Israel Palestine Primer please

[Olentzero]

*Originally posted by tradesilicon *
And you would say that “spewing vitriolic hatred” is not appropriate toward those who would walk into a classroom and open fire with automatic weapons on school kids is not appropriate? Of course, I have not quoted any of those sources either, have I? Nice straw man.

The only straw man in this argument is your assertion above. You accused the sites I linked to of bias because they didn’t call the Palestinian suicide bombers criminals. The only way that would be true is if avowedly pro-Israel sites admitted that Israeli settlements in the West Bank were also criminal. Additionally, I’d love to see any cites you have that Palestinian terrorists have walked into classrooms and fired automatic weapons at schoolchildren.

I’m well aware of the entire chronology on the site I’ve linked to, and I’m well aware that before 1948 there was violence on both sides. What I’m trying to understand here is how the incidents I quoted in my last post are examples of Israel defending itself.

Mind you, this source makes no qualms about reporting the aggression by both sides.

The source seems to have plenty of qualms about including quotes like the following:

Between ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both peoples together in this country. We shall not achieve our goal if the Arabs are in this small country. There is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries - all of them. Not one village, not one tribe should be left.

–Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency’s Colonization Department, 1940

There are some who believe that the non-Jewish population, even in a high percentage, within our borders will be more effectively under our surveillance; and there are some who believe the contrary, i.e., that it is easier to carry out surveillance over the activities of a neighbor than over those of a tenant. (I) tend to support the latter view and have an additional argument: …the need to sustain the character of the state which will henceforth be Jewish …with a non-Jewish minority limited to fifteen percent. I had already reached this fundamental position as early as 1940 [and] it is entered in my diary.

–Weitz

We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.

–The Koenig Report on Handling the Arabs of Israel, 1976

We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves.

–Heilbrun, chariman of the Committee to Re-Elect Gen. Shlomo Lahat, Mayor of Tel-Aviv

We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters.

–Uri Lubrani, Ben-Gurion’s advisor on Arab affairs, 1960

We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel. …Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours.

–Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Armed Forces

When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do will be to scurry around like drugged roaches in a bottle.

–Eitan

After we become a strong force as the result of the creation of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine. The state will only be a stage in the realization of Zionism and its task is to prepare the ground for our expansion. The state will have to preserve order - not by preaching but with machine guns.

–David Ben-Gurion

My point here is not to keep on saying “Look how bad those stinky Zionists are!” but to demonstrate that just because a site on the Middle East talks about the violence on both sides doesn’t mean they’re completely unbiased and balanced.

Further, on your question about arms purchases (“Why would Israel need so many…”) how about the countries around them threatening to attack (and later doing so)? That seems like a smart move, to defend yourself.

What are they defending, though? Let’s look at a couple of numbers.

According to the CIA Factbook 2001, the population of Israel in July 2001 (estimated) was a shade under 6 million. 80.1% of that, or 4.75 million, is Jewish. Of those 4.75 million Jews, 3.77 million were born outside of Israel. In other words, roughly 2/3 of the present population of Israel immigrated there. This is certainly not to say that immigration is a bad thing and that immigrants should be kept out of wherever they wish to go to make a better living for themselves. But this immigration is backed by the explicitly stated goal of creating a country based on violent dispossession of the local population. Zionists can whine all they want about how they have to defend the soil of Eretz Yisroel from the warmongering Arab hordes, but the fact remains that they were the ones to start kicking sand in people’s faces.

So, back to my point, we can continue to list the events (from different points of view) which bring us to today, but what about today?

One secular, democratic state in which both Jews and Palestinians have full civil rights and reparations are made, either in cash or in kind, for the last fifty years’ dispossession. IOW, Israel as a political entity must cease to exist. This does not mean that the Jews who are living on the land have to be pushed out, nor is such an occurrence an automatic result of letting the Palestinians back onto the land. Such fears are based on the assumption that the Palestinians are a grubby bunch of Islamic warmongering madmen, which IMO borders on the racist.

[tradesilicon]

*Originally posted by Olentzero *
** The only straw man in this argument is your assertion above. You accused the sites I linked to of bias because they didn’t call the Palestinian suicide bombers criminals.

Wrong, stating that I was using biased cites, when in fact I was not, was your man o’ straw.

The only way that would be true is if avowedly pro-Israel sites admitted that Israeli settlements in the West Bank were also criminal.

Agreed, if not criminal (since the Palestinians don’t have a state, the land was “in play” so to speak, and the settlements are on very shaky ground), definitely not in good form. Even if I did not find such a cite from pro-Israeli groups, I did not disagree on that point. In fact I have questioned those settlements, and their reason for being where they are (in other threads).

Additionally, I’d love to see any cites you have that Palestinian terrorists have walked into classrooms and fired automatic weapons at schoolchildren.

Will do. I heard that in past weeks on ABC News, when it actually occurred I’m not sure, but will try to find.

What I’m trying to understand here is how the incidents I quoted in my last post are examples of Israel defending itself.

I think that has been made clear, but let me summarize: The Jews in the area were being attacked, even before the formation of the State of Israel, and in turn, found ways to defend themselves, and/or retaliate. However, the terrorist actions they took are also reprehensible. Reading the history a bit, I found few and far between where they targeted civilians, and acted to cause civilian casualties for casualties sake. Several actions against the British were aimed at Government officials, at a time when the British refused to let immigrants from Europe (they were allowed in, but with strict limits, and much lower limits than the Brits first led Jewish leaders to believe) into Palestine to escape persecution and extermination.

The source seems to have plenty of qualms about including quotes like the following:

–Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency’s Colonization Department, 1940

–Weitz

–The Koenig Report on Handling the Arabs of Israel, 1976

–Heilbrun, chariman of the Committee to Re-Elect Gen. Shlomo Lahat, Mayor of Tel-Aviv

–Uri Lubrani, Ben-Gurion’s advisor on Arab affairs, 1960

–Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Armed Forces

–Eitan

–David Ben-Gurion

Well, I guess it’s never enough for you, eh? I try.

My point here is not to keep on saying “Look how bad those stinky Zionists are!” but to demonstrate that just because a site on the Middle East talks about the violence on both sides doesn’t mean they’re completely unbiased and balanced.

Again, I try. You can always say that they can do better. I simply showed how extremely one-sided your argument was.

What are they defending, though? Let’s look at a couple of numbers.

Again, defending their country. I think we have been here before - a few posts back I said you simply don’t recognize that the State of Israel has a right to exist, and the whole of your argument is “they should not be there in the first place”.

One secular, democratic state in which both Jews and Palestinians have full civil rights …

Right, it would be nice, but what makes you think it is possible? Given the track record, doubtful. Well before the establishment of the State of Israel, a proposal was put forth for two states, a bigger Palestinian state, and a smaller Jewish state - Palestinians rejected this immediately. They fought for years to keep the Jews out, and continue to do so. Why would they suddenly “all get along”? Quite a bit of the same sentiment on the Jewish side, with the exception that they would be happy to live peacefully next to a Palestinian state, if their security was guaranteed.

For some reason, Jews and Palestinians are able to live in the U.S. and get along just fine - maybe it’s because there are very few bombs going off, and very few worries about who owns what land. Around here you buy it, you own it. I would vote for creating a 51st state Called Israstine or Palisrael, and have the U.S. in charge, with our laws and protection, but I fear both sides would turn it down for their own reasons. It would be interesting though, if it did happen, and the residents of the area were given freedom to move within the U.S., how many would remain in the area?

[Olentzero]

tradesilicon, if you honestly think there is a completely neutral, balanced, and unbiased stance on the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, there’s little I can do to stop you. But I think such a notion is completely and hopelessly naive.

Yes, we can probably go on for another two pages of “Well, the Israelis did this” - “Yeah, but the Palestinians did that” - “Well, Ben-Gurion said this” - “Yeah, but the Mufti of Jerusalem said that” …and not really get anywhere. The whole thing boils down to one issue: the legitimacy of the Zionist goal of a creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. You believe the goal is legitimate, so therefore Israel is defending itself. I believe the goal is illegitimate, so therefore Israel is an occupying and dispossessing power.

Given the fact that the Zionists had to rely first on the British Empire to establish the State of Israel and then the United States to keep it economically and militarily afloat, and that neither Britain, the Zionists, nor the United States sought the input of the Palestinians in their decisions, it seems more likely to me that the Palestinians are the ones on the defensive, rather than the other way around.

This is my final post in this thread, as I’m not really interested in creating another monster like the “abolition of money” deal we had just before the February hacking. I’m pretty much done.

[tradesilicon]

*Originally posted by Olentzero *
**[Yes, we can probably go on for another two pages of “Well, the Israelis did this” - “Yeah, but the Palestinians did that” - “Well, Ben-Gurion said this” - “Yeah, but the Mufti of Jerusalem said that” …and not really get anywhere. The whole thing boils down to one issue: the legitimacy of the Zionist goal of a creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. You believe the goal is legitimate, so therefore Israel is defending itself. I believe the goal is illegitimate, so therefore Israel is an occupying and dispossessing power.

Sheesh, I said this two pages ago!

Given the fact that the Zionists had to rely first on the British Empire to establish the State of Israel and then the United States to keep it economically and militarily afloat, and that neither Britain, the Zionists, nor the United States sought the input of the Palestinians in their decisions, it seems more likely to me that the Palestinians are the ones on the defensive, rather than the other way around.

Not trying to drag you back in, but since there was never a Palestinian state, but rather Palestinians lived in the area, as did Jews, under other peoples’ rule for quite some time, and Palestinians had to rely on Arab nations, U.S., Europe, etc. for their support, we are right back at that stale mate.