do, and if the Jews had wanted to return and I been alive (and informed) at the time, I would have done all that I could have done safely in my power to see them return.


Please tell me the exact number of years that makes a claim valid. Right now, it's somewhere between 53 years and 2000 years. And then tell me if you will apply this standard to the Palestinians.

Let me put it simply: Anyone should be allowed to live anywhere, especially if they have a personal or historical claim, but only if they're looking to live as equals and in peace. Occupiers, oppressors, and domination is not welcome.



No, no it doesn't. But whether or not Israel is oppressing the Palestinians is not the issue. Every Arab country oppresses the Palestinians. The legitimacy of the State of Israel is the issue. Was Israel legitimate before 1967, when the West Bank and Gaza were Jordanian and Egyptian?

Firstly, I have a problem with most Arab countries. Secondly, most of them that treat Palestinians unfairly do so because they're either afraid of Israel, do not want to contribute to the destruction of Palestinian identity, or (most prominently) are afraid of nationalist elements in their unpopular (US-backed) regimes. Also, the West Bank was never recognized (except by Pakistan and Britain, if memory serves) Jordanian territory, and Egypt never annexed Gaza.

Countries are legitimate only when they treat their citizens- including those who should be their citizens- fairly. With this definition, essentially no country is fully legitimate (which I'd say is about right) and Israel could be made far more legitimate by restoring the rights of the Palestinians.


Look, you clearly have a problem with Israel that you don't have with other countries in similar situations. You need to ask yourself why you feel this way. Being honest about your feelings will make this all quite a bit easier.
I don't think there are many other countries in very similar situations. Let's not kid ourselves.

bugg
07-01-2003, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by JonBodner
No, it's an excuse for Palestinian atrocities. Please give me a series of cites for other groups that resorted to suicide bombings. The Tamil Tigers come to mind, but I can't think of any other liberation movement that used suicide bombing.

I suppose all this goes to show is that Zionist Jews living under the British Mandate felt their lives were worth living, and instead resorted to plain bombing.

Let's see... the Irgun bombed the King David Hotel in July 1938, killing 28 Britons, 41 Arabs, 17 Jews, and 5 "Others." In 1938 (counting King David Hotel, I presume) Irgun terrorists killed 76 Arabs by bombing various planting places, and then after the Mandate government arrested an Irgun member, Irgun terrorists killed 52 more Arabs. This is just 1938. Irgun members included Menachem Begin, who later went on to found the Herut party and become Prime Minister of Israel. Begin's Herut party has become part of Sharon's Likud coalition. Terrorism was the term used to describe this in the British press at the time.

The Stern Gang, of which Prime Minister Shamir was a member, was actually the last group that I know of to self-identify as a terrorist group. Sternists assassinated UN mediators and all sorts of figures in the Mandate government. Here's a quote from Israeli Prime Minister Shamir: "Neither ethics nor tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat. First and foremost, terrorism is for us a part of the political battle being conducted under the present circumstances, and it has a great part to play in our war against the occupier."

So, the difference between the bombings done by Zionists looking for a state and the bombings done by Palestinians looking for a state is that the Palestinians were sucidal. Probably due to the suffering of the occupation: life under the Mandate wasn't so bad (yet Zionists still blew stuff up...)

Tamerlane
07-01-2003, 01:35 AM
Missed this earlier.

Originally posted by JonBodner
Please give me a series of cites for other groups that resorted to suicide bombings. The Tamil Tigers come to mind, but I can't think of any other liberation movement that used suicide bombing.

There are now 10 religious and secular terrorist groups that are capable of using suicide terrorism as a tactic against their governments and/or foreign governments. They are: the Islam Resistance Movement (Hamas) and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad of the Israeli occupied territories; Hizbullah of Lebanon; the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) and Gamaya Islamiya (Islamic Group - IG) of Egypt; the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) of Algeria; Barbar Khalsa International (BKI) of India; the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) of Sri Lanka; the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK) of Turkey; and the Osama bin Laden network (Al Quaida) of Afghanistan.

There were also four pro-Syrian, Lebanese and Syrian political parties engaged in suicide terrorism in the 1980s, but they are currently inactive in the terrorist front. These groups staged around 25 suicide attacks in Lebanon. As more than one group claimed some of the attacks, perhaps to diffuse the threat to the group, it is difficult to identify the group responsible. The groups engaged in suicide operations in Lebanon alongside Hizbullah were the Natzersit Socialist Party of Syria; the Syrian Nationalist Party; the Lebanese Communist Party; and the Baath Party of Lebanon.

From here ( perhaps slightly outdated at ~ three years old ):

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/usscole/jir001020_1_n.shtml

- Tamerlane

Monty
07-01-2003, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by Hank Fescue
Your statement is very broad. Off hand I would say, no, not just anyone can be admitted. Any Jew can immigrate as a religious pilgrim. Anyone else is left to the discretion of Israeli immigration. It would be more realistic to say that anyone can apply but if you aren't Jewish the odds are against you.

In other words: Yes.

Why'd you put all that other crap in there? Just as in any immigration policy, ANYONE CAN be admitted; however, there are procedures (laws, rules, regulations) in place to determine who SHALL. Now, as for Israel, one of the procedures in place regarding those not born in the territory of Israel is that those of the Jewish faith MUST be admitted as immigrants--NOT pilgrims. This is not all that different from the United States of America's procedure in place regarding those not born in the territory of the United States of America: those who are born outside such territory but whose parents have passed their citizenship onto such children per the law MUST be admitted to the United States. The only difference here is that Israel doesn't consider the Jews born outside the territory (generally) as Israelis until after they immigrate.

But go ahead and use terms like "religious pilgrim" and the like to obscure the facts. Just be aware that I'm not in the market for smokescreens.

swami
07-01-2003, 09:36 AM
Monty, I think what people are saying is that Israel favors any kind of Jewish immigration over any kind non-Jewish immigration. Which the laws reflect, as to ensure a primarly Jewish state. So that means an American (or whatever) Jew would be accepted as Israeli, but a non-Jewish Arab refugee would not. Thus Hank Fescue's quote:It would be more realistic to say that anyone can apply but if you aren't Jewish the odds are against you.

clairobscur
07-01-2003, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by JonBodner
Resuming my response :



[B]
Near as I can tell, your position is "whatever is done is done, except for the Palestinians, who should have a right to go back to Israel".

Once again, stop mispresenting my arguments.

1) I told that at some point, what has been indeed done has been done, and you can't redress all the wrong done during the last 3000 years. I never made any particular exception for anybody.

2) I never wrote that the Palestinian should be allowed to return, so you're just making things up. That's plain dishonest.

3) Yes. Definitely, I think there's a difference between what happenned 1300 years ago and what happened 50 years ago.

I must be blind. I just understood now that the reason why you keep insisting on this "status of limitation" thing is so that you can tell "since the Jews were expelled from the area in 70 AD, they have the right to take back the land".


If you ignore the religious aspect to the entire conflict, then you miss most of the point.

I sure don't ignore it. I just say that religious belief doesn't give any valid justification for anything harmful which is done (apart in the mind of the religious person, of course, be it "this land has been given to us by our god" or "our god want us to crash a plane in this tower")


No, I'm just trying to figure out if there is ANY other country that you hold to the same standard as Israel. So far, I can't find one.

Absolutely not. The part of your post I was responding to here had absolutely nothing to do with this issue. You were stating I didn't believe the israelis had a right to stay in Israel, or somesuch and I was pointing out to you that I had stated exactly the contrary in my first post. How do you change that in "I'm just trying to figure out if there's any country, etc..." , I can't fathom.

Apart from that, yes, there's plenty of countries I hold to the same standarts as Israel. As for *you* not being able to find a country *I* hold to the same standarts, how would you know? As usual, you have decided all by yourself what I was thinking or not thinking, and respond to these supposed thoughts of mine rather than to what I'm writing.


Any Dutch person who wants to move to the US can do so. People will sell them land and won't shoot at them or anything. They can live in peace.

Either you're dense, either you deliberatly avoid to understand. I was refering to Dutch people deliberatly moving in the US (and no, they couldn't just come in...As far as I know, the US don't allow in anybodody who's willing to come) *and* founding an independant state on the US territory (without asking the opinion of the US governement or US people. That was in response to your argument "there was not much people living in Palestine, anyway hence, Jews just could come in".


And if one day the US gets swept up in anti-Dutch hysteria and the mobs are chasing after people in wooden shoes, they can flee back to Holland. That's because they have a place they can call home.

As I wrote many times, not having something doesn't necessarily allows you to take this thing away from someone else (a place to call home, I mean). How strongly you feel about not having it is irrelevant. Assuming that providing some way to protect themselves to the jewish community was a responsability the world community at large had, anyway, all the burden shouldn't have fallen on the Palestinian's back (especially since they didn't have any say in the matter, once again).


You are aware that the descendants of those Jews will be thrown out of their homes if a Jew-free Palestinian state is created with East Jerusalem as its capital, right?

So, now, you're justifying the past action of the zionists by the possible future actions of the Palestinians? May I ask a cite for this future event? Because no, I've not been informed it will happen. I can't read the thoughts of other posters (contrarily to you reading mine) , nor can I predict the future (contrarily to you). You must make a bunch of money as a psychic.

By the way, mentionning the treatment of Jews living in Jerusalem under Jordan's rule wouldn't fly, either, since it couldn't have been a justification before the event happened. It was one of the consequences of the creation of Israel, not a cause. I don't remember the Jews went to Palestine because the arabs were throwing other Jews out of their Jerusalem's houses.



And that's why you're daft. As a European who feels very guilty about Europe's colonial past, you think of Israel as a colonial outpost.

I don't feel guilty. I was never involved in France's past colonial ventures. I wasn't even born at this time. Why would i feel guilt?
And once again, how would you know what I feel? Your psychic talents, as usual?


It isn't. It is a homeland for Jews. It's not like they picked the spot at random; that would have been the Uganda plan that was originally proposed.

Homeland for the jews or not, and picked at random or not doesn't change a thing. A bunch of foreigner backed by a colonial power went in, settled down and created their own state on the land against the will of the locals. Doing so in Uganda or in Palestine doesn't change a thing. I just don't buy in your assumption that the Jews had any particular right to this land because part of their ancestors were living there 2000 years ago.




The first Jews returned when the Turks ruled Palestine.


These ones at least had some right to do so, since the Turkish governement was more or less accepted as the legitimate ruler in this area (though definitely not by everybody). The ones who came during the british mandate or later : nope.

I would also point out that "returning" isn't the same thing that "creating your own country there". For some reason, I strongly doubt the Turkish government would have accepted that.



Until you can even consider the possibility that Israeli Jews don't see themselves as colonists, but rather as people who have finally returned home after 80 generations of exile, you don't have much of a point.

I can consider that. The problem is that I totally reject the calidity of this concept. Whether or not the Jews felt like they were returning home, the locals thought it was *their* home. And since they were living there, their stance was way more valid than the stance of people whose only argument was "part of our ancestors were living here 2000 years ago".

By the way, most probably, part of the ancestors of the palestinian currently living in refugees camp were probably also living in what is now Israel 2000 years ago. The fact they're "arabs" doesn't mean than they are actually the descendants of people who were originally living in Arabia.



So the justification of "I killed everyone else up to this here border" is OK in your book, but "God gave it to me" isn't?

"I killed everyone else up to this border" isn't a justification, but a method.


So we can now say that the upper limit on the statute of limitations is around 1300 years. We're now between 53 years and 1300. That's progress.

Why should I be able to give a definite answer about this statute of limitations issue? Should I have a definite and precise opinion about everything?

But perhaps you could give your own, since apparently you've clear ideas on this issue. Could it be : "claims older than 1300 years (jewish claims on Palestine) are valid but claims more recent than 60 years (palestinian claims on Israel) aren't"?



I'm guessing that you haven't actually read the Bible, and certainly aren't familiar with it in Hebrew, nor are you familiar with the commentary and history that is associated with it. And given your already-expressed views towards religion, I'm sure you hold nothing but animosity towards the Bible, what it says, and people who live their lives according to it. That's mighty tolerant of you.

People may live according to whatever book or set of rules they want. They just can't use their arbitrary rules or the content of their old beloved books to justify actions which otherwise wouldn't be acceptable.



But I digress..... For some reason, that stuffy old Bible doesn't think that such people are fit to live.

I'm going to ignore this part. I've no intent to argue about the content of the bible. Irrelevant.


Ah, that's because you are home. It's like asking a fish what he thinks of water. You've never known a place where you are the outsider. You've had a place to go back to when you are away.

That's true. But you're once again trying to explain me why the Jews wanted a place to call home. And, for the umpteeenth time, the fact that the Jews had no place to call home didn't give them the right to take over a place against the will of the locals.


I'll make it easier for you. Can you find any other people on the planet who you think have a legitimate complaint along the lines of the Palestinians?

Similar to the palestinians? I could find plenty which were somehow similar (as in being driven out of their land while other people took it over), but curently none exactly similar. There aren't many people living en masse in refugee camps right now. Though there are a big deal of people out there who have a lot of good (or even better) reasons to complain. But in not exactly similar situations. Armenians or Tibetans in exile, Chechens displaced, black south-africans under the apartheid have some similarities, for instance.

What's your point, exactly? That there are plenty of people around the world who are awfully oppressed, denied a state, etc....I certainly agree. But in what way would it make the current situation of the Palestinian acceptable? You'd need to clarify the meaning of your question...



See, you're ducking all the tough questions, and falling back on a fallicious "colonialism" argument. You don't want to have an opinion on religious arguments.

I have an opinion about religious argument : it's easy to understand and clear : religious arguments aren't a valid justification for actions otherwise not acceptable. I can't see what other explanation you'd want. There are plenty of thread about religion if you want to debate about religion.


You don't want to talk about a statute of limitations,

I would be willing to talk about the statute of limitations because it's an interesting qustion, and the Palestine problem is only one of the very numerous issues where this problem has to be adressed. I just don't have a definite answer about it, like in "anything which happened more than 99 years ago is no longer relevant". I don't have an answer to everything. Perhaps you do.


But i still think that 2000 years ago is definitely way beyond the limit , and that "I was alive at this time and it happened to me" is definitely a valid claim.


and you don't want to talk about rights of people (and peoples), even though you keep bringing up rights.

Nope. Because it's a way larger issue to which entire threads are dedicaced. You can open one them, a couple are currently running. Beside, it's a pain in the ass for me to debate complicated theorical or philosophical questions in english (actually, I'm not able to argument about such questions in this language).


So what exactly are you arguing? "Israel is wrong, but I won't give a intellectually-defensible reason why."?


I gave my reasons. They don't need to be highly intellectual, and i don't need to argue about deep philosophical issues. That's easy : "people A move in the land of people B without people B having a say in the matter. People A set shop there and made the place their own place, ruled according to their own laws People B is screwed". My opinion is simple to understand : that's wrong.

I don't have the feeling you gave very deep intellectual reasons justifying your own opinion, anyway. Until now you only came up with :

-Ancestors were living there 2000 years ago
-That's the Jews god-given right
-Jews desperatly wanted a place to call home

Nothing very intellectual, as far as I can see...



That's because I'm trying to pin down an answer from you, and you won't give it. You keep falling back on non-deterministic emptiness. If a country is founded illigitimately, how does it magically become legitimate?


I don't know how and when exactly it becomes legitimate. Do you? I think someone who was born somewhere and lived all this life there, and never had any responsability in the way the place was taken over from other people had a good claim to call the place "home". That would certainly apply to a large part of the current Israeli population, and it certainly applied to the arabs living in Palestine under the british mandate. It doesn't apply to the Jews who moved to Palestine at this time.

By the way, just thinking about it...since you're insisting a lot about people wanting a place to call home......what about the Palestinians currently living in refugees camps and who don't have any place to call "home", either? I would really like to get an answer from you about it. Where have they the right to settle, according to you (taking of course into account the fact that they also desperatly want such a place and the fact that they also have a very precise idea of which place this could be)?



The Chechens, actually, are pretty similar to the Jews. They were conquered by Russia in the 1800's, expelled from their land by Stalin, and they came back, and they're fighting for it. So, are the Chechens entitled to their land or not?

Yep, definitely. Most of the Chechens were born in Chenya. The Chechens displaced from their land is a recent enough event for some of them having living through it. So, they have it right on both accounts. And there isn't even another people claiming that this land is rightfully his (a people as opposed to a government) We're not talking about a 2000 years old claim, here. I'm certainly going to admit that any Jew who was personnally expelled by the romans in 70 AD had the right to came back under the british mandate .


Because you keep putting colonialism into it. It isn't. Why not try this story line on: "2000 years of being kicked in the ass is enough. Let's go back to our ancestral homeland. It's mostly empty, and we might have to fight for our right to live there, but better to fight for your home than to be chased around the world and live or die at the whims of others."

How many times will I have to say it : that explain the motivations for the Jews wanting to move in palestine. It doesn't provide a valid justification.



If I can't fight you off, all of it. If I can fight you off, none of it. Or are you claiming that my house is your ancestral homeland?


Your first sentence means clearly "might makes right". If you think this is the principle which should be applied in Palestine, you should probably say so clearly.

As for your house : what if it actually is? What if I can say that, according to the tradition running in my family, or to historical evidence, my ancestors actually lived on the piece of land where your house has been built on at some point in the past?

Maalak
07-01-2003, 09:56 AM
"So, the difference between the bombings done by Zionists looking for a state and the bombings done by Palestinians looking for a state is that the Palestinians were sucidal."

No, the difference between the bombinds done by Zionists and the bombings done by Palestinian terrorist groups is that the Zionists were attacking what was a military target.

Palestinian terrorists explicitly target and seek to maximize civilian casualties.

Another factor that is a key difference is that the Palestinian terrorist groups are motivated out of hatred for Jews, and the calls for the death of innocent Israelis had been prevalent in their culture in the form of speeches, demonstrations and educational materials for generations.

bugg
07-01-2003, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by Maalak

No, the difference between the bombinds done by Zionists and the bombings done by Palestinian terrorist groups is that the Zionists were attacking what was a military target.

Palestinian terrorists explicitly target and seek to maximize civilian casualties.

Another factor that is a key difference is that the Palestinian terrorist groups are motivated out of hatred for Jews, and the calls for the death of innocent Israelis had been prevalent in their culture in the form of speeches, demonstrations and educational materials for generations.

On all counts- I disagree.

First, Zionist terrorist bombings in the Yishuv most certainly targetted civilians. Indeed, there was no Palestinian army or real Palestinian organization, so all attacks on non-British targets were innately terrorist attacks. Also, there are many Palestinian attacks on soldiers guard ing checkpoints and the like (one at Erez the other day) and these are referred to as "terrorist attacks" by mainstream Israeli press: and that's very unfair.

You probably want specific Irgun and Stern Gang actions that targetted civilians. December 12, 1947: 20 Arabs, 5 Jews, and 2 British soldiers killed and 30 woudned n Jewish terrorist bomb attacks on buses in Haifa and Ramleh. December 29, 1947: Jewish Irgun terrorists throw grenades from passing taxi into cafe near Damascus gate, killing eleven Arabs and two British policemen. And of course, Deir Yassin, where no doubt a massacre occured although it will be forever unknown how many actually died: the Irgun most likely exaggerated the figures of the number that they killed, trying to terrorize Palestinian Arab civilians into leaving. (Source: http://www.cdiss.org/terror_1940s.htm )

If you expand your definition of terrorism to that of "war crimes," which I believe is the most popular internationally understood definition, then Israel is guilty of them too. What else do you call the decision to drop a one-ton bomb on a home in Gaza because a suspected Hamas militant is living there? Sure, it killed him, but it also killed 12 other civilians, including many of his children. The rules of warfare also dictate that combatants and paramilitarists who are not actively particpating in an attack- which describes the vast majority of targets that Israel has for it's extrajudicial assassination policy- that they are not legally combatants and as such launching a rocket at their car or dropping a bomb on them is most certainly illegal. It was also a war crime to shut off power and water to the city of Jenin (one example of many) before that city was sieged; nevermind what happened in the refugee camp, shutting off vital resources to a town you occupy is *clearly* illegal. Zionists killed civilians in the Yishuv, and by any stretch of the imagination, they're either targetting civilians now or being extremely negligent.

Israel's refusal to allow Palestinians self-determination and the right to return to their homes is a violent act in and of itself. It does not justify violence against non-combatants, however given the fact that 1. a Palestinian sees an Israeli family demolish their ancestral home and build a new one over it and 2. Israel has compulsory military service you can see why many Palestinians fail to realize why the non-combatants aren't legitimate targets as well.

The fact is, suicide bombings targetting civilians did not become standard practice until the 90s, with many citing Baruch Goldstein's 1994 massacre of 34 Arabs in Hebron as the event that caused Hamas to start targetting civilians. 1994 is 27 years after the occupation of East Jerusalem, West Bank, and Gaza, and 46 years after the war of 1948 and the resulting refugees denied their right to return. It took quite a long time of occupation and violence before Palestinians started to resort to the modern suicide bombing.

I suggest you read, if not all of, then the chapter on Rejectionism of Fateful Triangle, by Noam Chomsky. He'll go through in better detail than I can all of the steps that Palestinians ever tried to take towards a peaceful resolution, the peace offers the PLO made in the mid and late 70s, the UN security council resolutions in the same time for a peace along similar lines with total international backing but a US veto... The war on Palestinian and Lebanese civilians in 1982, designed solely to destroy the PLO as a negotiating force. Israel has a policy of destroying legitimate negotiating partners, through politics or, more often than not, military force, and then asking why there's nobody around to negotiate with.

Maalak
07-01-2003, 12:54 PM
"First, Zionist terrorist bombings in the Yishuv most certainly targetted civilians. Indeed, there was no Palestinian army or real Palestinian organization, so all attacks on non-British targets were innately terrorist attacks. Also, there are many Palestinian attacks on soldiers guard ing checkpoints and the like (one at Erez the other day) and these are referred to as "terrorist attacks" by mainstream Israeli press: and that's very unfair. "

i don't recall anything of the Zionists that's anywhere near as prolific or as bloodthirsty as the rhetoric and action of groups like Hamas, Al Aqsa, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, etc..

The acts you're referring to are carried out by terrorist organizations, that makes them terrorist attacks. if they were carried out by an official Palestinian army, that would be a different story... but they're not.. they're terrorist attacks seeking to further disrupt the attempts for peace, and weaken the security that prevents further suicide bombing attacks from occuring in.

Regardless, in modern-day Israel extremists are controlled and held accountable, as opposed to what we've seen through much of the Palestinian cause where acts of terror are not only encouraged by the leadership, but financially rewarded. Hopefully, that will change now.

"Israel's refusal to allow Palestinians self-determination"

How are they refusing to allow Palestinian self-determination? They're withrawing from the territories with the understanding that the PA WILL be able to control their extremists.

The Palestinian people have been kept living as refugees and exploited by their own leadership, NOT Israel. Hopefully, that will change now.

"The fact is, suicide bombings targetting civilians did not become standard practice until the 90s"

Fantasy... while I'll grant you that suicide bombings became more prolific in the 90s, and the extremist groups have revolutionized modern terrorism similar to how Arafat pioneered plane hijackings in the 70s, the fact remains that hatred and Jews and violent rhetoric calling for their deaths and the elimination of the state of Israel has been around since the country was founded.

As for Noam Chomsky, and his views on the PLO in the 70s are a little one-sided, to say the least.

Israel has been fighting a defensive war since it was founded in 1948. Terrorist apologists never seem to grasp that basic fact.

Maalak
07-01-2003, 01:01 PM
"Israel has compulsory military service you can see why many Palestinians fail to realize why the non-combatants aren't legitimate targets as well."

This is one of the lamest excuses for targeting civilians I ever hear come from terrorist apologists.

Tee
07-01-2003, 01:59 PM
Originaly posted by bugg
Israel's refusal to allow Palestinians self-determination and the right to return to their homes is a violent act in and of itself.

Mere opinion. But interesting nonetheless. Palestinian demands on the right of return issue consist of "they all go back. Or else we don't negotiate." There's something about the "negotiation" part of it that just hasn't sunk in, evidently....now somebody will pop in and say that's not true, there's been willingness to settle for this, that, or the other thing. I'd like a cite for whatever it is up front, I can provide plenty in which Arafat says that the right of return is not subject to concessions. Period. Which is why the refugee camps have been going strong for over 50 years and no one has been resettled. They are content to wait. Or the powers that be in the PLO has been content to have them hold out for better, rather, indefinitely.

Israel has little to no power over that decision, and I see absolutely no reason to compel them to accept the refugees en toto under threat. It's particular vile because the history of this time - 20th century - involved more population transfers and displaced peoples and casualties, by millions, than any other I know of...the Greeks and Turkish are unconcerned, Pakistan and India only slightly so, Germany's "displaced" and "casualties" explain themselves, etc, and a whole assortment of countries expelled Jews specifically. To complain now that many chose one specific place, the one place to which they do have a legitimate claim both historical and religious, past and then-present, and to suggest that they had no compelling moral "leverage" to do so or no really good reason for being there, is the worst kind of selective interpretation of history. The very worst kind.

The rest of the arguments with regards to right to the land are unlikely to resonate strongly with Americans in general, actually. Many of us are descended from people who escaped various things elsewhere, and there's always been this continuous struggle for peaceful coexistence since day 1. I simply don't get the need for racial pride and prominence that Arab governments whine about. Never did. Never saw a fundamental difference in fairness between the Jewish state that exists and the Islamic states that exist throughout the Middle East. Never will. The incessant complaining remains very much imo to be that lots of people have a bug up their butts about the Jews, and refuse to get over it. Very sad.

jaybo
07-01-2003, 02:12 PM
Again, you are all deviating from the highly relevant topic of growing european anti-semitism, and getting lost in the morass of who has suffered more, israelis or palestinians, and the legitimacy of israel. put it aside for it gets you nowhere, or at the risk of creating more furor, perhaps it heats up from those who want twist the issue and avoid anti-semitism altogether.

in fact, reading the spectacle, those attacking the legitimacy of israel and creating two sets of standards are mimicking the europeans perfectly from the bbc to chris patten.

my question to you all is this: when does anti-israeli or anti-zionist expressions cross over the line to anti-semitism, and who is engaging in it over in europe.

bugg
07-01-2003, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by Maalak
This is one of the lamest excuses for targeting civilians I ever hear come from terrorist apologists.

Maalak, that quote is clearly out of context (you took the last item in a list and added my conclusion) and in my opinion that's really not fair.

I am not, by any means, justifying the fact that Palestinians fail to make the proper distinction between combatant and non-combatant. However, given the fact that Israelis are settling on occupied land, and most Israelis do serve in the armed forces, it honestly can't be seen as that big of a surprise.

Palestinians and Israelis both fail to make the differentiation between combatant and non-combatant under the standards of international humanitarian law, and they both consequently fail to make the differentiation between legitimate resistance to occupation and terrorism. Israel feels that those who at any time have called for violent resistance are military targets, which is incorrect, Israeli feels that families of suicide bombers are combatants (home demolitions), which is also incorrect in accordance to international law. Israel calls acts of resistance against military soldiers in land occupied in 1967 "terrorism," which is incorrect. That said, many Palestinians regard blowing oneself up in Tel Aviv legitimate resistance, which is incorrect, and regard Israeli children and non-active reservists as combatants, which is incorrect.

There is a strong parity between the Israelis and Palestinians at every level here.

MC Master of Ceremonies
07-01-2003, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by jaybo
Again, you are all deviating from the highly relevant topic of growing european anti-semitism, and getting lost in the morass of who has suffered more, israelis or palestinians, and the legitimacy of israel. put it aside for it gets you nowhere, or at the risk of creating more furor, perhaps it heats up from those who want twist the issue and avoid anti-semitism altogether.

in fact, reading the spectacle, those attacking the legitimacy of israel and creating two sets of standards are mimicking the europeans perfectly from the bbc to chris patten.

my question to you all is this: when does anti-israeli or anti-zionist expressions cross over the line to anti-semitism, and who is engaging in it over in europe.

hmm, do you have a cite (and please don't give me a far-right Israel advocacy site) for the allegations you just made against Chris Patten and the BBC.

Allegations of antisemtism should not be used to try and score political points as it devalues real allegations.

JonBodner
07-01-2003, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by clairobscur
Once again, stop mispresenting my arguments.

No problem. When you make a point that can be nailed down, then I won't misrepresent it.

1) I told that at some point, what has been indeed done has been done, and you can't redress all the wrong done during the last 3000 years. I never made any particular exception for anybody.

But you do think that the wrongs done to the Palestinians should be redressed.

2) I never wrote that the Palestinian should be allowed to return, so you're just making things up. That's plain dishonest.

So, how do you plan to redress their complaints? You have said that Palestinians who left in 1948 should return, and you weren't sure if their children should have the right of return, too.

And since you are insisting that I am putting words in your mouth when I say that you are in favor of returning the Palestinians to Israel proper, I'm glad that we agree that the Palestinians shouldn't be allowed to return.

3) Yes. Definitely, I think there's a difference between what happenned 1300 years ago and what happened 50 years ago.

Why?

I must be blind. I just understood now that the reason why you keep insisting on this "status of limitation" thing is so that you can tell "since the Jews were expelled from the area in 70 AD, they have the right to take back the land".

Yes, very good to catch on.

I sure don't ignore it. I just say that religious belief doesn't give any valid justification for anything harmful which is done (apart in the mind of the religious person, of course, be it "this land has been given to us by our god" or "our god want us to crash a plane in this tower")

And this is shameful moral equivilence. It's like saying that NOT beliving in God gives you equal right to work on the sabbath and to murder. Your anti-religion bias is rank bigotry.

Absolutely not. The part of your post I was responding to here had absolutely nothing to do with this issue. You were stating I didn't believe the israelis had a right to stay in Israel, or somesuch and I was pointing out to you that I had stated exactly the contrary in my first post. How do you change that in "I'm just trying to figure out if there's any country, etc..." , I can't fathom.

So you believe that Israelis have a right to live in Israel and Palestinians do not have a right to be resettled back in Israel. I've got to tell you, I don't see where we disagree. Well, there's the bit where you think poorly of religion, I guess. Maybe after a few more postings, you'll be telling me that you're now a Born-Again Christian.

Apart from that, yes, there's plenty of countries I hold to the same standarts as Israel. As for *you* not being able to find a country *I* hold to the same standarts, how would you know? As usual, you have decided all by yourself what I was thinking or not thinking, and respond to these supposed thoughts of mine rather than to what I'm writing.

Well, now that it appears that we agree on everything, I can't see what the fussin' and the feudin' is all about.

Either you're dense, either you deliberatly avoid to understand. I was refering to Dutch people deliberatly moving in the US (and no, they couldn't just come in...As far as I know, the US don't allow in anybodody who's willing to come) *and* founding an independant state on the US territory (without asking the opinion of the US governement or US people. That was in response to your argument "there was not much people living in Palestine, anyway hence, Jews just could come in".

I said what I said, because it accurately reflected what the original Jewish pioneers who returned to Israel thought. They weren't looking for a state (they started returning 10-20 years before Herzl founded Zionism). They were looking to return home. They weren't representing any country, so calling them colonists is laughable. They bought land at WAY over market value, and then had to fight off Arabs who didn't like the fact that other Arabs sold the Jews land.

Now, if you want to construct an ahistorical strawman, go right ahead. But I'm not going to argue against it.

As I wrote many times, not having something doesn't necessarily allows you to take this thing away from someone else (a place to call home, I mean). How strongly you feel about not having it is irrelevant. Assuming that providing some way to protect themselves to the jewish community was a responsability the world community at large had, anyway, all the burden shouldn't have fallen on the Palestinian's back (especially since they didn't have any say in the matter, once again).

They did have a say in it. They fought a war over it. They lost. You seem to think that the Western Powers dispatched armies or something to make the state of Israel. They didn't. The various Jewish terrorist groups (and yes, I will say they were terrorists, as they certainly were, and I don't think that what they did was right) pissed off the Brittish so much, they were siding with the Arabs by the end of the Mandate. No one gave the Jews anything to defend Israel. Jews around the world raised money and bought crappy Axis weapons and sent them to Israel (irony of ironies, really). The UN declared the State of Israel, and then said, "good luck!" while the Arab armies invaded.

As for your statment that how strongly you want something being irrelevent is false. No one in their right minds thought the Jews would win in 1948 (or in 1967; IIRC, in June 1967, de Gaulle had a speech prepared to lament the destruction of Israel). But the fact is, they wanted it more. 10% of the Jewish population died in war of independence, but they were fighting for their home, and they won.

So, now, you're justifying the past action of the zionists by the possible future actions of the Palestinians? May I ask a cite for this future event? Because no, I've not been informed it will happen. I can't read the thoughts of other posters (contrarily to you reading mine) , nor can I predict the future (contrarily to you). You must make a bunch of money as a psychic.

Perhaps. I just take what the Palestinians say at face value. They say they want to kill all the Jews. They say they want to stop the "Judiazation" of a city that has had a majority Jewish population for centuries, and which is at the center of the Jewish religion. So, if that makes me psychic, then I'm a psychic.

By the way, mentionning the treatment of Jews living in Jerusalem under Jordan's rule wouldn't fly, either, since it couldn't have been a justification before the event happened. It was one of the consequences of the creation of Israel, not a cause. I don't remember the Jews went to Palestine because the arabs were throwing other Jews out of their Jerusalem's houses.

Oh it's easy to remember the treatment of Jews under Jordan's rule of Jerusalem; Jordan threw them all out. They destroyed the cemetery on the Mount of Olives that dated back to Roman times, using the tombstones to pave the streets. They blew up centries-old synagogues. They used the area around the Western Wall as a garbage dump. And there is zero reason to believe that things would be any different under Palestinian rule.

During the 1930's, there was awful warfare in the streets of Jerusalem. There was certainly an Arab attempt (led by Arafat's uncle, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who was a buddy of Hitler's) to drive the Jews out of Jerusalem. So your history isn't so good.

Jews did go to other parts of Palestine from Hebron in 1929 when Arabs started murdering them. There had been Jews in Hebron for a very long time (it was where Abraham lived and is buried), and in 1929 the community was driven out to other parts of Palestine. Now the Jews who returned to Hebron in 1967 are treated by the world as evil usurpers. Nope, no double standards there.

I don't feel guilty. I was never involved in France's past colonial ventures. I wasn't even born at this time. Why would i feel guilt?
And once again, how would you know what I feel? Your psychic talents, as usual?

Well, you keep bringing up colonization by white people in brown lands when there is none. Usually when people keep bringing up topics in out-of-context settings, they have a fixation. My mistake.

Homeland for the jews or not, and picked at random or not doesn't change a thing. A bunch of foreigner backed by a colonial power went in, settled down and created their own state on the land against the will of the locals. Doing so in Uganda or in Palestine doesn't change a thing.

See, there's the colonialism thing again. Do you bring this up in everyday conversation?

"Nice weather today, eh?"

"The only reason we have nice weather is that a bunch of white people colonized Zambia and stole their sunshine!"

I just don't buy in your assumption that the Jews had any particular right to this land because part of their ancestors were living there 2000 years ago.

Aha! Something we disagree about. Well, I don't think either one of us is going to convince the other.

These ones at least had some right to do so, since the Turkish governement was more or less accepted as the legitimate ruler in this area (though definitely not by everybody). The ones who came during the british mandate or later : nope.

What made the Turks legitimate and the British illegitimate? Skin color? The Turks were hated, by the natives, too.

I would also point out that "returning" isn't the same thing that "creating your own country there". For some reason, I strongly doubt the Turkish government would have accepted that.

And it wasn't accepted by the Turks. But that's OK, because as I said before, the returning Jews weren't looking for their own country at first. Only once it became clear that they would need to fight for the right to stay in the land they considered their homeland did the need for a state arise. Political Zionism assumed a state from the beginning, but that was 10-20 years after the first returning Jews.

I can consider that. The problem is that I totally reject the calidity of this concept. Whether or not the Jews felt like they were returning home, the locals thought it was *their* home. And since they were living there, their stance was way more valid than the stance of people whose only argument was "part of our ancestors were living here 2000 years ago".

So what about Arabs who came to Palestine after the 1880s? Did they have more right to the land than the Jews did? Because the population of Palestine in the 1880s was pretty tiny. Many of the people who now claim refugee status come from familes that entered Palestine at the same time as the Jews. Why one group is legitimate and the other is illegitimate smacks of racism to me.

By the way, most probably, part of the ancestors of the palestinian currently living in refugees camp were probably also living in what is now Israel 2000 years ago. The fact they're "arabs" doesn't mean than they are actually the descendants of people who were originally living in Arabia.

This is almost certainly false. Arabs didn't enter into Palestine until the 7th century. And as I just mentioned, there was a HUGE jump in population in Palestine after the 1880s. Relatively speaking, very few of the Palestinians who claim refugee status are from families that had been in the area for long.

"I killed everyone else up to this border" isn't a justification, but a method.

Well, then why does France have the borders it does? Why is Alsaice part of your country? Why isn't it German territory?

Why should I be able to give a definite answer about this statute of limitations issue? Should I have a definite and precise opinion about everything?

If you are going to argue that you are right, you should be able to say WHY you are right.

But perhaps you could give your own, since apparently you've clear ideas on this issue. Could it be : "claims older than 1300 years (jewish claims on Palestine) are valid but claims more recent than 60 years (palestinian claims on Israel) aren't"?

I don't think that a statute of limitations has anything to do with anything. I think it is Jewish land, but that is because of religious reasons. I think that while might does not make right, it sure settles the argument when all other means fail. The simple reason why Israel exists now is because the Jews won in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973.

I feel badly for the Palestinians, because they were screwed by their Arab and Muslim "brothers" over and over again, goaded into fights they couldn't win and left to rot as refugees so they could provide a target for hate so the citizens of these failed states didn't notice how shitty their own lives were. However, I also know that letting Palestinians back into Israel will destroy Israel, and I don't want Israel destroyed. If the Palestinians can live in peace with Israel with a state in Gaza and the West Bank and some sort of sharing agreement for Jerusalem, fine. If not, then the least worst solution is, unfortunately, massive deportation from the West Bank. But they aren't going back to Israel, and they lost their right to live in Israel when they lost the last 5 wars.

I really don't like the idea of mass deportation. In fact, I hate it. But the other options are genocide, either of the Jews or the Palestinians, and I hate those options more. But mass deportations have happened repeately in the 20th century. A million Hindus and Muslims moved when Pakistan split from India. Greek and Turkish Cypriots were moved. The Palestinians need to either accept that they are no different from Indians, Pakistanis, Cypriots, Germans, and everyone else who was relocated after their side lost. If they can't accept that fact, then they are going to keep on fighting until one side kills the other. And let me tell you, if a REALLY crazy right-wing government gets elected in Israel due to a massive Palestinian atrocity (nuclear bomb in Tel Aviv, perhaps?), there won't be any question as to whether the Palestinians should have a right of return, because there won't be any left.

People may live according to whatever book or set of rules they want. They just can't use their arbitrary rules or the content of their old beloved books to justify actions which otherwise wouldn't be acceptable.

You mean like the Communist Manifesto? Or do only religious books get scorn from you?

I'm going to ignore this part. I've no intent to argue about the content of the bible. Irrelevant.

Then why bring it up?

That's true. But you're once again trying to explain me why the Jews wanted a place to call home. And, for the umpteeenth time, the fact that the Jews had no place to call home didn't give them the right to take over a place against the will of the locals.

You refused to define what rights are and where they come from. I think you should stop using that word if you won't define it.

Similar to the palestinians? I could find plenty which were somehow similar (as in being driven out of their land while other people took it over), but curently none exactly similar. There aren't many people living en masse in refugee camps right now. Though there are a big deal of people out there who have a lot of good (or even better) reasons to complain. But in not exactly similar situations. Armenians or Tibetans in exile, Chechens displaced, black south-africans under the apartheid have some similarities, for instance.

After WW II, Europe was covered in refugee camps. They were empty by the 50's, because the Europeans took in the refugees. The Palestinians are still in camps because they are being used as political pawns by other Arabs and Muslims.

I have an opinion about religious argument : it's easy to understand and clear : religious arguments aren't a valid justification for actions otherwise not acceptable. I can't see what other explanation you'd want. There are plenty of thread about religion if you want to debate about religion.

I don't want to debate about religion because there's no point. However, when you don't give specific answers and instead rely on some sort of general feeling, I consider that a religious argument, too.

I would be willing to talk about the statute of limitations because it's an interesting qustion, and the Palestine problem is only one of the very numerous issues where this problem has to be adressed. I just don't have a definite answer about it, like in "anything which happened more than 99 years ago is no longer relevant". I don't have an answer to everything. Perhaps you do.

My answer is that statute of limitations is bunk. I was hoping that you would see that, but I guess you haven't.

But i still think that 2000 years ago is definitely way beyond the limit , and that "I was alive at this time and it happened to me" is definitely a valid claim.

Except that this standard has never actually been applied in the history of, well, history. There are probably still Germans alive who were booted from Sudetenland and from Poland. They ain't going back, and no one is talking about boycotting Poland or the Czech Republic until they do. But Israel gets singled out. Go figure.

Nope. Because it's a way larger issue to which entire threads are dedicaced. You can open one them, a couple are currently running. Beside, it's a pain in the ass for me to debate complicated theorical or philosophical questions in english (actually, I'm not able to argument about such questions in this language).

I do have to say that your English is excellent. My French, well, it was bad enough that when I visited Montreal years ago, they asked me to speak English...

I gave my reasons. They don't need to be highly intellectual, and i don't need to argue about deep philosophical issues. That's easy : "people A move in the land of people B without people B having a say in the matter. People A set shop there and made the place their own place, ruled according to their own laws People B is screwed". My opinion is simple to understand : that's wrong.

You just described the US, AU, NZ, and CA pretty well. Yet no one is boycotting their graduate students or calling Kiwis Nazis. I want to know the reason for the double standard. Saying that it happened a long time ago is not an answer that I find acceptable. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

JonBodner
07-01-2003, 02:59 PM
Continuing from above...


I don't have the feeling you gave very deep intellectual reasons justifying your own opinion, anyway. Until now you only came up with :

-Ancestors were living there 2000 years ago
-That's the Jews god-given right
-Jews desperatly wanted a place to call home

Nothing very intellectual, as far as I can see...

You can add: "The Jews won the war" to the list of reasons.

They aren't intellectual. But they are positions. They spell out why I think what I think. I'm not looking for something out of Decartes or Sartre (who was pro-Israel and did write an essay on anti-semitism). Just actual statements of what you believe. If you claim a factual basis for those statements, they need to be supported by facts. If you don't, that's OK, too. But don't expect that I will respect your non-factual statements any more than you respect mine.

I don't know how and when exactly it becomes legitimate. Do you? I think someone who was born somewhere and lived all this life there, and never had any responsability in the way the place was taken over from other people had a good claim to call the place "home". That would certainly apply to a large part of the current Israeli population, and it certainly applied to the arabs living in Palestine under the british mandate. It doesn't apply to the Jews who moved to Palestine at this time.

It becomes legitimate when you win the war.

By the way, just thinking about it...since you're insisting a lot about people wanting a place to call home......what about the Palestinians currently living in refugees camps and who don't have any place to call "home", either? I would really like to get an answer from you about it. Where have they the right to settle, according to you (taking of course into account the fact that they also desperatly want such a place and the fact that they also have a very precise idea of which place this could be)?

I feel bad for them. They (or their ancestors) who left made an awful mistake. The Arabs who stayed behind are citizens of Israel and kept their homes. The ones who left, didn't. But they want to go back to their homes now and they can't because it would be suicide for the State of Israel, and countries aren't in the habit of committing suicide.

Getting their own state in the West Bank and Gaza isn't a bad real-world solution to a lousy problem. We're talking about having a Palestinian homeland within a couple dozen miles from where they claim they were evicted. That's a good deal better than most war refugees get.

Yep, definitely. Most of the Chechens were born in Chenya. The Chechens displaced from their land is a recent enough event for some of them having living through it. So, they have it right on both accounts. And there isn't even another people claiming that this land is rightfully his (a people as opposed to a government) We're not talking about a 2000 years old claim, here. I'm certainly going to admit that any Jew who was personnally expelled by the romans in 70 AD had the right to came back under the british mandate .

That's funny. See, my sarcasm detector is now working.

How many times will I have to say it : that explain the motivations for the Jews wanting to move in palestine. It doesn't provide a valid justification.

And that's where we are going to disagree.

Your first sentence means clearly "might makes right". If you think this is the principle which should be applied in Palestine, you should probably say so clearly.

I don't think might makes right. I think that might settles arguments rather well, though. If we disagree about who owns my house, and there is no political authority to appeal to, then the only way to settle it is with force.

As for your house : what if it actually is? What if I can say that, according to the tradition running in my family, or to historical evidence, my ancestors actually lived on the piece of land where your house has been built on at some point in the past?

Then I'll feel bad for you, but it's mine now. You can buy a house in my neighborhood (there are several for sale, much nicer than my house, actually), and I'll let you visit, because I'm a nice guy. You can offer me a great deal of money for my house, and I might sell it to you, just as the Jews offered money for the land they purchased from the Arabs. But if I flee my house so that invading armies can have an easier time killing my neighbors, and you move in, I think I'm screwed.

If I flee my house to make it easier for my neighbors to be murdered, I'm also a bad neighbor. Letting someone who has a history of being a bad neighbor back is a bad idea, in my opinion.

It's funny you should mention this, really, as my next door neighbor's mother used to own my house. She owned a good chunk of the land in my neighborhood, and my neighbor actually helped build my house. Any time he has advice on the house or wants to stop by, he's welcome. That's because he respects the fact that I bought his mother's house, and isn't trying to kill me because he thinks that it should still be his, property titles be damned.

The Arabs who tried to kill Jews that bought land, fair and square, were wrong. In the end, it came down to the Jews not being intimidated off the land they bought, and many of the Arabs fled in the battle which they began by not being good neighbors. I feel bad that they were so greedy and mean. I'm not going to go out of my way to reward their venal behavior, but if they do want to finally live in peace, that would be wonderful. Good neighbors are good things.

Maalak
07-01-2003, 03:02 PM
However, given the fact that Israelis are settling on occupied land, and most Israelis do serve in the armed forces, it honestly can't be seen as that big of a surprise.

Let's look at the issue of settlements, for a moment... this is something that's always bothered me.

First, that land was acquired in a defensive war, giving them full right to occupy it for their security and set conditions for their withdrawal, which as we're seeing in what's happening now they are willing to work with. To date, they've returned over 90% of the territories acquired in the 1967 war, and the settlements in question are less than 2%.

But even then... Jews and Arabs have lived in that area for generations... so my question is:

Why can't Jews live in the territories?

They're not displacing Palestinians with their settlements... these lands are disputed currently, and Israel has chosen to establish settlements in key areas it thinks is vital to it's defense, which having been forced into a defensive war is their right.

(Although I do think that some of the settlements were pushing the matter too far, Israell isn't beyond reproach by any means.. but I do respect that this is a conflict they were forced into by those who see the entire nation destroyed.)

Over 1,000,000 Arabs are full citizens of Israel with every right (their only distinction is that they aren't required to serve in the military)... so I wonder... will Jews not be allowed to live in a Palestinian state?

JonBodner
07-01-2003, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by MC Master of Ceremonies
hmm, do you have a cite (and please don't give me a far-right Israel advocacy site) for the allegations you just made against Chris Patten and the BBC.

Allegations of antisemtism should not be used to try and score political points as it devalues real allegations.
It is true that Chris Patten has fought to make sure that the PA is funded, and he has fought to ensure that no one in the EU will look into whether some of this money is being used to pay for terrorism. I can spend some time looking for cites for both (Patten fighting for PA funding, and Patten resisting attempts to investigate how that funding has been spent), but these are matters of the public record.

Whether he is doing this because he hates Jews (unlikely to me) or because he is a burocrat that doesn't want to be embarassed by what will likely be found (likely) is between Chris Patten and God.

Whatever his motivation, it's sad that he doesn't want to ensure that the funding he manages isn't going to evil causes.

Hank Fescue
07-01-2003, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by jaybo
my question to you all is this: when does anti-israeli or anti-zionist expressions cross over the line to anti-semitism, and who is engaging in it over in europe.

Depends mostly on your personal definition of "anti - semitism". Webster defines it as hostility towards or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic or cultural group.

Now we can debate about what constitutes hostility or discrimination.

Do you consider a joke about Jews hostile? Discriminative? Does making a joke make one anti - semitic ?

Do you consider hostility towards Israel to be hostile towards Jews ?

If someone expresses disagreement with Jewish religious teachings, cultural influence or religious influence over politics is this hostile or discriminative ? Anti - semitic ?

Most importantly, does my support for Palestinian liberation cross that line?

Anti - semitism is an ugly word that gets thrown around alot by the pro - Israel people as a last resort. If you can't win fairly just call them anti - semitic.

Hank Fescue
07-01-2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by JonBodner
Continuing from above...

Then I'll feel bad for you, but it's mine now. You can buy a house in my neighborhood (there are several for sale, much nicer than my house, actually), and I'll let you visit, because I'm a nice guy. You can offer me a great deal of money for my house, and I might sell it to you, just as the Jews offered money for the land they purchased from the Arabs. But if I flee my house so that invading armies can have an easier time killing my neighbors, and you move in, I think I'm screwed.

If I flee my house to make it easier for my neighbors to be murdered, I'm also a bad neighbor. Letting someone who has a history of being a bad neighbor back is a bad idea, in my opinion.



Still throwing that pile of crap around ?

They left home because thier nieghbors army was slaughtering entire villages.

That legend was put to rest long ago. Give me a break.

And Monty , the law of return as it applies to Jews, allows for Jews to enter Israel as an Olah (think I spelled that right), a religious pilgrim. It is a religious rite made into national policy.

MC Master of Ceremonies
07-01-2003, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by JonBodner
It is true that Chris Patten has fought to make sure that the PA is funded, and he has fought to ensure that no one in the EU will look into whether some of this money is being used to pay for terrorism. I can spend some time looking for cites for both (Patten fighting for PA funding, and Patten resisting attempts to investigate how that funding has been spent), but these are matters of the public record.

Whether he is doing this because he hates Jews (unlikely to me) or because he is a burocrat that doesn't want to be embarassed by what will likely be found (likely) is between Chris Patten and God.

Whatever his motivation, it's sad that he doesn't want to ensure that the funding he manages isn't going to evil causes.

Well the funding of the PA by the EU is beacuse Israel refues to pay the tax revenues from the Palestinians owed to the PA. An investigation was conducted into allegations of the PA misusing money for terrorism but no evidence was found to support this (though OLAF are currently investigating these claims).

http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/mepp/eufundspa.htm

Maalak
07-01-2003, 03:35 PM
They left home because thier nieghbors army was slaughtering entire villages.

Huh? Slaughtering entire villages? Can you be more specific?

That sounds like a pretty accurate analogy to me... The Arabic world was unwilling to negotiate for any sort of agreement that accepted the existence of a Jewish state in 1948, thousands left of their own free will in anticipation of the war, thousands of others were convinced the people who left that they would be able to return after the fledgling nation of Israel was crushed (and yes, a much smaller percentage was forcibly evicted when there were acts of violence) If Israel was as intolerant as some would like to portray, it wouldn't have the thriving Arabic population it does now.

It's also interesting to note that you hear many exagerated claims of displaced Palestinians, when in fact the numbers of Jews who were forcibly expelled from the rest of the Muslim world was much greater in number.

How many Jews are allowed to return to their homes and become citizens of the major Arabic/Muslim countries, where they would enjoy equal rights as Arabs do in Israel?

jaybo
07-01-2003, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by MC Master of Ceremonies
hmm, do you have a cite (and please don't give me a far-right Israel advocacy site) for the allegations you just made against Chris Patten and the BBC.

Allegations of antisemtism should not be used to try and score political points as it devalues real allegations.


Well, Israel is taking the extraordinary step of severing ties w/the BBC this week for .

Moreover, I was not citing that they made anti-semitic statements. Rather, they have either expressed anti-Israeli statements or in Patten's case actively blocking an investigation of whether EU funds were used to finance terrorist operations in israel.

but again, you deflect from the european perspective. i can give you the names of others in britain for instance who have fired israelis from jobs because they're israeli, or the recent instance of a oxford prof who put in an e-mail that he won't hire an israeli in his lab simply for his nationality. or the editor of a professional periodical who wouldn't publish a piece until it hammered israeli policies and/or actions more. does this amount to anti-semitism or not?

an EU representative at an international gathering denies anti-semitism is taking place in europe as the number of incidents skyrocket. if the catalyst for these crimes and desecrations is simply disagreement or abhorrence at israeli policies and actions, then what does this say about europeans true feelings and motives?

MC Master of Ceremonies
07-01-2003, 03:58 PM
Do you know why Israel has threatened to block visas for BBC journalists? Because the BBC ran a documentry about Israel's nuclear program.

Did Patten really block an investigation or did you just make that up? You can clearly see from the link in my last post that his own investigation found no evidence and he "welcomed" the independant investigation by OLAF.

As I said further back in the thread the man behind the academic boycott of Israel is infact Jewish himself, so even though I don't agree with the academic boycott I can't realistically call it antisemtic.

Hank Fescue
07-01-2003, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by Maalak
Huh? Slaughtering entire villages? Can you be more specific?

That sounds like a pretty accurate analogy to me... The Arabic world was unwilling to negotiate for any sort of agreement that accepted the existence of a Jewish state in 1948, thousands left of their own free will in anticipation of the war, thousands of others were convinced the people who left that they would be able to return after the fledgling nation of Israel was crushed (and yes, a much smaller percentage was forcibly evicted when there were acts of violence) If Israel was as intolerant as some would like to portray, it wouldn't have the thriving Arabic population it does now.

The Deir Yassin Massacre of Palestinians by Jewish soldiers

"For the entire day of April 9, 1948, Irgun and LEHI soldiers carried out the slaughter in a cold and premeditated fashion...The attackers 'lined men, women and children up against the walls and shot them,'...The ruthlessness of the attack on Deir Yassin shocked Jewish and world opinion alike, drove fear and panic into the Arab population, and led to the flight of unarmed civilians from their homes all over the country." Israeli author, Simha Flapan, "The Birth of Israel."

Was Deir Yassin the only act of its kind?

"By 1948, the Jew was not only able to 'defend himself' but to commit massive atrocities as well. Indeed, according to the former director of the Israeli army archives, 'in almost every village occupied by us during the War of Independence, acts were committed which are defined as war crimes, such as murders, massacres, and rapes'...Uri Milstein, the authoritative Israeli military historian of the 1948 war, goes one step further, maintaining that 'every skirmish ended in a massacre of Arabs.'" Norman Finkelstein, "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict."


It's also interesting to note that you hear many exagerated claims of displaced Palestinians, when in fact the numbers of Jews who were forcibly expelled from the rest of the Muslim world was much greater in number.

Also interesting to note how you bring the rest of the muslim world into the fray. Is that what it all comes down to for you ? Muslim versus Jew ? You know that has been the undoing of peace for a long time now. Maybe you could move beyond that mentality ?

Maalak
07-01-2003, 04:40 PM
Deir Yassin.. I've heard these ridiculously biased accounts of the incident before...

I'd suggest anybody interested in reading more about what actually happened check the following site:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/deir_yassin.html

The source is biased, but the references are all well-documented.

Finkelstein's "research" at best is sloppy and inaccurate, at it's worst he goes out of his way to distort the truth of events.

Also interesting to note how you bring the rest of the muslim world into the fray. Is that what it all comes down to for you ? Muslim versus Jew ? You know that has been the undoing of peace for a long time now.

Is that what it comes down to? No, I don't see the same level of hostility towards the Muslim world from Israel... and in discussing what happened in 1948, I don't think you can ignore the treatment of Jews in the rest of the Arabic world.

Read the following analysis of anti-semitic materials and tell me if you don't notice a trend in the rhetoric...

http://www.pmw.org.il/

http://www.edume.org/reports/

Hatred and intolerance of Jews is what has been the undoing of the peace process. Had that not been the primary obstacle to working to establish a homeland in 1948, the Palestinians would have had a nation of their own long ago.

bugg
07-01-2003, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Maalak

First, that land was acquired in a defensive war, giving them full right to occupy it for their security and set conditions for their withdrawal, which as we're seeing in what's happening now they are willing to work with. To date, they've returned over 90% of the territories acquired in the 1967 war, and the settlements in question are less than 2%.

Transfering your population to an occupied territory is in direct violation of the Fourth Geneva convention.


But even then... Jews and Arabs have lived in that area for generations... so my question is:

Why can't Jews live in the territories?


The most certainly should be allowed to. Why are you jumping to conclusions? Jews should be allowed to live anywhere in Palestine/Israel as equals of Palestinians. Not as oppressors. My personal preferred solution for the conflict is Israel equalizing Palestinian Israeli rights and then annexing the territories, granting the Palestinians citizenship.


They're not displacing Palestinians with their settlements... these lands are disputed currently, and Israel has chosen to establish settlements in key areas it thinks is vital to it's defense, which having been forced into a defensive war is their right.


Actually, this is incorrect. They most certainly are displacing Palestinians with the settlements. Have you not heard the same stories of home demolitions and land expropriation due to settlements needing "security zones" or the new security (a.k.a. apartheid) wall going up? The right to transfer your population comes with annexation, and annexation comes with making Palestinians Israelis. For as long as Israel is there as a military occupier- for as long as Israel's civil administration does not extend into the territories, the settlements are wrong.


Over 1,000,000 Arabs are full citizens of Israel with every right (their only distinction is that they aren't required to serve in the military)... so I wonder... will Jews not be allowed to live in a Palestinian state?
Also incorrect. Read the US State Department 2002 Report on Human Rights Practices: Israel and the Occupied Territories, any report from Adalah, or the findings of the UN Committee Deeply Concerned about Persisting Inequalities between Jewish and Arab Citizens of Israel (google for any of the above) for more information. Most fraglantly, 80% of the land of Israel cannot be leased as it falls under Israel Lands Administration control, which is charted to use the land for the benefit of Jews only.

Personally, I oppose making another Palestinian State, for there is already a state in Palestine: Israel. (The answer of Jordan is mere trickery based on what was once defined as Palestine.) It's time Israel annexes the territories and *shares* power with Palestinians. In a true democracy.

Guinastasia
07-01-2003, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by jaybo

Moreover, I was not citing that they made anti-semitic statements

Actually, you haven't "cited" anything.

YourOldBuddy
07-01-2003, 06:19 PM
Maybie I havent been reading this topic well enough, but I would like to see some hard facts and/or statistics regarding the rise of anti semitism in Europe. Some say its at epidemic proportions while others seem to think its a mostly Belgian/French problem.

Rumsfeld zero tolerance prescription for Europe is silly because Europe has gone out of its way to give hard sentences for hate crimes and has banned Neo Nazi parties and media. The US has not gone to the same length.

It has already been established that Anti Semitism is on the rise in the US as well. Maybie the Americans in the group can offer an explanation that might be matched to the European case. In a recent ADL study 17% of Americans were shown to have racist opinions of Jews.

MC Master of Ceremonies
07-01-2003, 06:54 PM
Yes from the way some Americans talk about it, you'd think it was the 1930's all overe again, Its not. The truth is from what I know from speaking to Jews from the US and Europe I would say it is worse in the US than in most of Europe (though in Russia, Eastern Germany and other old Soviet-bloc countries and maybe France probably not).

The BBC, Chris Patten and even the academic boycott is the wrong place to look for antisemtism in Europe, really we should be talking about Nick Griffin, Jean-Marie Le Pen, Jorge Heider and their politcal parties.

YourOldBuddy
07-01-2003, 08:03 PM
I'd hereby like to apologize to JonBodner for confusing him with December. JonB didnt link to LGF. Someone suggested that it was the same writer and I think that is root to my confusion. Sry again.

jaybo
07-01-2003, 08:30 PM
Guinastasia-Here are some cites for you

Jerusalem Post 11/2/02-LONDON European Foreign Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten has turned down a leading European legislator who wants an investigation into alleged illegal use of EU aid to the Palestinian Authority.

MC-I checked your site and find it amusing that the EU conveniently whipped through an audit of itself! talk about a conflict of interest. it welcomes an independent audit but that requires the assent of 157 member of the EU parliament.

But to continue cites
From the Simon Wiesenthal Center (I assume this is not considered a far right wing group): Member of Parliament Tam Dalyell, Father of the House, (Labor’s senior MP) accused Prime Minister Blair of "being unduly influenced by a cabal of Jewish advisers." Dalyell named Lord Levy, Tony Blair’s personal envoy on the Middle East, Peter Mandelson, whose father was Jewish, and Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary who has Jewish ancestry, as three of the leading figures who influenced Mr. Blair’s policies on Iraq. Mr. Dalyell also claimed the Prime Minister was indirectly influenced by Jews in the Bush Administration including Richard Perle, a Pentagon advisor, Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defense Secretary, and Press Secretary Ari Fleischer.

A prominent Greek professor from the London School of Economics, Nikos Mouzelis, wrote an article published in the Sunday edition of To Vima, the largest Greek newspaper, blaming the Jews for the crisis in the Middle East and for the lack of peace in the world.

12/2/02 The Guardian: Dr Oren Yiftachel, a left-wing Israeli academic at Ben Gurion University, complained that an article he had co-authored with a Palestinian was initially rejected by the respected British journal Political Geography. He said it was returned to him unopened with a note stating that Political Geography could not accept a submission from Israel.
Mr Yiftachel said that, after months of negotiation, the article is to be published but only after he agreed to make substantial revisions, including making a comparison between his homeland and apartheid South Africa.

Again, the question posed is what constitutes anti-semitism as opposed to anti-zionism.


And why is the BBC and academics the "wrong" place to look for anti-semitism? only the right is capable of it?

the bottom line is there has been a rise in anti-semitic acts in europe and i'm all ears if you can provide a better reason than the huge rise in anti-israeli rhetoric and activities.

BTW, too many are wasting their breath arguing who is responsible for what atrocity and who is more deserving of a country. Israel is not going away and the Palestinians will get a country from the west bank and gaza strip. doesn't matter what side you favor, that's what is happening w/many fits and starts.

jaybo
07-01-2003, 08:42 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bugg
Transfering your population to an occupied territory is in direct violation of the Fourth Geneva convention.



Actually they are by international law "disputed", not "occupied" territories. these territories were illegally annexed by egypt and jordan following the 1948 war.


As to other points regarding israeli immigration policy favoring jews, every sovereign country can set its own. funny, i don't hear anyone foaming at the mouth that saudi arabia not only prohibits non-muslims from immigrating but deems any expression of a non-muslim faith as a crime.

israel should be held to the same standard as any other country as anything else is biased. does the differing standards in the middle east stem from israel being the sole democracy in the region, so we expect more, or do we just expect less from the arabs?

DSeid
07-01-2003, 08:43 PM
YourOldBuddy asks for hard facts about the rise of antisemitism. The following might suffice:

A Tel Aviv University report.

http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2002-3/general.htm

The year 2002 and the beginning of 2003 witnessed an alarmingly significant increase in the number of violent antisemitic acts and in other forms of antisemitic activity. A total of 311 serious incidents were recorded worldwide in 2002, 56 major attacks (i.e., attacks using violent means) and 255 major violent incidents (attacks without the use of a weapon), whereas in 2001 there were 228 violent incidents, 50 major attacks and 178 violent incidents. The 2002 figure even slightly surpassed the year 1994 which marked a peak in antisemitic activity in the 1990s.
...
the number of physical assaults on Jewish individuals, or on people who resembled Jews, almost doubled
... Most antisemitic violence in 2002 took place in western EuropeThe entire report makes for an interesting read.

How pervasive is old-style anti-semitism in Europe today? The Anti-Defamation League offers the following survey of current European beliefs. Worse than in the US.
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASInt_13/4185_13.asp
Percentage of those who believe Jews are more loyal to Israel than their home country: Spain 72%, Italy 58%, Germany 55%, Austria 54%, Belgium 50%, Switzerland 49%, The Netherlands 48%, Denmark 45%, France, 42% UK, 34%

Percentage of those who believe Jews have too much power in the business world: Spain 63%, Belgium 44%, France 42%, Austria 40%, Switzerland 37%, Germany 32%, UK 21%, The Netherlands 20%, Denmark 13%

Percentage of those who believe Jews still talk too much about the Holocaust: Germany 58%, Spain 57%, Austria 56%, Switzerland 52%, France 46%, Italy 43%, Belgium 38%, The Netherlands 35%, Denmark 30%, UK 23%

....

strong anti-Semitic views. 34% in Spain, 23% in Italy, 22% in Switzerland, 19% in Austria, 7% in the Netherlands

...

Jews are more willing than others to use shady practices to get what they want. Spain 33%, Austria 28%, Italy and Switzerland 27% This is a problem.

MC Violent attacks aginst Jews is actually down in the US. Also per the Tel Aviv report, http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2001-2/usa.htm Forty states and the District of Columbia reported 1,434 antisemitic incidents, marking a fall of 172 incidents below the 2000 total of 1606. This represents an 11 percent decrease in anti-Jewish activity, reversing the upward trend prior to 2001, which saw a 4 percent increase.which is not to say that anti-semitism is not alive and well here.

Maalak
07-01-2003, 08:57 PM
Transfering your population to an occupied territory is in direct violation of the Fourth Geneva convention.

Well.. no.. the fourth geneva convention prohibits the *forcible* transfer of people of one state to the territory of another state that it has occupied as a result of a war.

Jews should be allowed to live anywhere in Palestine/Israel as equals of Palestinians.

Then why is there an objection to the settlements?

They most certainly are displacing Palestinians with the settlements. Have you not heard the same stories of home demolitions and land expropriation due to settlements needing "security zones" or the new security (a.k.a. apartheid) wall going up?

I've heard stories that couldn't be backed up, yes. The only credible stories I've heard of housing being demolished are cases of houses being used as bases and hideouts for terrorist activities.

Most fraglantly, 80% of the land of Israel cannot be leased as it falls under Israel Lands Administration control, which is charted to use the land for the benefit of Jews only.

Actually, only 8% of the land in Israel is privately owned, and actually, in that 8% one organization is the Arab Waqf, which owns land for the exclusive benefit of Muslim Arabs. The remaining 92% is managed by the Land Management Authority, and can be leased to anyone. As a matter of policy, any Arab citizen is eligible to lease government land.

It's time Israel annexes the territories and *shares* power with Palestinians.

Given that the Palestinian leadership & extremists groups, along with much of the Arabic world, are only now even acknowledging that Israel has a right to exist, how realistic do you think that solution is?

I just don't see that as practical when so much hatred of Jews is still so prevalent in the culture.

DSeid
07-01-2003, 09:19 PM
jaybo states wiselyBTW, too many are wasting their breath arguing who is responsible for what atrocity and who is more deserving of a country. Israel is not going away and the Palestinians will get a country from the west bank and gaza strip. doesn't matter what side you favor, that's what is happening w/many fits and starts.
My read on history is that a Jewish homeland restored was just. That Arabs in the area (soon to become Palestinians) had a just claim and that so did Jews who had been there and did Jews who had returned as well. Arabs fled: some because they reasonably felt that the Jews would soon be destroyed, killed, and otherwise driven out by an impending overwhelming Arab attack, some out of fear and a few were directly driven out. Arab Jews fled Arab lands were they had lived for many hundreds of years, also out of fear and under attack. Both left property behind.

Some of you may feel that Israel's creation was a UN mistake. So be it, we'll disagree. But Israel is and the Palestinian people are. Were do they go from here?

a) More of the same. Israeli adminstrations bulldozing homes and accepting innocents being killed in a desperate attempt to provide some semblence of security. Palestinians blowing up schoolkids with schoolkids and living without any reasonable hope for the future. Bad for both, worse for the Palestinians.

b) Seperation. Israel provides for its security by giving most of the territory to the PA seperated by a fairly impervious security fence. Not great for Israel but worse for Palestine. They have the land but a hard go for economic success with it without Israeli involvement. (And the charge of "apartheid" is quite specious. No more apartheid than the US keeping its borders secure.)

c) The death of Israel as a Jewish state. This entails the so called Right to Return or annexation (with citizenship) of the occupied lands. Jews would be a minority and Israel could even become another Islamic country with Jews treated the way Jews are usually treated in such lands. Great for the Palestinians, awful for Israelis.

d) A Palestinian country on most of the Gaza strip and the West Bank with a presence in East Jerus'lm and an Israel, each independent but cooperative. Good for both. Allows both to work together for a better future. Hmmm. Both need to give up on things that they feel they deserve, but in return get peace security and a chance for an economic boom time for countries.

Which do you realisticly endorse?

Hank Fescue
07-01-2003, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by Maalak
Deir Yassin.. I've heard these ridiculously biased accounts of the incident before...

I'd suggest anybody interested in reading more about what actually happened check the following site:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/deir_yassin.html

The source is biased, but the references are all well-documented.

Finkelstein's "research" at best is sloppy and inaccurate, at it's worst he goes out of his way to distort the truth of events.



Is that what it comes down to? No, I don't see the same level of hostility towards the Muslim world from Israel... and in discussing what happened in 1948, I don't think you can ignore the treatment of Jews in the rest of the Arabic world.

Read the following analysis of anti-semitic materials and tell me if you don't notice a trend in the rhetoric...

http://www.pmw.org.il/

http://www.edume.org/reports/

Hatred and intolerance of Jews is what has been the undoing of the peace process. Had that not been the primary obstacle to working to establish a homeland in 1948, the Palestinians would have had a nation of their own long ago.

So what is in dispute here ? You say Arabs fled voluntarily. I say they were forced out by bloody military operations. Then you give a cite that supports the fact that the village was a victim of an organized military attack ? You prove yourself wrong. Your cite even establishes that hundreds fled the attack. So whats the deal here ? They left voluntarily ? No. They fled from an army. Just like I said, the old legend about Palestinians leaving voluntarily is crap. There are plenty of facts to support that fact, even your own biased cite admits that. Can you support a position that anyone fled Der Yassin voluntarily ?

And you ascribe hatred of Jews as the primary obstacle to establishing a homeland ? I guess if it had been Tibetan monks taking the land to form New Tibet they would have just handed it over and left thier homes. Get a clue man.

jaybo
07-01-2003, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by Hank Fescue


And you ascribe hatred of Jews as the primary obstacle to establishing a homeland ? I guess if it had been Tibetan monks taking the land to form New Tibet they would have just handed it over and left thier homes. Get a clue man.

When will we see a forum devoted to the Tibetans who lost their land to a Chinese invasion and continue to suffer since 1959? I guess only Richard Gere cares in the western world.

come on everyone, get off the palestinian soapbox and get back to good old fashioned european anti-semitism.

bugg
07-01-2003, 09:49 PM
Actually they are by international law "disputed", not "occupied" territories. these territories were illegally annexed by egypt and jordan following the 1948 war.

They are, are they? Do you have one ruling of any international body that affirms this? Because I can count plenty of UN, ICRC, and Amnesty International reports that all regard the territories as occupied. I know what you're getting at, however, that the last authority to be internationally recognized as soverign there is now defunct (Syrian provence of the Ottoman Empire) but the "facts on the ground" so to speak are military occupation. Perhaps the lack of any existing soverign party enables Israel to annex the territories unilaterally (as I argue they're in the process of doing) but to do so requires they grant citizenship to the Palestinians. But instead, they use tanks to control the population, and take the land but not the people.


As to other points regarding israeli immigration policy favoring jews, every sovereign country can set its own. funny, i don't hear anyone foaming at the mouth that saudi arabia not only prohibits non-muslims from immigrating but deems any expression of a non-muslim faith as a crime.

The big difference here is that Saudi Arabia did not expell/deny return to 750,000 non-Muslims who are now living in camps trying to return. If anyone was expelled when it became Muslim, then for as long as they maintained their claim I would have been advocating their cause. However, they're not around anymore, so I can't argue for them: Palestinians are around.


israel should be held to the same standard as any other country as anything else is biased. does the differing standards in the middle east stem from israel being the sole democracy in the region, so we expect more, or do we just expect less from the arabs?
I do not acknoweldge Israel to be a true democracy. It is only a democracy for its Jewish citizens only. Palestinian Israelis are systematically discriminated against, and millions of other Palestinians are denied Israeli citizenship, despite the fact that the land they're living on (West Bank and to a lesser extent Gaza) has been apparently annexed. Israel maintains a Jewish majority inside the 1949 Armistice line only because it denies the refugees who fled during the war their internationally-recognized right to return.
Israel is being held to higher standards than the very few countries that do worse things simply because the American media glorifies Israel as infalliable and Israel is the prime recipient of US aid. Why do you suggest it's okay for Israel to be singled out for aid, yet not for scrutiny?

bugg
07-01-2003, 10:03 PM
Some of you may feel that Israel's creation was a UN mistake. So be it, we'll disagree. But Israel is and the Palestinian people are. Were do they go from here?

I'm glad you recognize this, because few people do. The question of whether or not Zionist actions from 1948-2003 was just is largely a question of theory; I do not make an attempt to fully answer it. The question is, indeed, where we go from here.


c) The death of Israel as a Jewish state. This entails the so called Right to Return or annexation (with citizenship) of the occupied lands. Jews would be a minority and Israel could even become another Islamic country with Jews treated the way Jews are usually treated in such lands. Great for the Palestinians, awful for Israelis.

I don't like how you described this, but it is indeed the right answer. The assumption that Jews would become persecuted, or even second-class citizens, is offensive. It ignores the history of coexistance between Palestinians and Jews (see the Jewish Palestinian population for proof) and it also ignores the fact that should this happen today, the power would remain in the hands of the IDF, Shin Bet, and Mossad. Do you honestly think that Palestinians could, or would, seize enough power to go from becoming the oppressed to the oppressors? If they tried, the result would be a huge civil war, and given the current power distribution it would clearly be a loss for Palestinians. Then, those who were imprisoned or exiled for attempting to oppress would receive zero sympathy from the rest of the world.

It's also not very factually accurate to say that Jews would become a minority. If it happened now, the country would be split roughly 50/50 between Jewish and non-Jewish (a diverse group, but largely Palestinian Muslim Arab) citizens. Constitutions exist to prevent majorities from oppressing minorities, and indeed a strongly worded constitution and international support and monitoring could ensure that power is shared fairly and that shifts in power happen slowly enough to be done successfully. A constitution could also allow for a new immigration law, one that allows for equal numbers of Palestinians and Jews to return home. Provinces could exist to handle municipal needs, with government responding for what the people needed, and even enabling things like everyone to have their own area with they can display their own flag or sing their own anthem. National unity would be built through the mutual struggle to develop a country where power is shared justly and fairly, and I have no doubt that a mandatory civil service/military requirement would help forge this new national identity.

Even if there are no regional provinces, Jewish organization will continue to exist through organizations that would lose their official role in the government (in this plan comes an end to all discriminatory laws, such as the laws that prevent non-Jews from leasing 80% of the land of Israel) but could continue to provide valuable social services for Jews.

You were too quick to write this option off, given that I have talken to Israelis and Palestinians personally who both support it. The PLO would have settled for this arrangement decades ago, and when Arafat first called for two states in 1978, he said he would "renounce any and all violent means to enlarge the territority of the [Palestinian] state" and "I would reserve the right, of course, to use nonviolent means, that is to say, diplomatic and democratic means, to bring about the eventual unification of all of Palestine." Clearly his eye has always been on either a single secular state or a federation of states amounting to a single state, and applying any sort of fair standards to the problem will make most people come to the same conclusion.

This plan would also please many extremists without too much trouble: they get all of Palestine, they get all of Israel. And all they have to do is share it.

Hank Fescue
07-01-2003, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by bugg

They are, are they? Do you have one ruling of any international body that affirms this? Because I can count plenty of UN, ICRC, and Amnesty International reports that all regard the territories as occupied. I know what you're getting at, however, that the last authority to be internationally recognized as soverign there is now defunct (Syrian provence of the Ottoman Empire) but the "facts on the ground" so to speak are military occupation. Perhaps the lack of any existing soverign party enables Israel to annex the territories unilaterally (as I argue they're in the process of doing) but to do so requires they grant citizenship to the Palestinians. But instead, they use tanks to control the population, and take the land but not the people.

[/B]
The big difference here is that Saudi Arabia did not expell/deny return to 750,000 non-Muslims who are now living in camps trying to return. If anyone was expelled when it became Muslim, then for as long as they maintained their claim I would have been advocating their cause. However, they're not around anymore, so I can't argue for them: Palestinians are around.


I do not acknoweldge Israel to be a true democracy. It is only a democracy for its Jewish citizens only. Palestinian Israelis are systematically discriminated against, and millions of other Palestinians are denied Israeli citizenship, despite the fact that the land they're living on (West Bank and to a lesser extent Gaza) has been apparently annexed. Israel maintains a Jewish majority inside the 1949 Armistice line only because it denies the refugees who fled during the war their internationally-recognized right to return.
Israel is being held to higher standards than the very few countries that do worse things simply because the American media glorifies Israel as infalliable and Israel is the prime recipient of US aid. Why do you suggest it's okay for Israel to be singled out for aid, yet not for scrutiny? [/B]

I am in agreement here. Israel is not a western democracy. The voting population is and has been manipulated by military force and national policy. Furthermore, the amount of religious influence on the government puts Israel more in the realm of a theocracy.

When holding Israel up as a model western democracy it is also important to note that Israel is currently a nation entirely dependant on foreign aid. There is almost zero foriegn investment in Israel and the military that is the only thing between Israel and Palestinians taking back what belongs to them is also completely dependant on foreign aid.

As for the good ol' Europen anti - semitism, see my previous post full of questions that no one wants to answer. Take the quiz and see what your definition of anti - semitism is.

DSeid
07-01-2003, 10:32 PM
bugg,

Do a little more reading on the status of Jews in Arab lands past and present and read up a little on the history of how Jews were treated in Palestine before 1948. You have a little bit of rose in your glasses.

Anyway, the death of Israel as a state with a Jewish identity is not a realistic option. At least not in the near term. (I can see a possible long-term confederation between Israel and Palestine leading to a future secular entity at some distant future point as a remote possibility.)

Also your portrayal of the condition of Arab Israelis is more than a bit unfair. Yes, there is discrimination, no doubt. Arabs are poorer and less well educated in Israel and some of that is a result of institutional bias ... similar to the state of affairs for minorities in the US and no worse. No excuses, it needs to improve, but Arab-Israelis have more rights and educational opportunity than Arabs in almost any Arab country (see the UN Arab Development Report for some figures). I say "almost" just to hedge, maybe there is one. Israeli Arabs vote freely, have representation in the Knesset, access to the courts, and so on. They are indeed part of a representational democracy.

Maalak
07-01-2003, 10:43 PM
So what is in dispute here ? You say Arabs fled voluntarily. I say they were forced out by bloody military operations.

The vast majority of Arabs fled either voluntarily, or Some were forced out, when they violented resisted the establishment of the state of Israel. In this specific example, there was an unfortunate incident where people were killed after Arabs feigned surrender and they opened fire in return. But they certainly didn't set out to massacre the resident population.

Then you give a cite that supports the fact that the village was a victim of an organized military attack ? You prove yourself wrong.

This proves nothing wrong.. the linked article explains clearly why Deir Yassin was a target, and explains the events that transpired.

Your cite even establishes that hundreds fled the attack. So whats the deal here ? They left voluntarily ? No. They fled from an army. Just like I said, the old legend about Palestinians leaving voluntarily is crap. There are plenty of facts to support that fact, even your own biased cite admits that. Can you support a position that anyone fled Der Yassin voluntarily ?

This was one specific example... it certainly doesn't support a claim that ALL Arabic residents of these territories were forced off their land in "bloody military operations". This was a very volatile time, and there were horrid events on both sides, to be sure.. but exagerating and misrepresenting the events does nothing to help the current peace process.

jaybo
07-01-2003, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by bugg

They are, are they? Do you have one ruling of any international body that affirms this? Because I can count plenty of UN, ICRC, and Amnesty International reports that all regard the territories as occupied. I know what you're getting at, however, that the last authority to be internationally recognized as soverign there is now defunct (Syrian provence of the Ottoman Empire) but the "facts on the ground" so to speak are military occupation. Perhaps the lack of any existing soverign party enables Israel to annex the territories unilaterally (as I argue they're in the process of doing) but to do so requires they grant citizenship to the Palestinians. But instead, they use tanks to control the population, and take the land but not the people.

No, I mean that no one has decided ownership of the land although as today's conference stated that there is a desire to have two countries: Israel and Palestine, so let's drop the unilateral annexation cause it's moot. and yes, if israel tried to annex it formally you'd have a point, one tom friedman has been saying the last couple of years.

[/B]
The big difference here is that Saudi Arabia did not expell/deny return to 750,000 non-Muslims who are now living in camps trying to return. If anyone was expelled when it became Muslim, then for as long as they maintained their claim I would have been advocating their cause. However, they're not around anymore, so I can't argue for them: Palestinians are around.

setting aside whether palestinian were expelled or left voluntarily due to mistaken arab promises of destroying israel, a country has the power to set its own rules. you object because you feel that legitimate residents are denied access to land. well even if you are right, it has happened and will continue to happen in this world. compensation for this loss will come in different ways. you should be then mightily angry about the zimbabwe situation where land is confiscated because you are white and citizen w/o compensation. perhaps they deserved it b/c afater all, those evil colonialists stole it from the indigenous population but they certainly improved it and should be compensated for this loss. but others turn a blind eye like chirac inviting mugabe to france like he's terrific guy.

I do not acknoweldge Israel to be a true democracy. It is only a democracy for its Jewish citizens only. Palestinian Israelis are systematically discriminated against, and millions of other Palestinians are denied Israeli citizenship, despite the fact that the land they're living on (West Bank and to a lesser extent Gaza) has been apparently annexed. Israel maintains a Jewish majority inside the 1949 Armistice line only because it denies the refugees who fled during the war their internationally-recognized right to return.
Israel is being held to higher standards than the very few countries that do worse things simply because the American media glorifies Israel as infalliable and Israel is the prime recipient of US aid. Why do you suggest it's okay for Israel to be singled out for aid, yet not for scrutiny? [/B]

Come on, it is a democracy like it or not. while i agree that the israeli arab are treated like second class citizens in some ways, they vote and have a stake in the process. and there is some legitimate concerns about arab citizenry's loyalty. before jumping on this, note that bedouins and druse participate in the military because they have accepted israel, warts and all. the arab citizenry in some measure have been understandably conflicted. this is complex and trying to reduce it to simplistic terms just doesn't work. and again, until there is official annexation which now will never happen, focus on the future, not the past.

a good friend of mine who lived a decade in the middle east says the arabs in general accept that israel is here to stay but will not recognize it until the palestinian issue is solved. so let's get past it and get back to european antisemitism.

jaybo
07-01-2003, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by Hank Fescue


As for the good ol' Europen anti - semitism, see my previous post full of questions that no one wants to answer. Take the quiz and see what your definition of anti - semitism is.


couldn't find your previous post of the quiz. how about reposting please.

Captain Amazing
07-01-2003, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by Hank Fescue
I am in agreement here. Israel is not a western democracy. The voting population is and has been manipulated by military force and national policy. Furthermore, the amount of religious influence on the government puts Israel more in the realm of a theocracy.

With all due respect, that's simply bullshit. Israel is as much a democracy as the United States or the countries of Western Europe. It has regular, free elections, all adult Israelis are allowed to vote, there are multiple parties who have equal access to the polls, and there is a free and independent press which is often critical of government policy.

As for the Palestinians, why should they be allowed back? They don't live in Israel anymore...they left. It's not up to them whether or not they should be allowed into Israel. My great-grandfather was German. Does that give me some natural right to live in Germany? If the German government wants to allow me to live there, great, but it's not my country anymore. It's the German's country. I'm sorry for the Palestinians who lost their homes in 1949. Heck, I'm sorry for the Sudenten Germans who lost their homes in 1946. But 1949 was 54 years ago. Before too long, there won't even be any Palestinians who lived in Israel proper. It's time for them to let it go. That's the only way peace will happen. This "one state" scenario wouldn't work. The Israelis don't want the Palestinians to be Israeli, and frankly, the Palestinians don't want to be Israeli either. If you haven't noticed, the Palestinians don't like the Israelis very much...they never have. Since 1949, Palestinians have been committing acts of terrorism against Israel. If they want a state, let them set one up in the West Bank and Gaza...it seems to be what most Israelis and Palestinians want. Hopefully, with two states, both sides can improve relations with each other, and actually move toward friendship.

bugg
07-02-2003, 12:04 AM
With all due respect, that's simply bullshit. Israel is as much a democracy as the United States or the countries of Western Europe. It has regular, free elections, all adult Israelis are
allowed to vote, there are multiple parties

In the same sense that all White South Africans were free to vote and participate in the wonders of democracy, and Black South Africans had their own democracy in Bantustans.


As for the Palestinians, why should they be allowed back? They don't live in Israel anymore...they left. It's not up to them whether or not they should be allowed into Israel. My great-grandfather was German. Does that give me some natural right to live in Germany?

If you were forcibly expelled from your home, and has lived as a refugee ever since, I'd say you do, yes.

How about this, to answer a question with a question: Why should Jews be allowed back to Israel? They left after the Second Temple was destroyed. Is it fair to readmit these folks to Israel yet to deny Palestinians, a good chunk of whom *remember* being expelled? It was only 1948...


Before too long, there won't even be any Palestinians who lived in Israel proper. It's time for them to let it go. That's the only way peace will happen. This "one state" scenario wouldn't work. The Israelis don't want the Palestinians to be Israeli, and frankly, the Palestinians don't want to be Israeli either. If you haven't noticed, the Palestinians don't like the Israelis very much...they never have.


The only thing the Palestinians have never liked is Israeli oppression. Polls conducted in the territories (google for cite) have shown that Palestinians admire Israel's system of governance more than any other. Stories of cooperation in the Yishuv are all overwhelmingly positive; even during nationalist tensions during the Arab riots, there are many stories of Palestinians helping Jews avoid angry Arab mobs (many of them not Palestinian).

If two states are somehow negotiated such that there is true peace and return is worked out in some light, then okay, it's a good stepping stone to a federation to enable all Palestinians to return. The latest UNRWA stats put the number of Palestinian refugees who were alive for al-Nakba, btw, at over 450,000.

Eolbo
07-02-2003, 01:04 AM
For those seeking a non-propagandistic look at Deir Yassin I recommend this article:

THE 1948 MASSACRE AT DEIR YASSIN REVISITED (http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m2082/2_63/72435149/print.jhtml)

Hank Fescue
07-02-2003, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by Maalak
The vast majority of Arabs fled either voluntarily, or Some were forced out, when they violented resisted the establishment of the state of Israel. In this specific example, there was an unfortunate incident where people were killed after Arabs feigned surrender and they opened fire in return. But they certainly didn't set out to massacre the resident population. [QUOTE]

Do you have a cite ? I have heard that clap trap before and as far as I can tell it is horse shit. All the evidence I have found supports the fact that they were under attack. The opening of Israeli records a few years ago put your legends to bed.

"In the opening pages of "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem", Benny Morris offers the outlines of an overall answer: using a map that shows the 369 Arab towns and villages in Israel (within its 1949 borders), he lists, area by area, the reasons for the departure of the local population (9). In 45 cases he admits that he does not know. The inhabitants of the other 228 localities left under attack by Jewish troops, and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force. In 90 other localities, the Palestinians were in a state of panic following the fall of a neighbouring town or village, or for fear of an enemy attack, or because of rumours circulated by the Jewish army - particularly after the 9 April 1948 massacre of 250 inhabitants of Deir Yassin, where the news of the killings swept the country like wildfire."



[QUOTE]This proves nothing wrong.. the linked article explains clearly why Deir Yassin was a target, and explains the events that transpired.



This was one specific example... it certainly doesn't support a claim that ALL Arabic residents of these territories were forced off their land in "bloody military operations". This was a very volatile time, and there were horrid events on both sides, to be sure.. but exagerating and misrepresenting the events does nothing to help the current peace process.

I agree that exageration and misrepresentation doesn't help. Only problem is that you are the one repeating the propaganda. Every time I read one of these threads someone is matter of factly speaking of how the Palestinians abandonned thier homes and using it as a reason as to why they should not be allowed to return. It's bullshit.

Repost;

Depends mostly on your personal definition of "anti - semitism". Webster defines it as hostility towards or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic or cultural group.

Now we can debate about what constitutes hostility or discrimination.

Do you consider a joke about Jews hostile? Discriminative? Does making a joke make one anti - semitic ?

Do you consider hostility towards Israel to be hostile towards Jews ?

If someone expresses disagreement with Jewish religious teachings, cultural influence or religious influence over politics is this hostile or discriminative ? Anti - semitic ?

Most importantly, does my support for Palestinian liberation cross that line?

Anti - semitism is an ugly word that gets thrown around alot by the pro - Israel people as a last resort. If you can't win fairly just call them anti - semitic.

Maalak
07-02-2003, 01:24 AM
The only thing the Palestinians have never liked is Israeli oppression.

Really? Let's examine this statement from a sermon on Palestinian Authority television on September 21, 2001:

“One of the Jews' evil deeds is what has come to be called 'the Holocaust,' that is, the slaughter of the Jews by Nazism. However, revisionist [historians] have proven that this crime, carried out against some of the Jews, was planned by the Jews' leaders, and was part of their policy...These are the Jews against whom we fight, oh beloved of Allah.”

That's just one example..

There are much deeper issues here than the occupation...

bugg
07-02-2003, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by Maalak
Really? Let's examine this statement from a sermon on Palestinian Authority television on September 21, 2001...

There are much deeper issues here than the occupation...

No doubt, however, let us also examine the characteristics of anti-Palestinian zealots who are quick to demonize an entire nation based on the actions of a few. I make no excuses for religious intolerance or extremism, be it the Palestinian fanatic of the day or the Israeli Kach members (or Kach supporters... who are arguably in the Knesset...)

It should be noted that while it's ridiculous to say that Zionists planned the holocaust, there is evidence to suggest that various Zionists had opportunities to potentially alleviate Jewish suffering during the Holocaust but in a way that would not maximize the number of Jews that would end up in Palestine, and therefore refused. Not that I feel this is relevant in any way, because I'm sure you can go and find a flat-out lie on Palestinian Authority television without that much work. I just don't blame all Palestinians for that.

Maalak
07-02-2003, 02:43 AM
I don't "blame all Palestinians" nor do I consider myself an anti-Palestinian zealot.. quite the contrary. I'm a strong supporter of a Palestinian state, but I also think they've been exploited by their own leadership and the rest of the Arabic world more than anything else. With radical reforms in their leadership and educational system a lasting peace can be established.

MC Master of Ceremonies
07-02-2003, 05:07 AM
Originally posted by jaybo
Guinastasia-Here are some cites for you

Jerusalem Post 11/2/02-LONDON European Foreign Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten has turned down a leading European legislator who wants an investigation into alleged illegal use of EU aid to the Palestinian Authority.

MC-I checked your site and find it amusing that the EU conveniently whipped through an audit of itself! talk about a conflict of interest. it welcomes an independent audit but that requires the assent of 157 member of the EU parliament.

But to continue cites
From the Simon Wiesenthal Center (I assume this is not considered a far right wing group): Member of Parliament Tam Dalyell, Father of the House, (Labor?s senior MP) accused Prime Minister Blair of "being unduly influenced by a cabal of Jewish advisers." Dalyell named Lord Levy, Tony Blair?s personal envoy on the Middle East, Peter Mandelson, whose father was Jewish, and Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary who has Jewish ancestry, as three of the leading figures who influenced Mr. Blair?s policies on Iraq. Mr. Dalyell also claimed the Prime Minister was indirectly influenced by Jews in the Bush Administration including Richard Perle, a Pentagon advisor, Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defense Secretary, and Press Secretary Ari Fleischer.

A prominent Greek professor from the London School of Economics, Nikos Mouzelis, wrote an article published in the Sunday edition of To Vima, the largest Greek newspaper, blaming the Jews for the crisis in the Middle East and for the lack of peace in the world.

12/2/02 The Guardian: Dr Oren Yiftachel, a left-wing Israeli academic at Ben Gurion University, complained that an article he had co-authored with a Palestinian was initially rejected by the respected British journal Political Geography. He said it was returned to him unopened with a note stating that Political Geography could not accept a submission from Israel.
Mr Yiftachel said that, after months of negotiation, the article is to be published but only after he agreed to make substantial revisions, including making a comparison between his homeland and apartheid South Africa.

Again, the question posed is what constitutes anti-semitism as opposed to anti-zionism.


And why is the BBC and academics the "wrong" place to look for anti-semitism? only the right is capable of it?

the bottom line is there has been a rise in anti-semitic acts in europe and i'm all ears if you can provide a better reason than the huge rise in anti-israeli rhetoric and activities.

BTW, too many are wasting their breath arguing who is responsible for what atrocity and who is more deserving of a country. Israel is not going away and the Palestinians will get a country from the west bank and gaza strip. doesn't matter what side you favor, that's what is happening w/many fits and starts.

ou still haven't provided any actual cites.

Erm OLAF is an independant body that investigates claims of finacial irregularities in the EU. Your article is not in the Jerusalem Post archives.

I know what the father of the house is, one of my ancestors was one, and it's not Labours most senior MP, it's their longest serving MP. He's a crank, but does tha but there are far more antisemtic memebers of the American houses.

Yes, the cited case is one of the reasons why I reject the academic boycott.

At the end of the day I can tell that you are writing this from America and not Europe, because the picture your painting is far from the truth. Racism against Muslims is much more prevalent than antisemtism at this time.

Saying that the general oppoositon to the Israeli occupation in Europe is particularly high, it's no more than in the rest of the world with the exception of the US. If you start with the premise that Israel cannot be in the wrong then of course you're going to wonder why everyone is so annoyed with her. Why not take a long hard, unsentimental look at the actions of Israel rather than saying that the world must be against her?

For example 25% of the ISM are actually Jewish themselves andthat's true of quite a few of Israel's harshest critics (Steve Rose, Noam Chomsky)

Many people feel that Israel's actions are analogous to the apparthid regime in South Africa, so was criticism of that regime racism against Boers?

december
07-02-2003, 05:37 AM
Originally posted by bugg
In the same sense that all White South Africans were free to vote and participate in the wonders of democracy, and Black South Africans had their own democracy in Bantustans.Bugg, I think you're discussing the Palestinians, who are not Israelis. As you say, they have no rights in Israel. Nor do they have rights in Jordan or any other Arab country. They're refugees, and unfortunately nobody wants them.

However, Israel has lots of Arab citizens, who have full rights to vote, own property, serve in government, etc. Arab citizens of Israel have more rights and civil liberties than Arab citizens of most Arab countries. The only thing the Palestinians have never liked is Israeli oppression. Israel was formed in 1948 by the United Nations. It was immidiately attacked by a coalition of Arab countries to attempted to destroy it. These countries attacked Israel again and again. Many or most still have not formally recognized Israel's existance.

In short, Arab opposition to Israel's existance predated any sort of Israeli oppression.

Furthermore, Arab oppression of other Arabs has been far worse than Israeli oppression of Arabs. Saddam Hussein and Hafez al Assad killed and tortured far more Arabs than Israel ever did.

DSeid
07-02-2003, 06:52 AM
Hank, your quiz:

Do you consider a joke about Jews hostile? Discriminative? Does making a joke make one anti - semitic ?

-Depends on the joke, doesn't it? But even "positive" jokes play on stereotypes.

Do you consider hostility towards Israel to be hostile towards Jews ?

-Depends on what motivates the hostility. I am reluctant to make that accusation because I do not know another's motivations, but, given the endemic nature of classic antisemitic beliefs and the inordinate one-sided nature of some anti-Israel views and the singling out of Israel for condemnation by some, well, sometimes one does suspect it. Most assuredly being anti-Israel is used as a cover for pernicious Jew hating by some.

If someone expresses disagreement with Jewish religious teachings, cultural influence or religious influence over politics is this hostile or discriminative ? Anti - semitic ?

-If by this you mean the classic "Jews have undue influence in ..." the media, in business, in politics, etc ... yes. That is classic hostile Jew hating. Can a mutually respectful debate regarding religious views be had? Of course.

Most importantly, does my support for Palestinian liberation cross that line?

-Again it depends on your motivations. I honestly haven't paid enough attention to you to have an opinion about that.

Anti - semitism is an ugly word that gets thrown around alot by the pro - Israel people as a last resort. If you can't win fairly just call them anti - semitic.

-Nah. I am sure that Jew-hating underpins a fair deal of anti-Israelism but such a charge is rarely made. Only when someone has made their motivations quite clear by such a degree of distortion and one-sidedness that no other possible explanation is reasonable.

clairobscur
07-02-2003, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by jaybo
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bugg
funny, i don't hear anyone foaming at the mouth that saudi arabia not only prohibits non-muslims from immigrating but deems any expression of a non-muslim faith as a crime.





Then you probably don't pay much attention. Saudi Arabia is flamed down by essentially everybody when it's mentionned in a thread on this board. The difference is that there's nobody supporting their policies or arguing in their favor, so there's no debate over it.


If someone opens a thread stating "SA is an evil country", you have essentially a dozen "me too" posts following, then the thread dies. The only arguments I've noticed about SA is about technicalities concerning the education system, the business regulations, or the life of expats there, things like that. The result is totally different when a thread is opened about Israel because people strongly disagree on this topic.


Make a search with the words "Saudi Arabia" and then come back tell me whether or not this country is ever criticized.

Illassit
07-02-2003, 09:01 AM
So when can we expect the Canaanites, who were living in Canaan before the Jews came (before the Jews were Jews of course), to be given back their homeland? After all, they've been so oppressed they've been obliterated as an ethnic group. Maybe we can do so DNA testing and give them a rite of return...

Actually now that I think about it. Europeans weren't colonizing Africa, they were merely going back to the God given homeland of Homo Sapiens...

JonBodner
07-02-2003, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by Hank Fescue
Still throwing that pile of crap around ?

They left home because thier nieghbors army was slaughtering entire villages.

That legend was put to rest long ago. Give me a break.

And Monty , the law of return as it applies to Jews, allows for Jews to enter Israel as an Olah (think I spelled that right), a religious pilgrim. It is a religious rite made into national policy.
If the IDF was slaughtering all the Arabs they could find, where did those million Arabs citizens of Israel come from? Fact is, Der Yassin was an outlier, which is why it gets so much attention. It was done by the Irgun before they came under the control of the Israeli army.

The fact that a great number of Arabs left Israel to get out of the way of the invading Arab armies is no myth, no matter how many times you repeat that lie. Sorry, won't work.

I'm sure you maintain this level of outrage against the Czech Republic and against Poland for their actions against their German citizens after WW II, correct? And you fully support the repatriation of Jews to Hebron after the 1929 massacre led the British to evacuate the millenia-old Jewish community there?

And Hank, believe it or not, most countries have religious rites made into national policy. State churches abound. The US is the exception, not the rule. For you to take moral offense at one example of religion and government intermingling and not take it at any other country indicates that you have some bias here.

JonBodner
07-02-2003, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by clairobscur
Make a search with the words "Saudi Arabia" and then come back tell me whether or not this country is ever criticized.

Broaden your scope from the SSDB. In the world at large, Saudi Arabia is considered to be perfectly fine, while Israel is the worst nation on the planet.

(Yes, there's a bit of hyperbole there, but not much.)

Tee
07-02-2003, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by Hank Fescue:
Still throwing that pile of crap around ?

They left home because thier nieghbors army was slaughtering entire villages.

That legend was put to rest long ago. Give me a break.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by JonBodner:
If the IDF was slaughtering all the Arabs they could find, where did those million Arabs citizens of Israel come from? Fact is, Der Yassin was an outlier, which is why it gets so much attention. It was done by the Irgun before they came under the control of the Israeli army.

The fact that a great number of Arabs left Israel to get out of the way of the invading Arab armies is no myth, no matter how many times you repeat that lie. Sorry, won't work.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There's elements of truth to both. I've wondered about that myself...the best source of info imo are the UN documents themselves encompassing the first half of the 20th century, British Mandate Palestine. Arabs were rioting in protest of growing Jewish numbers since 1920; no one can reasonably claim they feared the Jews in 1929 - they targeted them. By '47 there were armed Jewish gangs running around which later became part of the fighting force of Israel - but a this moment they are still battling the British who administrate the country, and weapons are still hard to come by. The fact is that whole villages were not being slaughtered, except for that one which raised the ire of Arabs, British, and Jewish alike. I'm positive that many Arabs were fleeing for their lives then, in the outlying areas, and that Jewish terrorist groups helped it along with propaganda and/or sporadic attacks. But in the cities, thriving areas populated by both Jews and Arabs, the loss of the Arabs from the cities was not beneficial at all to the Jews...it makes more sense that Arabs up and left rather than submit to Jewish control of those areas. That happened elsewhere in the 40's too - in France for example when the Allies were fighting the Germans. Rather than fearing imminent slaughter in a personal sense, they were fleeing the growing specter of German occupation. I am positive that the outside Arab propanganda contributed to the exodus of Arabs from Palestine cities. The fact that more stayed than left is evidence against a massive effort to remove them, from inside.

ymmv.

Hank Fescue
07-02-2003, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by JonBodner
If the IDF was slaughtering all the Arabs they could find, where did those million Arabs citizens of Israel come from? Fact is, Der Yassin was an outlier, which is why it gets so much attention. It was done by the Irgun before they came under the control of the Israeli army.

The fact that a great number of Arabs left Israel to get out of the way of the invading Arab armies is no myth, no matter how many times you repeat that lie. Sorry, won't work.[QUOTE]

From all research done since the opening of Israels own archives, the majority of Arabs fled under attack or threat of eminent attack. Although no one has been able to produce any of the so called orders to flee by the Arab armies and no one can produce the supposed Arabic radio bradcast for such, what has been produced is the documented intentions of Israel to cause as much panic and fear as possible so the Arabs would flee. I posted a paragraph of two from one investigation and there are many many more that support the conclusion based on facts and conclussions. I have presented my evidence. Do you have any ?

[QUOTE]I'm sure you maintain this level of outrage against the Czech Republic and against Poland for their actions against their German citizens after WW II, correct? And you fully support the repatriation of Jews to Hebron after the 1929 massacre led the British to evacuate the millenia-old Jewish community there?[QUOTE]
Why can't we have a discussion of Israel without this clap trap ? This thread is about anti - semitism. If you want to have a debate about the Czech Republic then do so. And outrage ? I am not outraged by any means. I do have a sense of fair play though.

[QUOTE]And Hank, believe it or not, most countries have religious rites made into national policy. State churches abound. The US is the exception, not the rule. For you to take moral offense at one example of religion and government intermingling and not take it at any other country indicates that you have some bias here.



Moral offense ? What the hell are you talking about ? I never said I was offended in any way by this fact. It is just a fact bearing on immigration amoungst other things in Israel.

And there you go with the "why don't you take offense at other countries ?". Maybe I do man. Did you ask ? Nah. You just make gross assumptions to suit yourself. Let me say again, if you want to talk about another country or people, start a discussion. That would be off topic here. Thats why threads here have titles. Helps keep debate focused. Try to focus.

Nah. I am sure that Jew-hating underpins a fair deal of anti-Israelism but such a charge is rarely made. Only when someone has made their motivations quite clear by such a degree of distortion and one-sidedness that no other possible explanation is reasonable.

Sam Stone accused me of anti - semitism right here for suggesting that Israel be invaded rather than Iraq. He withdrew the accusation later. It's a knee jerk thing and it happens all the time. My concern with Israel lies in its WMD capability. They do have them and lots of them, unlike the nieghboring countries. At the time it made sense to me that if we are on a hunt for WMDs in the hands of people who have committed attrocities then Israel would be a good starting point in the middle easts. Makes at least as much sense as invading Iraq to get the WMDs. But anti - semitic gets thrown in. My motivations are quite clear about Israel, they have caused the displacement of alot of people and they have shirked any responsibility for the lives destroyed. What the hell does that have to do with being Jewish ?

JonBodner
07-02-2003, 05:16 PM
Hank Fescue was asking about "proof" that the Arab states encouraged the Palestinians to leave and become refugees. Here it is:

http://www.mideastweb.org/refugees1.htm

Scroll down to "Encouragement by Arab Leaders and Rumors", where quotes from Time, the Economist, the head of the British Middle East Office, secretary of the Arab League Office in London, and others prove this to be true.

DSeid
07-02-2003, 08:43 PM
Tee, what are you doing putting a balanced post into this thread? Have you no shame? ;)

Hank, I recall seeing your post about that incident now that you mention it. I gotta say that I somewhat excuse Sam's comment as one is at a loss as to how to react to such a ... an unusual concept. He retracted his accusation when it was clear that while bizzare, your motivations were not explicitly antisemitic. Does one incident of a mispercieved intent make for "knee jerk" reactions that "happen all the time" when pro-Israeli posters are "unable to win" arguments? I have seen a small handful of such accusations made in all my time reading these threads and most often those accused clearly were hateful and were soon banned. And each time such an accusation was made there was a chorus of those of similar mind to you yelling foul for playing "the antisemitism card". Interestingly, around that same time I was called racist for having pro-Israeli beliefs. The same posters who yelled foul about the antisemite accusation were eerily quiet. Odd that. And if I recall your thread about the incident with Sam you were unable to provide evidence for many more than Sam's one offense. Give it up man, let it go. He retracted it and it is not a common tactic, certainly the accusation is made much less often that it probably deserves to be given the figures cited earlier in this thread about the frequency of strongly held antisemitic beliefs in both Europe and the US. I don't usually make it not because I do not suspect that it motivates some, but because I do not know so, and because I think it is usually appparent to others by the vaucousness of the posters comments. I prefer to merely point out the illogic or falsehood of the statements and let others come to their own conclusions.

Hank Fescue
07-02-2003, 10:49 PM
Hank Fescue was asking about "proof" that the Arab states encouraged the Palestinians to leave and become refugees. Here it is:

http://www.mideastweb.org/refugees1.htm

Scroll down to "Encouragement by Arab Leaders and Rumors", where quotes from Time, the Economist, the head of the British Middle East Office, secretary of the Arab League Office in London, and others prove this to be true.

Did you even read this cite ? While it does support that there were instances of encouragement by Arab leaders the report taken in its entirity does not support your assertions. Lets take a look.

Another half million, approximately, fled or were forced to leave during the war. The reasons for leaving varied. In Beersheba and Safed, the Arabs left before Jewish troops had entered. In Lod and Ramlah, the Arab population was expelled by force, as were Arabs who remained in Isdood (Ashdod) and other towns.

Seems some did leave voluntarily but a significant number were forcibly removed. Lets see what the Israel leaders in your cite had to say.

When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state [Turkey] that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country." - (12 June, 1895. Raphael Patai, ed., The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, vol. 1 Harry Zohn. Trans., New York: Herzl Press and T. Yoseloff, 1960, pp. 88-89.).

Now there is a noble idea. Just single them out and don't give them a means to survive. What a guy.

On June 22, 1941 Joseph Weitz, a former director of settlement in the Jewish Agency, wrote in his diary: "Amongst ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both peoples in this country. No 'development' will bring us closer to our aim to be an independent people in this small country. After the Arabs are transferred, the country will be wide open for us; with the Arabs staying the country will remain narrow and restricted.... There is no room for compromise on this point....land purchasing....will not bring about the state;.... The only way is to transfer the Arabs from here to neighbouring countries, all of them, except perhaps Bethlehem, Nazareth, and Old Jerusalem. Not a single village or a single tribe must be left. And the transfer must be done through their absorption in Iraq and Syria and even in Transjordan. For that goal, money will be found - even a lot of money. And only then will the country be able to absorb millions of Jews.... There is no other solution." - (Weitz Diary, entry dated 20 December 1940, pp.1090-91, Central Zionist Archives, Jerusalem.)

WOW ! How about that ? No other solution but to rid our country of the Arabs. Not a single village or tribe should be left, he says.

"I made a summary of a list of the Arab villages, which in my opinion must be cleared out in order to complete Jewish regions. I also made a summary of the places that have land disputes and must be settled by military means." - (Weitz Diary, entry dated 18 April 1948, p. 2358, CZA)

A list ? Sounds like a plan to me.

When the exodus started, even moderate leaders were not averse to taking advantage of it. Moshe Sharret (Shertok), explained to Chaim Weizmann, "With regard to the refugees, we are determined to be adamant while the war lasts. Once the return tide starts, it will be impossible to stem it, and it will prove our undoing. As for the future, we are equally determined … to explore all possibilities of getting rid, once and for all, of the huge Arab minority, which originally threaten us. What can be achieved in this period of storm and stress will be quite unattainable once conditions get stabilized. A group of people from among our senior officers [i.e., the Transfer Committee] has already started working on the study of resettlement possibilities in other lands." - (to Chaim Weizmann, president of provisional council of the state of Israel, 18 August 1948. Cited in Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-49, pp.149-50.)

Here is the recognization that they should get them out while they could lest peace and fair play foil the plan.

Massacres and Expulsions - There is no doubt that Jewish actions from the start of the conflict encouraged the flight of Palestinians. The Haganah blew up the Semiramis Hotel in Katamon, Jerusalem, which was thought to be a headquarters for Arab irregulars in the early hours of January 5, 1948. Mandate officials sent this report to London:

And you gave me this cite to support your argument ?

A study by Childers, which examined British monitoring of Arab broadcasts during that period did not find any records of such calls. However, considerable evidence and testimony exists that at different times, Arab leaders encouraged refugees to flee. This issue has been inflated beyond its actual importance. It has no real significance in international law, except to counter or support the Palestinian claims of expulsion by force.

No records of Arab leaders calling for Arabs to flee, just some rumors but lots and lots of actual documented records of Israeli leaders scheming to remove the Arab population.

Why did you give me this cite again ?

Hank Fescue
07-02-2003, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by DSeid
And if I recall your thread about the incident with Sam you were unable to provide evidence for many more than Sam's one offense. Give it up man, let it go. He retracted it and it is not a common tactic, certainly the accusation is made much less often that it probably deserves to be given the figures cited earlier in this thread about the frequency of strongly held antisemitic beliefs in both Europe and the US.

I am not sure what you mean by "let it go". If you mean I shouldn't hold this against Sam then, yes, I have.

I never started any thread about the accusation. I was offended by it and when pointed out Sam retracted the remark. So be it.

I only mentioned the incident again when someone here challenged "show me one incident where someone on this board was called anti - semitic for comments about Israel" or some such. So I showed them. Same thing here. I will continue to use the example whenever the claim that " no one is ever called anti - semitic for criticizing Israel" is presented. It does happen. Happened to me.

DSeid
07-03-2003, 06:30 AM
Hank,

I did read the cited page. A very fair even handed recapitulation of the history. Documents well that one factor involved in the flight of Arabs was encouragement by Arab leadership. That another was percieved fear, and another was fear based on incidents of real violence althoughOn the other hand, expulsions and massacres were not a result of consistent policy. In Haifa, the Jewish mayor and the labor leader, Abba Khoushi, pleaded with fleeing Arab residents to stay. This was not a planned public policy. The authors also note Perhaps the most potent factor was that in many towns the leaders of the Arab communities had already left, as pointed out by Benny Morris and others. And of course documents that the same type of expulsion, confiscation etc occurred to Jews in Arab areas without exception. Now if you read that cite and want to take bits that only support what you want to see go ahead, but such a tactic does make one suspect that your motivations are not ones of actually understanding the truth.

DSeid
07-03-2003, 06:43 AM
Um Hank. This was your claim, unrelated to any claim about any that "no one is ever ..." Anti - semitism is an ugly word that gets thrown around alot by the pro - Israel people as a last resort. If you can't win fairly just call them anti - semitic.You go on to say how knee jerk this reaction is. Yet you have one anectdote of one poster calling you such a name and not because he was losing an argument, but because the suggestion was so ludicrous that it hard to understand what could motivate it. You keep making that charge that these accusations occur all the time and your basis for it is Sam's one charge at you? Boy even I know a few more than that, but again they were usually justified. That's what you need to give up. It happens rarely. I only suspect it when there is a pattern of misrepresentation and distortions by a poster and usually with allusions to past negative stereotypes.

clairobscur
07-03-2003, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by DSeid
Yet you have one anectdote of one poster calling you such a name and not because he was losing an argument, but because the suggestion was so ludicrous that it hard to understand what could motivate it. .


Well...maybe directly and plainly stating that someone is antisemitic isn't that common, implying it or hinting at it is exceedingly common. In this very thread, at least two posters implied that I had unamed ulterior thoughts and motives for the positions I defended, and I strongly suspect that these unamed ulterior thoughts were "I hate Jews". And this kind of hints and comments at least are pretty common in Israel-related threads.

clairobscur
07-03-2003, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by JonBodner
Broaden your scope from the SSDB. In the world at large, Saudi Arabia is considered to be perfectly fine, while Israel is the worst nation on the planet.

(Yes, there's a bit of hyperbole there, but not much.)



That must be a joke. Pretty much everywhere, Saudi Arabia is despised and criticized in harsh words. Even amongst arab people, generally speaking, Saudi Arabia is held in contempt. I'm yet to have met a single arab telling me something positive about this country or about the Saudis as a people. But I listened to plenty of highly negative, and actually xenophobic comments about them. Sure, I didn't conducted a pool in arab countries about this issue, but my anecdotal evidences all hint in the same direction.

clairobscur
07-03-2003, 01:41 PM
OK...let's come back to the job of responding to Jonbodner


No problem. When you make a point that can be nailed down, then I won't misrepresent it.


I did so. It's very simple and comes down to the following point I stated over and over again : Having some of your ancestors living in some place 2000 years ago don't give you a legitimate claim to this area. It's plain nonsentical and an impossible task to try to restore the situation as it was so long ago. The second point being : wanting dearly a homeland don't give you the right to pick one and push away the people living there. Otherwise, the people who descend from amerindian bands and tribes would have an even more valid right to tell everybody else living in Canada and the US to get the fuck out of there ASAP, for instance.



But you do think that the wrongs done to the Palestinians should be redressed.

Yes. I think so. Because the wrongs done to them are decently recent, that these wrongs can still be documented to some extent, and that part of the victims are still around. Otherwise, any wrong done would never had to be redressed. You could just assault someone in the street, take his wallet and then state "what's done is done..too bad for you."

Victims have a legitimate claim to ask for a redress of grievances, *and* at some point there must be a limit to how long you can wait and expect your grievances to be adressed. And 2000 years fell way beyond this limit IMO.






So, how do you plan to redress their complaints? You have said that Palestinians who left in 1948 should return, and you weren't sure if their children should have the right of return, too.

I don't remember what I wrote exactly in this part. I was asking questions using the Palestinian example to illustrate why it's difficult to define a clear cut line for a statute of limitation.


And since you are insisting that I am putting words in your mouth when I say that you are in favor of returning the Palestinians to Israel proper, I'm glad that we agree that the Palestinians shouldn't be allowed to return.


I didn't say that, either. I criticized you for responding to a comment I had never made. I plainly not adressed the question. I've been talking about the legitimacy of the creation of Israel at the first place, and not about what should be done in my opinion in the current situation, nor from a theorical moral point of view, nor from a practical point of view.



Why?


See above. Because it's just impossible to redress all the wrong done by everybody to everybody along all the course of history. And even more so because it would be impossible to know who should indemnize who for what. To pick a totally random example, should Iranian citizens be indemnized because hordes of turkish people razed persian cities 1000 years ago? and who should indemnize them? The descendants of the turks who eventually settled in Turkey? The iranians who, by genetic testing, would be proven descendants of turkish people? The country in central asia where the turks were originating from? How would be estimated the indemnization? The value of the goods desctructed/pillaged 1000 years ago? With an interest rate? Should turkish people leave turkey? What part off them? Who should be allowed to claim the land and settle in turkey? The Greeks? The Italians? It's just non sentical.

The claim the Jews have on Israel area is merely a tradition based solely on religion. Is it based on actual ancestry? Look at a whole blond, blue-eyed family of Ashkenazi Jews. How much of their actual, biological ancestors are likely to have been actually living in the middle-east at any point in the past? Nevertheless, due solely to their cultural traditions, and nothing else, they state they have a claim on this land.

If you actually include history in the mix, you would have to move around essentially all the population in the world. What the fuck are these Irish people doing in Ireland? Why don't they come back to central Europe where their celt ancestors came from? How do the Israelis intend to find and indemnize the descendants of the people who were living there before the Hebrews took over? Can Irakis claim that the historically documented rule of the Babylonians over a large part of the middle-east allow them to legitimately claim large track of the neighboring countries? Would their claim on Palestine be legitimate? They invaded it, like the Hebrews did. If not, why? Same question for the Macedonians, for instance? The Hebrews weren't the first people conquering and living in this area, and they weren't the last, either. So, why would their arbitrary claim would be anymore valid than the equally old claim of anybody descending from all these people? And from whom do you believe the "arabs" are descending from, exactly? They popped up out of nowhere and suddenly appeared in the middle-east?




And this is shameful moral equivilence. It's like saying that NOT beliving in God gives you equal right to work on the sabbath and to murder. Your anti-religion bias is rank bigotry.

I didn't state that there was an equivalency between holding religious beliefs and commiting crimes. I stated that religious beliefs isn't a valid excuse for crimes commited in the name of one's religion. Whatever could be the crime.

And there's a significant difference between occupying a foreign land and just working on sabbath. The latter doesn't harm anybody, the former does.




So you believe that Israelis have a right to live in Israel and Palestinians do not have a right to be resettled back in Israel. I've got to tell you, I don't see where we disagree. Well, there's the bit where you think poorly of religion, I guess. Maybe after a few more postings, you'll be telling me that you're now a Born-Again Christian.

The way you're presenting things make it appears as if I had changed my mind during the debate. That's dishonnest. I wrote the part about Israli-born citizens having the right to live in Israel in my very first post in this thread. Before you began to attack my position.




I said what I said, because it accurately reflected what the original Jewish pioneers who returned to Israel thought. They weren't looking for a state (they started returning 10-20 years before Herzl founded Zionism).

Then fine. If they merely wanted to go to some place they felt was home and the people already living there allowed them in, I've no issue with that. Like with the dutch coming to live in the US after having been allowed in and gotten a green card.

What I have an issue with is the massive move of people from faraway countries settling there with the blessings of a colonial power ruling the area despite the opposition of the locals. If you don't want to call this colonialism, then fine, find another word. But "immigration" certainly doesn't describe correctly the process.





They did have a say in it. They fought a war over it. They lost.


So, now, we're coming to the heart of the issue. The only to have a say in the issue was for them to take arms and fight the zionists. We fully agree on this one.

And we're talking about "might makes right" once again. You won the war? Your claim is legitimate. You lost it? Too bad for you.

And same would apply to the Jews. They had a say in the situation in Israel. The fought against the Romans. They lost. From then on, they didn't have any legitimate claim on this land, either, following this logic.



You seem to think that the Western Powers dispatched armies or something to make the state of Israel. They didn't.

I never said nor wrote that. I just said that the Palestinians didn't have any say in the matter. It was settled by foreign powers, which stated : "from now on, there will be a recognized Jewish state there".



The various Jewish terrorist groups (and yes, I will say they were terrorists, as they certainly were, and I don't think that what they did was right) pissed off the Brittish so much, they were siding with the Arabs by the end of the Mandate. No one gave the Jews anything to defend Israel. Jews around the world raised money and bought crappy Axis weapons and sent them to Israel (irony of ironies, really). The UN declared the State of Israel, and then said, "good luck!" while the Arab armies invaded.

Whether or not they received any outside help is irrelevant. The issue is : "were their justifications to create a jewish state legitimate or not?".


As for your statment that how strongly you want something being irrelevent is false. No one in their right minds thought the Jews would win in 1948 (or in 1967; IIRC, in June 1967, de Gaulle had a speech prepared to lament the destruction of Israel). But the fact is, they wanted it more. 10% of the Jewish population died in war of independence, but they were fighting for their home, and they won.

I've no clue who was thinking what about the outcome of the 1948 war. And yes...it's still irrelevant. Whatever De Gaulle thought about the military odds has no bearing on the legitimacy of the zionists' position.

As for the Jews fighting for their home, the Arabs were fighting for their home too. Absolutely no difference, here. The only difference being of course that they lost. If you consider this as an argument rather than an irrelevant history course, then this argument would be once again "might makes right".



Perhaps. I just take what the Palestinians say at face value. They say they want to kill all the Jews.

Yes. And i'm going to take at face value what the "Israelis" say, too. For instance, in the website december procided a link to at the beginning of this thread. The comments about squeashing the arabs like cockroaches, for instance.


They say they want to stop the "Judiazation" of a city that has had a majority Jewish population for centuries, and which is at the center of the Jewish religion. So, if that makes me psychic, then I'm a psychic.

Are you actually contending that Jerusalem hasn't been "Judaized", as a policy? Though that also would be another debate....



Oh it's easy to remember the treatment of Jews under Jordan's rule of Jerusalem; Jordan threw them all out. They destroyed the cemetery on the Mount of Olives that dated back to Roman times, using the tombstones to pave the streets. They blew up centries-old synagogues. They used the area around the Western Wall as a garbage dump.

And as I wrote in the part of the post you're responding to, the future actions of the jordanians, which were a consequence of the creation of the state of Israel can't be used as a justification for having created Israel. Or else, you could say for instance : "Japan had the right to attack Pearl harbor since the americans dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima". that's precisely why i stated that post-hoc justification of the creation of Israel based on the future events caused by this creation just can't fly.


And there is zero reason to believe that things would be any different under Palestinian rule. [:quote]

I admit that, would I be currently an Israeli citizen, i wouldn't want to come to be placed under Palestinian soveriegnty. But it still has no bearing on the legitimacy of the creation of Israel at the first place.


During the 1930's, there was awful warfare in the streets of Jerusalem. There was certainly an Arab attempt (led by Arafat's uncle, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who was a buddy of Hitler's) to drive the Jews out of Jerusalem. So your history isn't so good.

That I didn't know (apart the "buddy of Hitler" part...though this would need to be presented in a different way because stating it this way is misleading). i'll take your word for it and concede the point.

By the way, I note that you suddenly discovered that Arafat had some links with Palestine, after all.



Jews did go to other parts of Palestine from Hebron in 1929 when Arabs started murdering them. There had been Jews in Hebron for a very long time (it was where Abraham lived and is buried), and in 1929 the community was driven out to other parts of Palestine.

Though I knew there had been a Jewish community in Hebron for a very long time, I didn't know about them being driven out in 1929, so I won't comment.


Now the Jews who returned to Hebron in 1967 are treated by the world as evil usurpers. Nope, no double standards there.

Depends. Are the Jews currently living in Hebron related with the community which lived there before or not. That's the important point. I just don't believe that "I'm Jew" gives you the right to be compensated for something wrong which happened to an unrelated person which happened to be Jewish too. For instance, a Jew who recently immigrated to israel can't claim that the fact that *other Jews* who were living in Palestine in 1929 were evicted gives him the right to live there.

And I'm under the understanding that a significant part of the current Jewish population in Hebron belong to the "Greater Isreal should be ours because Gos said so" crowd rather than to the "I've the right to live in Hebron because i've my family roots here" crowd.

Or else, by the same logic, I could, if my neighbor is wrongfully evicted, go to a court and ask to be indemnized. Because..see..he's my neighbor/cousin/friend...so I should be personnally compensated for what happened to him.





See, there's the colonialism thing again. Do you bring this up in everyday conversation?

I just said if you're settling a place which is ruled by a colonial power against the will of the local, it makes absolutely no difference whether this place is situated in Uganda or in Palestine. It's *exactly* the same thing. So, if you think that the Jews settling in Uganda would have been colonialism, the it follows that the Jews settling in Palestine was colonialism too. Either none is, either both are.



Aha! Something we disagree about. Well, I don't think either one of us is going to convince the other.

I don't think so, either. And since it seems that the kernel of your position about the legitimacy of Israel is "Jews were living there 2000 years ago" , I think this debate is pointless.

And I would add that there aren't many people who would be convinced by this argument, except from (a part of) the Jews and (a tiny part of) the christians (essentially fundamentalists).


What made the Turks legitimate and the British illegitimate? Skin color? The Turks were hated, by the natives, too.

That would be because I'm under the impression that on the overall, the Turkish rule was more generally accepted as legitimate by the local population than the british mandate would be later. I suppose I would need someone more aknowledgeable to post and settle this issue (or at least give some reassonably accurate informations) [b] Tamerlane [b] ? Are you around here?



And it wasn't accepted by the Turks. But that's OK, because as I said before, the returning Jews weren't looking for their own country at first.

And I've no issue with that.



Only once it became clear that they would need to fight for the right to stay in the land they considered their homeland did the need for a state arise.

Now, I begin to have an issue. It falls down to : "They don't want us to live here? Then let's take over the place by force". Might makes right, once again.




So what about Arabs who came to Palestine after the 1880s? Did they have more right to the land than the Jews did? Because the population of Palestine in the 1880s was pretty tiny. Many of the people who now claim refugee status come from familes that entered Palestine at the same time as the Jews. Why one group is legitimate and the other is illegitimate smacks of racism to me. [/quote]


Same answers than above : people who came peacefully and were allowed in, Jewish or Arabs, had every right to staty. People who forced their way in didn't.


Beside, anybody whose family has been living in Palestine since 1880 has a *way* more valid right to stay, than, say, a french Jew who just decide to fly on the next plane and apply for Israeli citizenship.

clairobscur
07-03-2003, 01:44 PM
This is almost certainly false. Arabs didn't enter into Palestine until the 7th century.


Are you actually seriously believing that all the populations we now call "arabs" are only the direct descendants of the people who lived in Arabia in the VIIth century???????? Are you joking or am I misunderstanding what you mean???????



And as I just mentioned, there was a HUGE jump in population in Palestine after the 1880s. Relatively speaking, very few of the Palestinians who claim refugee status are from families that had been in the area for long.


And even fewer of the Israli Jewish population in Israel are from families that had been in the area for long. Your point is? That both have a legitimate right to live in Israel or that none of them has such a right?

Or are you thinking about some rule like "Arabs whose familes had not been in the area for long have no right to stay, but Jews whose families had not been in the area for long have every right to"? I'm sorry, but this would *stink* ethnic segregation.



Well, then why does France have the borders it does? Why is Alsaice part of your country? Why isn't it German territory?

Doesn't change the fact that taking a place by force isn't a justification, but a method, as I wrote. So, I don't know in what way it contradicts my statement.



If you are going to argue that you are right, you should be able to say WHY you are right.

2000 years old claim are definitely not valid. Claims from people who were personnally wronged are definitely valid. That might appear to be arbitrary to you, but I've the feeling that most people would agree with me on these two points.

And, since your opinion seems to be the reverse : "2000 years old claims are legitimate, but claims from people personnally wronged aren't" I would say it seems extremely arbitrary to me too. And actually extremely weird.


I think that while might does not make right, it sure settles the argument when all other means fail. The simple reason why Israel exists now is because the Jews won in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973.

That's certainly true. But since we're talking about the legitimacy of the creation of Israel, this statement definitely means "might makes right", sorry.



I feel badly for the Palestinians [.......] However, I also know that letting Palestinians back into Israel will destroy Israel, and I don't want Israel destroyed. If the Palestinians can live in peace with Israel with a state in Gaza and the West Bank and some sort of sharing agreement for Jerusalem, fine.


That's quite irrelevant to our argument about the legitimacy of Israel. We weren't talking about the solution which should be implemented.


If not, then the least worst solution is, unfortunately, massive deportation from the West Bank. But they aren't going back to Israel, and they lost their right to live in Israel when they lost the last 5 wars.

Wel...This last one irritates me a lot. I'm not going to begin a rant, but viewed that way, there are two equally "least worst" solutions : deporting all the Palestinians *or* deporting all the Jews. I perceive no difference.

And your last sentence is once again a "might makes right" argument.

Beside, where would the Palestinian be deported exactly??? Would have a random country to be invaded just in order to drop the palestinians there???


I really don't like the idea of mass deportation.


That's so kind of you. Should I congratulate you?




In fact, I hate it. But the other options are genocide, either of the Jews or the Palestinians, and I hate those options more.

There's also the solution of deporting the Jews, as i already mentionned, while we're at it?. But this one seems worst to you than Genocide. Or just killing them all, Jews and Palestinians alike. Whatever...


Should I understand that the Palestinians are better off living in refugee camps because the only other solutions you can figure out are ethnic cleansing (deporting them all) or genocide? Your statements really become to *reek*.



But mass deportations have happened repeately in the 20th century. A million Hindus and Muslims moved when Pakistan split from India. Greek and Turkish Cypriots were moved. The Palestinians need to either accept that they are no different from Indians, Pakistanis, Cypriots, Germans, and everyone else who was relocated after their side lost.

1°) The fact that "bad things (TM)" were done in the past doesn't justify doing the same now.

2°) Pragmatically speaking : all these people were resettled somewhere where people were willing to accept them at least to some extent. Germans in Germany, Cypriots on the other side of the island, etc...Where do you think the Palestinians would be deported to after this ethnic cleansing, exactly?

3°) It still *reeks*. Sorry, I can't help myself.




And let me tell you, if a REALLY crazy right-wing government gets elected in Israel due to a massive Palestinian atrocity (nuclear bomb in Tel Aviv, perhaps?), there won't be any question as to whether the Palestinians should have a right of return, because there won't be any left.

In other words, how bad the situation of the Palestinian could be doesn't really matter, since it could be worst and the Israelis could just choose to commit a genocide instead, so we shouldn't really feel concerned about the Palestinians as long as they don't don't all lie in mass graves.

I think I need to open the window for some fresh air....




You mean like the Communist Manifesto? Or do only religious books get scorn from you?

For instance the communist manifesto. Because you can argue for and against it on a rational basis. There's no such possibility with a religious book. Either you believe in God, and in *this* particular god, and even in a particular interpretation of the "words" of this particular god, and then, it's absolutely true without possible debate, either you don't belong to this particular religion, and it's absolutely irrelevant, without possible debate.



Then why bring it up?

In order to point out that the Hebrews weren't there before everybody else, according to what you believe as being an "evidence". If doesn't matter whether they slaughtered the previous inhabitants, women and children included because these other people too had killed women and children or not. That wasn't my point. There has been plenty of threads deedicaced solely to the various atrocities depicted in the bible where you argue about this particular issue.



You refused to define what rights are and where they come from. I think you should stop using that word if you won't define it.


Indeed, I don't have any abstract definition of "rights" in mind which would support my position. Let's say I've only the "feeling" that someone who is living somewhere has more right to stay there than someone whose religious tradition tells him his ancestors were living at the same place 2000 years ago.

On what definition of "right" is based your assumption that the reverse is true. Until know it seems to be "right is defined by what is written in my sacred book" and "right is defined by whoever wins the war".


After WW II, Europe was covered in refugee camps. They were empty by the 50's, because the Europeans took in the refugees. The Palestinians are still in camps because they are being used as political pawns by other Arabs and Muslims.


The fact that Palestinians has been used as political pawns still doesn't mean that they've not been wronged by the Israelis. The fact there were issues following WWII doesn't mean that the current issues don't need to be adressed. The europeans took in the refugees they thought where their owns. Who's going to take in the Palestinians?


And anyway, it's still unrelated to the legitimacy of the cretion of the Jewish state.






I don't want to debate about religion because there's no point. However, when you don't give specific answers and instead rely on some sort of general feeling, I consider that a religious argument, too.



My answer is that statute of limitations is bunk. I was hoping that you would see that, but I guess you haven't.

So, I assume you think that no wrong done should be redressed? For instance, if I manage to steal your wallet, there's no reason to adress your complaint? I got it right? (though apparently there's an exception if my great-great...grandfather stole the wallet of your great-great-great...grandfather 2000 years ago)

I doubt it. You most certainly do think that wrongs done should be adressed. But you also think that wrongs done to the Palestinians don't need to. So, you must necessarily have in mind some concept or feeling about the statute of limitations.



Except that this standard has never actually been applied in the history of, well, history. There are probably still Germans alive who were booted from Sudetenland and from Poland. They ain't going back, and no one is talking about boycotting Poland or the Czech Republic until they do. But Israel gets singled out. Go figure.


Once again, wrongs done in the past don't excuse wrongs done in the present. And perhaps people feel less concerned about the Germans who were expelled from the Sudeten and who are living a rather comfortable life in Germany than about the huge number of palestinians who are *still currently* living cramped in refugees camps.

People feel more concerned about current issues which are all over the medias than about 50 y.o. issues most of them never heard about. Yes, that's really strange. Must be because people hate the Jews. I can't see any other explanation.


You just described the US, AU, NZ, and CA pretty well.

Indeed. And, as I already stated, the settlers taking over the land in the US, Australia, etc...didn't have any more right to do so than the Israeli had to take over Palestine. So, I don't see any contradiction.


Yet no one is boycotting their graduate students or calling Kiwis Nazis.

Perhaps people would if the natives were currently treated in the US in the same way they used to be 150 years ago. Don't you think so?

Besides, there are plenty of people who are concerned about the issues of the aborigene rights in Australia, for instance. It has been a very hot topic down there quite recently, IIRC (precisely related to claims on land, actually).

But looking around, though I know there are some issues in ireservations in the US, I wasn't aware the Cherokees were living in refugee camps or were denied the right to leave their reservations, or had no political rights re. the government which rule the land they're living on, etc...Maybe I'm not well-informed...



I want to know the reason for the double standard. Saying that it happened a long time ago is not an answer that I find acceptable. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.


I'm sorry but it is an answer I find acceptable and that most people find acceptable. People feel much more about things which are currently happening than about things they learn about in history books (but as soon as you replace the history book by "sacred scripture", of course....)

clairobscur
07-03-2003, 01:48 PM
I'm going to stop responding to you, Jonbodner . It's the first time i've to cut my post in half on this board because it was too long, and I only replied to the first part of your response.

I give up, it takes too much time. Anyway, I think we've both made our points clear.

JonBodner
07-03-2003, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by clairobscur
That must be a joke. Pretty much everywhere, Saudi Arabia is despised and criticized in harsh words. Even amongst arab people, generally speaking, Saudi Arabia is held in contempt. I'm yet to have met a single arab telling me something positive about this country or about the Saudis as a people. But I listened to plenty of highly negative, and actually xenophobic comments about them. Sure, I didn't conducted a pool in arab countries about this issue, but my anecdotal evidences all hint in the same direction.
Um, I can't argue against anecdotal evidence, so I won't.

However, Saudi Arabia is going to host a human right conference in October, and human rights NGOs are going to attend:

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=28245&d=2&m=7&y=2003

Think they'd go to a human rights conference hosted by Israel?

There is also the experience of the Durban conference in 2001. Even Mary Robinson, no friend of Israel, was troubled by the anti-Israel and anti-semitic tone. I don't remember any anti-Saudi Arabia statements from Durban, but I could be wrong.

JonBodner
07-03-2003, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by clairobscur
I'm going to stop responding to you, Jonbodner . It's the first time i've to cut my post in half on this board because it was too long, and I only replied to the first part of your response.

I give up, it takes too much time. Anyway, I think we've both made our points clear.
Shucks. I was going to defend myself against your charges of racism, but I guess I won't bother.

JonBodner
07-03-2003, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by Hank Fescue
Did you even read this cite ?

Yes, it's an even-handed look at what happened, from a web site that tries to be even handed as it promotes peace. It looks like you're hoping that by cherry-picking quotes to support your side, other people won't read the cite, as it refutes your statement that calls from the Arabs to the Palestinians to get out of the way never occured. But I could be wrong.

I really encourage everyone to spend time on www.mideastweb.org if they care about this issue. If they are just looking for slanted evidence, well I'm sure that someone will gather it here.

MC Master of Ceremonies
07-03-2003, 02:48 PM
Yep, on a GQ thread someone asked for an unbiased middle-east source and that's the one I recomended.

JonBodner
07-03-2003, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by JonBodner
Shucks. I was going to defend myself against your charges of racism, but I guess I won't bother.
OK, I will defend myself after all; I've got some time today.

The reason I didn't talk about a massive deportation of Jews is because there won't be one. If Arab armies invade Israel and win, the Jews will be slaughtered. There will be no forcing out of their homes. There will be simply be murder on an awful scale.

This is, of course, if you believe what the Arabs themselves say. If you think that the Arabs say they want to commit genocide, but really they just want to do something else, that's fine, but it's not in accordance with reality.

Meanwhile the most rabid voices in Israel call for expulsion of the Palestinians, not mass murder (and political parties like Kach and Kahane Chai that call for expulsion are outlawed in Israel). I'm sure that if you wanted to, you could find Israelis that want to commit genocide, but you won't see them in positions of power, and they have no support from the Israeli population as a whole.

The way I see it, there are only three options on the table: peace with a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, Jerusalem shared, and no right of return for Palestinians, mass expulsion of the Palestinians, mass murder of the Jews and/or the Palestinians. I'm hoping for #1, but rather than have #3, I'll take #2, as the least worst option is what often wins out in the real world.

If you think this is racist, fine, so be it. But I don't.

As to where to put any expelled Palestinians, how about the homes of the 630,000 Jews who were thrown out of Arab countries? There are also the homes of the six million Jews killed in the Holocaust. Between the two, there's probably enough housing. And I'm only being slightly flippant here.

Hank Fescue
07-03-2003, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by DSeid
Um Hank. This was your claim, unrelated to any claim about any that "no one is ever ..." You go on to say how knee jerk this reaction is. Yet you have one anectdote of one poster calling you such a name and not because he was losing an argument, but because the suggestion was so ludicrous that it hard to understand what could motivate it. You keep making that charge that these accusations occur all the time and your basis for it is Sam's one charge at you? Boy even I know a few more than that, but again they were usually justified. That's what you need to give up. It happens rarely. I only suspect it when there is a pattern of misrepresentation and distortions by a poster and usually with allusions to past negative stereotypes.

It is knee jerk and it is common. ABC news even did a story on it. Here is what they describe as a "typical" e mail.

"Your anti-Semitic approach to Israel is the reason I stopped watching your show," one viewer wrote in a typical e-mail to ABCNEWS' Nightline.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/israel_antisemitism020421.html

If criticism of Israel is labeled anti - semitic commonly enough to make a news story out of it I think my point stands.

Hank Fescue
07-03-2003, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by DSeid
Hank,

I did read the cited page. A very fair even handed recapitulation of the history. Documents well that one factor involved in the flight of Arabs was encouragement by Arab leadership. That another was percieved fear, and another was fear based on incidents of real violence althoughThis was not a planned public policy. The authors also note And of course documents that the same type of expulsion, confiscation etc occurred to Jews in Arab areas without exception. Now if you read that cite and want to take bits that only support what you want to see go ahead, but such a tactic does make one suspect that your motivations are not ones of actually understanding the truth.

The truth is understood. Where it has been stated here that the "vast majority" of Arabs left volutarily by the call of Arab leaders, the cite proves otherwise. The incidents of Arabs ordered to flee are not much more than a foot note based on a few statements and rumors. OTOH, the intentions of the Israeli leadership are documented quite well. It only takes common to sense to know that the only course to achieve a Jewish state with a Jewish majority in a nearly total Arab area is get riof the Arabs. The take is "we came here and the Arabs just decided to leave." How convienient. Get a grip on reality. The plan was to get rid of the Arabs from day one.

clairobscur
07-03-2003, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by JonBodner
As to where to put any expelled Palestinians, how about the homes of the 630,000 Jews who were thrown out of Arab countries? There are also the homes of the six million Jews killed in the Holocaust. Between the two, there's probably enough housing. And I'm only being slightly flippant here.


I'm going to answer to this one. We aren't talking about great principles anymore, here, but about a practical case : Israel round up the Jews and decide to deport them. But to deport them where and how? Currently, nobody want them in. So, the only way (apart from letting them starving in a no-man's land until someone accept to take them in) would be to *force* another country to let them in. For instance attacking Jordan, conquering part of its territory, and once done, bringing the Palestinians in then leaving and letting the Jordanians sort out the isssue.

I really can't see another way this could be achieved, I mean without a war with whatever country Israel would pick as convenient to deport the Palestinians.

Tamerlane
07-03-2003, 05:29 PM
i]Originally posted by clairobscur [/i]

That would be because I'm under the impression that on the overall, the Turkish rule was more generally accepted as legitimate by the local population than the british mandate would be later. I suppose I would need someone more aknowledgeable to post and settle this issue (or at least give some reassonably accurate informations) Tamerlane ? Are you around here?

...In fact, as Foreign Office and Arab Bureau reports later were to show, Moslem opinion, even in non-Turkish areas, generally supported the Ottoman Empire and its alliance with Germany. Storrs was wrong , too, in supposing that Moslems were opposed to a Jewish Palestine because of the war; Moslem opposition to a Jewish Palestine had arisen long before the war, in the wake of Zionist colonization at the end of the 19th century.

*****

In evaluating reports that there was dissatisfaction with Ottoman rule in some sections of the empire, British Cairo particularly misunderstood one of the salient features of the Moslem Middle East: to the extent it was politically conscious, it was not willing to be ruled by non-Moslems. Behind enemy lines there were Moslems who were dissatisfied with the Young Turk government, but they proposed to replace it with a different Turklish government, or at any rate an Islamic government. They regarded rule by Christian European power, such as Britain, as intolerable.

From A Peace To End All Peace:The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East by David Fromkin ( 1989, Avon Books ).

- Tamerlane

clairobscur
07-03-2003, 08:09 PM
Thanks, Tamerlane . I didn't really expect that you would notice my request for more infos, so I'm pleasantly surprised. Seems you're as talented as the djinns in the arabian nights tales; we only have to call for you and you appear in a puff of smoke, bringing with you any cite we could be wishing for from your magical unending library.

OliverH
07-04-2003, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by JonBodner
Um, I can't argue against anecdotal evidence, so I won't.

However, Saudi Arabia is going to host a human right conference in October, and human rights NGOs are going to attend:

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=28245&d=2&m=7&y=2003

Think they'd go to a human rights conference hosted by Israel?


Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Actually, I am not sure why you bring up this point at all. The fact that Saudi Arabia is hosting such a conference is hardly something detrimental to the human rights situation there. Quite the contrary, the Gulf Cooperation Council has recently established a human rights round table and promised to improve the situation in their territories in negotiations, among others, with the EU, in preparation of free trade agreements. Hosting a human rights conference sounds like a pretty good step on establishing certain norms. But I take it you would prefer no developments to take place?


There is also the experience of the Durban conference in 2001. Even Mary Robinson, no friend of Israel, was troubled by the anti-Israel and anti-semitic tone. I don't remember any anti-Saudi Arabia statements from Durban, but I could be wrong.

The fact that you don't remember any such statements hardly proves anything, other than that you didn't notice any. Which might be due to a)you not hearing any, for a variety of factors, which can, but not necessarily do, include not wanting to hear any b)none being reported by the media in your area, which might be due to either bias, or perceived lack of public interest or, c)that there weren't any. It's the latter you have to show to have a case. Even then, you'd have to show relevance to the issue, given that the Durban conference was one that specifically dealt with racism, not with human rights problems in general.

OliverH
07-04-2003, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by JonBodner
OK, I will defend myself after all; I've got some time today.

The reason I didn't talk about a massive deportation of Jews is because there won't be one. If Arab armies invade Israel and win, the Jews will be slaughtered. There will be no forcing out of their homes. There will be simply be murder on an awful scale.

This is, of course, if you believe what the Arabs themselves say. If you think that the Arabs say they want to commit genocide, but really they just want to do something else, that's fine, but it's not in accordance with reality.


What is not in accordance with reality is labeling the position of radical minorities as that of 'the Arabs'. It is probaly precisely that what is considered racism.


Meanwhile the most rabid voices in Israel call for expulsion of the Palestinians, not mass murder (and political parties like Kach and Kahane Chai that call for expulsion are outlawed in Israel).

Last I checked, Netanyahu was a politician with quite some support, and not member of an outlawed political party. He called for measures that translate to ethnic cleansing repeatedly.


I'm sure that if you wanted to, you could find Israelis that want to commit genocide, but you won't see them in positions of power, and they have no support from the Israeli population as a whole.

And yet you engage in precisely that behavior with the arab side.

DSeid
07-04-2003, 03:23 PM
Oliver,

Please support your statement about Netanyahu advocating "ethnic cleansing." I am no Bibi fan, and I am for a crackdown on any discriminatory practices whether it is against Arab citizens of Israel, or Jewish citizens in Arab lands, or Israeli scholars in Europe, or immigrants in general in the US, but this kind of hyperbole is unhelpful. Netanyahu is a hardliner with some fair amount of support. He believes that the PA cannot be trusted to deliver on security, that Arafat and others still desire the destruction of Israel in its entirity, and that Israel must take tough actions to provide for its security in other ways. He plays well to those who lust after a greater Israel. And the less that the PA does to crackdown on those who attack Israel the more his POV will gain support among others who just want to be able to get on a bus without fear. But he has never called for anything that resembles ethnic cleansing.

And while it is an overstatement to call the POV that Israel should be destroyed with mass slaughter as the Arab POV, it is fair to say that Israel's destruction as a goal is well supported in the Arab mainstream, and not just among a few small radical factions. Conversely most Israelis (including Arab-Israelis) believe that peace is possible and would be willing to give up most of the West Bank and Gaza to get it. There is insignificant support for mass deportations let alone for worse.

Hank Fescue
07-04-2003, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by DSeid
Oliver,

Please support your statement about Netanyahu advocating "ethnic cleansing." I am no Bibi fan, and I am for a crackdown on any discriminatory practices whether it is against Arab citizens of Israel, or Jewish citizens in Arab lands, or Israeli scholars in Europe, or immigrants in general in the US, but this kind of hyperbole is unhelpful. Netanyahu is a hardliner with some fair amount of support. He believes that the PA cannot be trusted to deliver on security, that Arafat and others still desire the destruction of Israel in its entirity, and that Israel must take tough actions to provide for its security in other ways. He plays well to those who lust after a greater Israel. And the less that the PA does to crackdown on those who attack Israel the more his POV will gain support among others who just want to be able to get on a bus without fear. But he has never called for anything that resembles ethnic cleansing.

Actually he has advocated ethnic cleansing and he is damn sneaky about it too.

"Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass explosions among the Arabs of the territories." Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, former Prime Minister of Israel, tells students at Bar Ilan University, From the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989.

Ethnic Cleansing is a process in which advancing army of one ethnic group expels civilians of other ethnic groups from towns and villages it conquers in order to create ethnically pure enclaves for members of their ethnic group.

OliverH
07-07-2003, 06:15 AM
Originally posted by DSeid
Oliver,

Please support your statement about Netanyahu advocating "ethnic cleansing." I am no Bibi fan, and I am for a crackdown on any discriminatory practices whether it is against Arab citizens of Israel, or Jewish citizens in Arab lands, or Israeli scholars in Europe, or immigrants in general in the US, but this kind of hyperbole is unhelpful. Netanyahu is a hardliner with some fair amount of support. He believes that the PA cannot be trusted to deliver on security, that Arafat and others still desire the destruction of Israel in its entirity, and that Israel must take tough actions to provide for its security in other ways. He plays well to those who lust after a greater Israel. And the less that the PA does to crackdown on those who attack Israel the more his POV will gain support among others who just want to be able to get on a bus without fear. But he has never called for anything that resembles ethnic cleansing.


“The first thing we are doing is to link together greater Jerusalem. The second thing is strengthening the Jewish majority in Jerusalem.” a quote by Netanyahu from his time as prime minister, sure sounds like 'Jerusalem for the Jews'. The underlying law was justly denounced by the UN, and it was only a threatened US veto that prevented a Security Council resolution demanding that the law be rescinded.

Add to that the quote about mass expulsions (not explosions, as the previous poster accidentally quoted) from 1989.


At the same time, numerous current and former IDF commanders have been cited with comments like 'We have to learn from the Nazi's cleansing of the Warsaw ghetto', or about '"thin out the number of Palestinians living in the territories," (Eitan Ben Eliahu, former Israeli Air Force commander)

For a review, cf. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2002/1009israelmay.htm

In that context, cf. also the report by Dan Tamir, a 'refusenik' IDF reservist at
http://www.seruv.org.il/signers/dantamirEng.asp


And while it is an overstatement to call the POV that Israel should be destroyed with mass slaughter as the Arab POV, it is fair to say that Israel's destruction as a goal is well supported in the Arab mainstream, and not just among a few small radical factions. Conversely most Israelis (including Arab-Israelis) believe that peace is possible and would be willing to give up most of the West Bank and Gaza to get it. There is insignificant support for mass deportations let alone for worse.

There is plenty of support for mass deportations, several members of parliament support it. Far from a majority, but enough people support it to get you elected on such a platform. However, such numbers games are clearly misleading since radical opinion to no small degree are born out of direct frustration. While one may argue whether the real vs. perceived causes for the frustration are the same, it's not really relevant to the case.

As such, it is evident that the side with the greater frustration also has the more radical opinion. That being said, complete destruction desire by Arabs is widely overreported. The goal, for example, of the Al Aqsa brigades, despite being a radical militant organisation, is not a complete destruction of Israel, but to drive Israeli forces out of Palestinian territories on the West Bank and Gaza and establish a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. (Cf. eg. http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/mideast_struggle/al-aqsa.html ). Thus, not even all radical factions advocate a complete slaughter or the catchy term of 'Driving the Jews into the sea', and at the latest since the recent Saudi offers, there can hardly be any justified accusations of 'the Arabs' striving for the destruction of Israel.

DSeid
07-07-2003, 07:26 AM
Arab (well, more precisely Islamic) mainstream thought, according to current polls, is that there is no hope for the Palestinians while Israel exists.
http://www.iht.com/articles/98479.html

And, at a time when the Israeli government has accepted the right of Palestinians to statehood, most Muslim populations surveyed believe by wide margins that the needs of Palestinians cannot be met so long as the state of Israel exists
...
The conviction that no way can be found for Israel and the Palestinians to coexist is strongest in Morocco (90 percent), followed by Jordan (85 percent), the Palestinian Authority (80 percent), Kuwait (72 percent), Lebanon (65 percent), Indonesia (58 percent) and Pakistan (57 percent).This is not just a few radicals.

Alan Owes Bess
07-07-2003, 08:22 AM
Tamerlane,

You appear to be, at least superficially, rational.

You also seem to be a fervent believer in you know who.

You appear to be capable of working out most of his persona and understanding what he advocates.

Yet You proudly affirm and defend him.

Why?

I confess that this is one area where I am at a loss.

JonBodner
07-07-2003, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by clairobscur
Perhaps people would if the natives were currently treated in the US in the same way they used to be 150 years ago. Don't you think so?

Besides, there are plenty of people who are concerned about the issues of the aborigene rights in Australia, for instance. It has been a very hot topic down there quite recently, IIRC (precisely related to claims on land, actually).

But looking around, though I know there are some issues in ireservations in the US, I wasn't aware the Cherokees were living in refugee camps or were denied the right to leave their reservations, or had no political rights re. the government which rule the land they're living on, etc...Maybe I'm not well-informed...

If there were still Indian tribes engaging in attacks on White settlers, then, yes, there would be the same response. In fact, I think it would be far, far worse. Americans are more vicious than Israelis. Ask the residents of Hiroshima about that. Or maybe the poor bastards who were in that restaurant where the Americans thought that Saddam was meeting. No apologies from Bush for that, not like Sharon's apologies when Israeli assassination attacks miss their intended target or cause collateral damage.

And picking the Cherokee was a particularly bad choice, as they were deported from their ancestral land in Georgia to Oklahoma in the 1830's (after the Supreme Court said they could NOT be deported, BTW). Now, if Cherokee want to go back, buy land in Western Georgia, and live peacefully, they are free to do so. If they want to suicide bomb Atlanta or shoot mortars into Macon, well, I will guarantee you that what the US does to them will make the Israelis look like Ghandi.

And speaking of refugee camps and no political rights, there was the Japanese internment during WW II. Based on information in the PURPLE messages that there were a few Japanese saboteurs in America, ALL of the Japanese on the West Coast were rounded up and shipped off to camps. That lasted until the war was over. It would be like Israel rounding up all of the Israeli Arabs until the Intifada ends.

JonBodner
07-07-2003, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by clairobscur
I'm going to answer to this one. We aren't talking about great principles anymore, here, but about a practical case : Israel round up the Jews and decide to deport them. But to deport them where and how? Currently, nobody want them in. So, the only way (apart from letting them starving in a no-man's land until someone accept to take them in) would be to *force* another country to let them in. For instance attacking Jordan, conquering part of its territory, and once done, bringing the Palestinians in then leaving and letting the Jordanians sort out the isssue.

I really can't see another way this could be achieved, I mean without a war with whatever country Israel would pick as convenient to deport the Palestinians.
Ain't necessarily so. During the Mariel Boat Lift, Castro put criminals and the insane on rafts and sent them to America. Over 100,000 Cubans landed in America within six months (the offical Coast Guard number is 124,776). No Cuban military action was necessary. And yes, I know not all of the Cubans in the boat lift were criminals or insane.

Hey, considering how much Castro is loved by Europeans, the more Sharon can emulate Castro, the better he would be in their eyes, right? First he needs to put Palestinians onto rafts in the Mediterranean. Next step: Sharon can lock up the reporters and execute his political enemies!

I've also noticed that Europeans like the Palestinians a heck of a lot. So, again, if the Palestinians were to be expelled (and I'll say again that I don't want this to happen), why not put them in the houses of the Jews that the Europeans murdered? Or maybe you can settle them where the Muslims were murdered in Bosnia while the rest of Europe yawned? Or are the Europeans who benefit from Europe's periodic mass murders unwilling to move from the houses they looted?

Tamerlane
07-07-2003, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by Alan Owes Bess
Tamerlane,

You appear to be, at least superficially, rational.

Superficial is right - It's all a scam. I'm actually completely irrational :p. Just ask anyone.

You also seem to be a fervent believer in you know who.

Actually, I'm not precisely sure I know who you mean. God? Muhammed?

I'm guessing from the rest of your post and the general tone and focus of some of your other posts that you are referring to Muhammed. But I believe in none of the above, really ( well, I believe Muhammed existed as a historical entity, but I don't believe he was actually a prophet of God ). I am believer in peoples right to worship or believe as they will, but for myself I'm actually a non-believer.

You appear to be capable of working out most of his persona and understanding what he advocates.

Yet You proudly affirm and defend him.

Why?

I'm interested in history, political geography, societies and peoples. Among other things, anyway. If there is one thing I have come to a conclusion on, it is that none of the major religious creeds are wholely evil or even mostly evil. They are various flawed ( in my estimation, YMMV ) attempts to grapple with the unknown and achieve social consensus by normal, everyday people. Despite their flaws, all strive to be humanistic in their own way and by their own definitions - If they didn't, they would never have become as popular as they are. There are also all vulnerable to being interpreted into thoroughly unwholesome entities. But I'm not a big believer in throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

So why do I spend time defending Islam ( in a rational and balanced way, I hope, acknowledging its flaws ) on this board? A couple of reasons.

Sheerly by coincidence I am moderately well-informed on the topic. This doesn't stem from any serious interest in Islam as a spiritual guide, but rather from an interest in history. Studying the history of the Mediterranean and Middle East, one soon finds themselves inexorably drawn into a study of Islam at some level, because Islam, an overtly political religion from the get go, is perhaps more than usually intwined in the history of the region. Unless you want to stay at a purely superficial level, one can't understand what the Nizaris ( "Assassins" ), for example, were about unless you understand their religious background and motivation.

Second, Islam is not a religion that most westerners are well-informed on. It's only in recent years that Muslims have become at all visible in western society ( overall, some European countries obviously had a larger Muslim presense earlier than say the U.S. ) and so through simple lack of exposure, many folks have an erroneous or skewed view of Islam. That or no view at all. With the sudden explosion in interest in the aftermath of 9-11 in particular, I've found my rather meager expertise of occasional use in answering questions and correcting flawed notions. I'm hardly the only person around capable of doing so, but there aren't tons, so for awhile I felt it incumbent on me to participate ( that, and like a lot of people who frequent message boards like this, I probably like to hear myself talk ;) ). Though as it is, I've grown less interested in dealing with the militantly or stubbornly ignorant and so participate a little less these days.

Now why don't I spend as much time defending or explaining say, Christianity or Judaism? Because on those topics I am woefully outclassed by other folks on these boards. I know something about Catholic doctrine, but I'm not even within spitting distance of tomndeb. I know a bit about Judaism, but not even a fraction as much as zev steinhart. etc. I am a) better informed on Islam as a historical entity than other religions to begin with, and b) there are folks here who are simply vastly more knowledgeable of other doctrines than I. That's not to say I might not stick in my $.02 if, say, a discussion of the Hussite movement in Bohemia came up, or some other topic of particular historical interest. You'll note me taking an occasional interest in other religious or religiously-related topics from time to time on this board, particularly if I can take the opportunity to spew out some of the historical minutiae I have so lovingly accumulated and never get the chance to talk about otherwise. But in terms of everyday practices, other folks are better advocates.

I confess that this is one area where I am at a loss.

Eh, well, sorry for the befuddlement.

- Tamerlane

DSeid
07-07-2003, 06:31 PM
Though as it is, I've grown less interested in dealing with the militantly or stubbornly ignorant and so participate a little less these days.
And while I admire your restraint, which I have too little of, I must say that I miss your more frequent interjections.

OliverH
07-08-2003, 04:51 AM
Originally posted by DSeid
Arab (well, more precisely Islamic) mainstream thought, according to current polls, is that there is no hope for the Palestinians while Israel exists.
http://www.iht.com/articles/98479.html

This is not just a few radicals.

Sorry, but your cite fails to support your claims. Having no hope for Palestinians and Israel to coexist is quite a distance from demanding the destruction of Israel. Polls are a ficklish thing and a lot depends on the phrasing. Having no hope while Israel exists can be founded in consistent disappointment of such hopes by Israel. Even the acceptance of Palestinian statehood, after all, so far exists only verbally, and as such, trust in its acceptance can only be as high as trust in other promises by the Israeli government -which have practically routinely be disappointed when not enforced by outside pressure.

Having no hope for peaceful coexistence with Israel in no way supports your claim for the destruction of Israel being a widely supported goal. It merely demonstrates a high degree of fatalism or pessimism.

JonBodner
07-08-2003, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by OliverH
Sorry, but your cite fails to support your claims. Having no hope for Palestinians and Israel to coexist is quite a distance from demanding the destruction of Israel. Polls are a ficklish thing and a lot depends on the phrasing. Having no hope while Israel exists can be founded in consistent disappointment of such hopes by Israel. Even the acceptance of Palestinian statehood, after all, so far exists only verbally, and as such, trust in its acceptance can only be as high as trust in other promises by the Israeli government -which have practically routinely be disappointed when not enforced by outside pressure.

Having no hope for peaceful coexistence with Israel in no way supports your claim for the destruction of Israel being a widely supported goal. It merely demonstrates a high degree of fatalism or pessimism.

Now make excuses for these sermons:

First we have "O Lord, the Jews...kill them one by one", broadcast on official Saudi TV on June 23, 2003:
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=17362

Next we have "O God, destroy the Zionist Jewish occupiers", also broadcast on Official Saudi TV from the Great Mosque in Mecca on July 1, 2003:
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=17443

I guess that the Great Mosque in Mecca is just some out-of-the-way subversive place, right? Well, I guess we'll have to look for sermons from some other places. Here are a bunch from Yemen, Jordan, Syria, and Qatar titled "O God, destroy the usurper Jews, the vile Crusaders, and infidels. O God, destroy them along with their supporters." They date from June 16, 2003:
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=17280

Also on June 16th, we have this charming number from official Palestinian broadcasts. It's called "O God, destroy the Jews...the United States and its allies":
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=17279

I could keep going, if you'd like, but I hope that I've made my point. Fact is that genocide against Jews is the mainstream viewpoint in the Muslim world. I'm sure it pleases your liberal heart to deny this, but it simply isn't true.

Now spin away....

OliverH
07-09-2003, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by JonBodner
Now make excuses for these sermons:

...

I could keep going, if you'd like, but I hope that I've made my point. Fact is that genocide against Jews is the mainstream viewpoint in the Muslim world. I'm sure it pleases your liberal heart to deny this, but it simply isn't true.

Now spin away....

I would if someone reasonable had posted cites from credible sources, but propaganda material from demonstrably highly biased sources posted by you is barely worth a comment.

JonBodner
07-09-2003, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by OliverH
I would if someone reasonable had posted cites from credible sources, but propaganda material from demonstrably highly biased sources posted by you is barely worth a comment.
Translation: I'm wrong, so I'll attack the messenger rather than deal with the substance of the issue.

Got to say, under any debating society's rules, you just lost.

DSeid
07-09-2003, 09:24 PM
Oliver,

In case you don't understand Jon's point: a site can be biased but if their information is accurate and referenced, it may still true. If you are claiming that his cite fabricated the info, then that is one thing, but that it merley biased in its presentation is quite another. And if you are claiming that then you had better be able to support such a charge.

Another "biased" cite for you. That references all of its primary information.

http://memri.org/antisemitism.html

Read through some of its copious examples of well documented common Arab media expressions, such as this one - http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=antisemitism&ID=SP32802
Following are excerpts from an article in the Saudi daily 'Al-Riyadh' by Abdallah Al-Ka'id, titled "The Culture of Hatred":
These are our enemies, and our hatred towards them is rooted in our souls, and the only thing that can remove it is their departure from our lands and the purification of their defilement of our holy places!!! Once again, these are not just a few radicals. This is a real problem. Jews (yes, Jews, not just Israelis) have been extensively vilfied by large segments of the Arab media and mainstream. Some minority segment may believe that peace is possible. Some significant portion of the Arab populus may believe that Israel should exist in more than a mouth service way on-route to furthering its destruction or absorbtion. But to deny that Jew hating and a sincere desire for Israel's total destruction is not a well established view among a significant portion of the general Arab populus today is dangerous naivete and fails to appreciate the difficulties that lie ahead in building a peaceful solution over the long-term. This kind of hate won't disappear overnight. It will take a long experience of trust-building steps from each side and one-on-one contacts to slowly neutralize it.

OliverH
07-14-2003, 05:39 AM
Originally posted by DSeid
Oliver,

In case you don't understand Jon's point: a site can be biased but if their information is accurate and referenced, it may still true. If you are claiming that his cite fabricated the info, then that is one thing, but that it merley biased in its presentation is quite another. And if you are claiming that then you had better be able to support such a charge.

You would be right if Jon had referenced original statements. He hasn't. He has referenced translations cited by a biased source. There is a)no evidence that the statements were actually made and b)that the meaning was not tainted in the translation. There is a reason why there are certified and sworn translators for the translation of official documents: It is easy to make translations mean what they never were supposed to mean and still be able to have translated the statement 'accurately' by using synonyms with slightly different tone.

Given that Jon has already resorted to generalized insults to the degree of throwing victims of Nazi persecution in one pot with their tormentors, his statement that by any debating society's standards, I would have lost, he merely has shown that he expects civil conduct only of opposition, but reserves the right for himself and those he supports to use any means necessary to achieve their goal -which is not too surprising given his position in this debate.


Another "biased" cite for you. That references all of its primary information.


This is a real problem. Jews (yes, Jews, not just Israelis) have been extensively vilfied by large segments of the Arab media and mainstream. Some minority segment may believe that peace is possible. Some significant portion of the Arab populus may believe that Israel should exist in more than a mouth service way on-route to furthering its destruction or absorbtion. But to deny that Jew hating and a sincere desire for Israel's total destruction is not a well established view among a significant portion of the general Arab populus today is dangerous naivete and fails to appreciate the difficulties that lie ahead in building a peaceful solution over the long-term. This kind of hate won't disappear overnight. It will take a long experience of trust-building steps from each side and one-on-one contacts to slowly neutralize it.

It is strange that this last statement of yours is in total contradiction of the entirety of your argumentation so far. You speak of trust building steps from both sides, yet have put the responsibility so far flat on one side. You have accused one side of genocidal desires, despite the fact that it is the other which has engaged in massacres, such as the one Kafr Kasem. You are apparently well-versed in source material suggesting Palestinian responsibility, but at the same time seem completely oblivious to official, objective assessments on Israel, such as by Israeli courts or public investigations. You speak of one-on-one contacts, but while complaining about radicalism on one side, have as your sole sources radicals of the other.

If you indeed consider one-on-one contacts to be beneficial, I suggest you read some of Amira Hass' writings. She is a jewish Israeli journalist living in Gaza, the child of Holocaust survivors.

You speak about radical, murderous cites from Palestinians, but here's what threats Amira Hass gets to hear "I get messages saying I must have been a kapo [a Jewish camp overseer for the Nazis] in my first incarnation. Then I'll get an e-mail saying: 'Bravo, you have written a great article – Heil Hitler!' Someone told me they hoped I suffered breast cancer. 'Until we expel all Palestinians, there will be no peace,' some of them say. I can't reply to them – there are thousands of these messages." These are messages by Israelis, not Palestinians, with which she peacefully lives door to door. She gets thousands of such messages, and as such, I think you should reevalue your statement about certain opinions merely being held by insignificant minorities in Israel. If the Palestinians very really so lodged in murderous anti-semitism, she would rather get more such threats from THEM, wouldn't she? But instead, while she is "listening to the Palestinian curses heaped upon "the Jews" for their confiscations and dispossessions and murder squads and settlements", these are very specific complaints about very specific grievances, and at the same time she experiences:

"From the start, Hass recalls, there was "something very warm about the Palestinian attitude – there was a lot of humor in these harsh conditions." When I suggest that this might be something she had recognized in Jews, Hass immediately agrees. "Of course. I'm an east European Jew and the life of the shtetl is inbuilt in me. And I guess I found in Gaza a shtetl. I remember finding refugees from Jabalya camp, sitting on a beach. I asked them what they were doing. And one said he was 'waiting to be 40 years old' – so he'd be old enough to get a permit to work in Israel. This was a very Jewish joke.""

If there is such a murderous attitude, how come Amira Hass survives, first in Gaza, then on the West Bank? How come she recalls so warmly many experiences? Could it be that it is very much possible for Palestinians and Jews to live peacefully door to door, under the condition that both sides are good neigbors?

Why do you not cite http://www.seruv.org.il/defaulteng.asp , the site by real IDF reservists who served in the territories, if indeed individual contacts are so important to you?

Why is it given that you were shown that ethnic cleansing is supported by Israeli mainstream politicians, that you still claim that there is a significant difference between the attitude both sides have towards each other, supporting your arguments solely by the statements of radicals?

jaybo
07-14-2003, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by OliverH
You would be right if Jon had referenced original statements. He hasn't. He has referenced translations cited by a biased source. There is a)no evidence that the statements were actually made and b)that the meaning was not tainted in the translation. There is a reason why there are certified and sworn translators for the translation of official documents: It is easy to make translations mean what they never were supposed to mean and still be able to have translated the statement 'accurately' by using synonyms with slightly different tone.

Given that Jon has already resorted to generalized insults to the degree of throwing victims of Nazi persecution in one pot with their tormentors, his statement that by any debating society's standards, I would have lost, he merely has shown that he expects civil conduct only of opposition, but reserves the right for himself and those he supports to use any means necessary to achieve their goal -which is not too surprising given his position in this debate.


Another "biased" cite for you. That references all of its primary information.



You seem to be rather selective about what is biased and what is not, apparently dismissing items you don't like as biased and dismissing it out of hand. What is an "unbiased" source in your opinion?

OliverH
07-15-2003, 02:25 AM
Originally posted by jaybo
You seem to be rather selective about what is biased and what is not, apparently dismissing items you don't like as biased and dismissing it out of hand. What is an "unbiased" source in your opinion?

I am rather selective. It's my job as a scientist to be very selective as to what conclusions a given piece of data supports. I am not dismissing items I don't like as biased, I am dismissing items that are clearly agitatory as biased. I suggest you take a look at the websites cited, rather than just engaging in blind mudslinging.

An organization which produces commented headlines such as "[Letting the terror swamp refill] IDF commanders note slowdown in W. Bank operational activity" is hardly an objective source. Rather, such titles show that IMRA is not beyond twisting titles and statements to fit their agenda. IMRA does not distinguish between reporting and the stating of opinions, but subverts reports with interjectory comments -not just occasionally, but as a rule. Take a look at the numerous 'Ha'aretz (and IMRA)' cites on their website. These show that IMRA is unwilling to cite others without changing the cite in a fashion suitable to their agenda. As such, trusting their translations is a foolish thing to do.

As for unbiased sources, I suggest, for example, civilian Israeli courts. It is telling that the most ardent critics of the Palestinians point at Israel as a democracy while scoffing at the civilian courts' decisions.

It rather seems strange to me that those who accuse others of trusting only sources suitable to their agenda themselves dismiss anything contrary to their opinion outright. I cited several other sources which have little reason to be biased pro-Palestinian, being Israeli Jews, and some of them being charged with Israel's security. Strangely enough, their positions are far from the vociferous rants produced by IMRA. By academic standards, an explanation is only credible if it explains ALL available data. As already pointed out, the suggestion that Arabs are possessed with a virulent, murderous anti-semitism does not explain the peaceful coexistence of many Israeli jews with them.

DSeid
07-15-2003, 08:49 PM
Oliver,

It scares me to think that science is being done by people who think like you. You do not like the conclusion so the data must be faked. Boy.

The Middle East Media Research Institute also fakes and distorts translations? No. This a reputable organization which translates a variety of source material without comment to allow others to know what is being said about a variety of subjects in the Arab press.

In any case you misinterpret the point. I have every confidence that Joe Palestinian can learn to live peacefully with Joe Israeli and visa versa. But there are different sorts of roadblocks in the way on each side.

On the Israeli side there is a small group that has eyes on a greater Israel. There is a smaller number who just hate Arabs at this point. But mostly there are a large number of people who want peace, are willing to give up most of the West Bank and to compromise on Jerusalum, and give money at least to settle the so called "Right to Return" issue, if they were sure that peace would result. But many are hardened by the failure of negotiated approaches in the past and have become nearly convinced by much rhetoric from the other side, as well as actions of the few, that negotiations can never work. Winning these people back to the side of hope in a peaceful solution that does not involve resorting to forced seperations or worse will not be easy. Still a majority believe that negotiations can work and believe that the PA is currently sincere in the effort to get there.

On the Arab side you have a variety of leadership that has used Israel bashing for their own purposes for years. You have individuals who want to live in peace. But you have many religious leaderships playing the Jew-hating card, you have national media outlets (these are not free presses) exhorting hate. You have a majority believing that peace is not possible while Israel exists. More people in the occupied terrotories support Hamas than Abbas .. for now. More trust Bin-Laden as a world leader than anyone else. (That same Pew Research poll). This is not the same road to hoe as on the Israeli side.

To me this implies that no hug fest will be forth coming; it will be incremental steps. The PA's steps may be ineffectual at first but any real attempt at action (rather than words alone) should be met with significant concessions in return. As the PA can actually really deliver security then even bigger steps can be made by Israel.

jaybo
07-15-2003, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by OliverH
I am rather selective. It's my job as a scientist to be very selective as to what conclusions a given piece of data supports. I am not dismissing items I don't like as biased, I am dismissing items that are clearly agitatory as biased. I suggest you take a look at the websites cited, rather than just engaging in blind mudslinging.

As for unbiased sources, I suggest, for example, civilian Israeli courts. It is telling that the most ardent critics of the Palestinians point at Israel as a democracy while scoffing at the civilian courts' decisions.

It rather seems strange to me that those who accuse others of trusting only sources suitable to their agenda themselves dismiss anything contrary to their opinion outright. I cited several other sources which have little reason to be biased pro-Palestinian, being Israeli Jews, and some of them being charged with Israel's security. Strangely enough, their positions are far from the vociferous rants produced by IMRA. By academic standards, an explanation is only credible if it explains ALL available data.

Oliver, I must echo dreid's sentiment that the other guy's sources are dismissed as biased if you don't happen to agree w/them. moreover, it is self serving to cite as unbiased sources Israelis who take issue w/government policies. I have witnessed Americans argue anti-American canards who are hardly unbiased. They are just biased in your direction and are hardly credible as they don't explain ALL available data.

So, let's pose the question a different way. What sources do you deem credible that do not agree with your world view?

OliverH
07-16-2003, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by DSeid
Oliver,

It scares me to think that science is being done by people who think like you. You do not like the conclusion so the data must be faked. Boy.



Never said such a thing. I said the cites don't prove a thing.


On the Israeli side there is a small group that has eyes on a greater Israel. There is a smaller number who just hate Arabs at this point. But mostly there are a large number of people who want peace, are willing to give up most of the West Bank and to compromise on Jerusalum, and give money at least to settle the so called "Right to Return" issue, if they were sure that peace would result. But many are hardened by the failure of negotiated approaches in the past and have become nearly convinced by much rhetoric from the other side, as well as actions of the few, that negotiations can never work. Winning these people back to the side of hope in a peaceful solution that does not involve resorting to forced seperations or worse will not be easy. Still a majority believe that negotiations can work and believe that the PA is currently sincere in the effort to get there.

Your statements are contradicted by Israeli election results.


On the Arab side you have a variety of leadership that has used Israel bashing for their own purposes for years. You have individuals who want to live in peace. But you have many religious leaderships playing the Jew-hating card, you have national media outlets (these are not free presses) exhorting hate. You have a majority believing that peace is not possible while Israel exists. More people in the occupied terrotories support Hamas than Abbas .. for now. More trust Bin-Laden as a world leader than anyone else. (That same Pew Research poll). This is not the same road to hoe as on the Israeli side.


It isn't? The Israelis, after all, trust Sharon to bring peace. The same man who has been found to share responsibility in the slaughter of hundreds of Palestinian refugees by an official Israeli investigation.


To me this implies that no hug fest will be forth coming; it will be incremental steps. The PA's steps may be ineffectual at first but any real attempt at action (rather than words alone) should be met with significant concessions in return. As the PA can actually really deliver security then even bigger steps can be made by Israel.

To deliver security, you need a security infrastructure. That same infrastructure has consistently been destroyed by the Israelis. The PA has repeatedly engaged in armed conflicts with militants. Live bullets. Real dead people on both sides, and occasionally even bystanders. As such, talking about the PA delivering real attempts at action rather than words alone as an event that is still to happen is declaring that dead people are negligible, and that shootouts are sandbox games. It is strange that Israel's extrajudicial executions by using anti-tank missiles against cars is seen as legitimate self-defense, but Palestinian security putting their lives on the line is happily ignored. I do not deny that there have been serious problems, but there have also been plenty of problems that have been actively caused by the Israelis, such as militants being released from prison by their comrades when the security personnel had fled the building as it was bombed.

OliverH
07-16-2003, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by jaybo
Oliver, I must echo dreid's sentiment that the other guy's sources are dismissed as biased if you don't happen to agree w/them. moreover, it is self serving to cite as unbiased sources Israelis who take issue w/government policies. I have witnessed Americans argue anti-American canards who are hardly unbiased. They are just biased in your direction and are hardly credible as they don't explain ALL available data.

So, let's pose the question a different way. What sources do you deem credible that do not agree with your world view?

I am sorry, but if you dismiss court decisions as anti-anything diatribes, I don't think we can ever come on a common basis.

As for your talk about Americans arguing anti-American canards, you are either talking paradox, or you are considering YOUR world view as the only American world view. In which case I once again see little chance for us to come to a common basis.

I am sorry, but the arguments you have presented in this post suggest to me a serious lack of support for democratic principles and the rule of law. It also suggests to me that you hold others to higher standards than yourself. So far, all you have done is precisely what you have accused me of doing, and as such, your accusations hold little ground.

Once you can accept that someone criticising a government is not anti-anything, let alone a nation, and once you stop considering regular courts as biased political agitators, there might be some headway to make. But as long as all you can say is that 'Anyone who supports my opinion is unbiased, and anyone who doesn't think so is biased', there is little chance for a productive exchange of opinions.

I have shown why I consider IMRA biased, and why I consider their translations untrustworthy. It might be that they comply with your standards of good journalism, but most certainly not with mine.

Noone Special
07-16-2003, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by OliverH
The PA has repeatedly engaged in armed conflicts with militants. Live bullets. Real dead people on both sides, and occasionally even bystanders. As such, talking about the PA delivering real attempts at action rather than words alone as an event that is still to happen is declaring that dead people are negligible, and that shootouts are sandbox games.

This did happen WAY back (after the Oslo accords, in the 1990's). Please show me where the PA has actively "engaged in armed conflicts with militants" at any time since September 2000. I must have failed to see it from where I am standing. Maybe it's the smoke (from the suicide bombs) getting in my eyes. Sorry, I can't help ranting just a little.


Also, you earlier mentioned Amira Hass as an example of an Israeli getting along with Palestinians but not with other Israelis. You fail to mention that Amira Hass is to Israeli Journalism roughly what Salman Rushdi is to Islamic Literature. I.e., very interesting, often (but far from always) right in the face of much chauvinism, but WAY controversial in both her topics and the treatment of them. And having read her, I'd have to say that (perhaps unlike Rushdi) she seems to enjoy the role of enfante terrible immensely. She also has a major daily newspaper platform to write upon. Not exactly an example of your average Middle-of-the-Roader being kicked in the teeth by the Establishment.

Which is not to say that a solution, entailing MAJOR concessions on BOTH sides, won't have to be reached eventually. But that's a completely different topic. I'll stick with the (hijacked) one of who hates whom harder. At this the answer is probably (and unfortunately) "both".

Alessan
07-16-2003, 08:33 AM
Amira Hass is also one of the few remaining Jewish members of the Israeli Communist Party. Take that as you will.

OliverH
07-21-2003, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by Noone Special
This did happen WAY back (after the Oslo accords, in the 1990's). Please show me where the PA has actively "engaged in armed conflicts with militants" at any time since September 2000. I must have failed to see it from where I am standing. Maybe it's the smoke (from the suicide bombs) getting in my eyes. Sorry, I can't help ranting just a little.




There were major clashes in Gaza after the assassination of a senior security official last October ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2307021.stm )
In early 2002, the leader of the PFLP was arrested by Palestinian Security. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1762654.stm)
albeit without military conflict.

Late in 2001, a leader of Islamic Jihad was arrested after a gun battle in Gaza.

And I don't think that pointing at time when every palestinian security officer had to care most for not being shot by the IDF when it was running rampant all across the Palestinian territories last year is particularly meaningful.


Also, you earlier mentioned Amira Hass as an example of an Israeli getting along with Palestinians but not with other Israelis. You fail to mention that Amira Hass is to Israeli Journalism roughly what Salman Rushdi is to Islamic Literature. I.e., very interesting, often (but far from always) right in the face of much chauvinism, but WAY controversial in both her topics and the treatment of them. And having read her, I'd have to say that (perhaps unlike Rushdi) she seems to enjoy the role of enfante terrible immensely. She also has a major daily newspaper platform to write upon. Not exactly an example of your average Middle-of-the-Roader being kicked in the teeth by the Establishment.


I mentioned her as an example of someone having one-on-one contact with Palestinians, something DSeid called necessary. And I pointed to the fact that she lived among Palestinians as suggesting it was possible for an israeli Jew to do so without being murdered, and that the clashed with Settlers have, perhaps, other reasons than murderous antisemitism.

Not the least, however, there's plenty of other Israeli journalists who do not share the ideas posted by others here. I refer you to Arnon Regular's Q&A on Palestinian Politics at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/QA.jhtml?qaNo=53&m=53

Noone Special
07-21-2003, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by OliverH


There were major clashes in Gaza after the assassination of a senior security official last October ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2307021.stm )


from Same BBC link:
Gun battles left at least two people dead in Gaza City after about 20 armed militants posing as Palestinian policemen ambushed and killed a senior security official.

(bolding mine)

So - not a case of Palestinian Authority cracking down on terrorists.

Originally posted by OliverH


In early 2002, the leader of the PFLP was arrested by Palestinian Security. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1762654.stm)
albeit without military conflict.

This refers to the arrest of Mr Saadat, who participated in the murder of Israeli Minister Rehavam Ze'evi. He was then put under international "watch" in a hotel in Jericho, along with the other members of the group. and I believe he was later released. His "arrest" was ONLY meant to avoid Israel attempting to put their hands on Mr. Saadat, not to do any kind of real justice.

Originally posted by OliverH


I mentioned [Amira Hass] as an example of someone having one-on-one contact with Palestinians, something DSeid called necessary. And I pointed to the fact that she lived among Palestinians as suggesting it was possible for an israeli Jew to do so without being murdered, and that the clashed with Settlers have, perhaps, other reasons than murderous antisemitism.


It's easy enough to gain access and acceptance to a group if you come out saying, essentially, "I think my side is wrong and your side is right, and I'll report it that way". Note: I am not saying this is treason. It is a legitimate POV to say "My country is wrong". But it doesn't quite qualify as "living with the enemy" as you are trying to portray it.

E.g., Peter Arnett in Iraq (certainly in part II, probably in part I)