End of Israel?

[graffic]

A Lebanese man recently told me that Israel will always be there. It will never go away. "The Zionists will have their children there and their children will die there" - It was something like that.

However, after the attack on the flotilla the majority of world opinion seems yet again against Israel. Even the UK stepped up attack this time, William Hague strongly condemned it as opposed to Tony Blair who refused to condemn the assault on Lebanon in 2006. And of course now Turkey, Israel's only strong ally in the Middle East, with the rise of Islam, is now shunning the Jewish state.

If U.S.A stops funding the Jewish state I would imagine the Zionists would either re-settle in Europe or America or stay and await persecution from a Palestinian authority or they would use weapons they already have to take on the world. Perhaps die at the end of it but go down fighting.

[Bud Struggle]

If U.S.A stops funding the Jewish state I would imagine the Zionists would either re-settle in Europe or America or stay and await persecution from a Palestinian authority or they would use weapons they already have to take on the world. Perhaps die at the end of it but go down fighting.

America has to stop funding Israel. Without money people will have to start to work together. There needs to be one state (preferably not called Israel OR Palestine) for the people in that area.

At that point extremism by either side should be stopped.

[graffic]

Why does America fund Israel in the first place?

[Che a chara]

Israel's going nowhere folks. They have too much power and capital, even if the US limits ties with them, they'll still command a lot of collateral, and fire power to not exist. The proper scenario is for the US to kick Israel in the balls and recommend sanctions if they don't adhere to law and human rights and stop settlements on occupied territory.

Israel are their own worst enemy that any attack on them now will be like a 'preventive war' type scenario. They have made their bed so they'll have to lie in it.

[Che a chara]

America has to stop funding Israel. Without money people will have to start to work together. There needs to be one state (preferably not called Israel OR Palestine) for the people in that area.

At that point extremism by either side should be stopped.

one state ? no chance Bud mucks. They are two totally different cultures and religions. Both very incompatible and too much history and bloodshed has occurred.

The 2 state solution is what should be worked towards. As long as Israel vastly cuts it's boundaries and East Jerusalem is Palestinian territory, then I don't see why Palestine will feel the need to further the war.

[graffic]

They are two totally different cultures and religions.

Its ironic that they are considered so different. Its like two brothers that hate each other yet have so much in common. There are a lot of similarities with Hebrew and Arabic culture. The Arab world is also very divided a long religious, cultural and language lines. Some people have an idea that the Middle East is a huge swathe of Arab Muslim countries who share a common enemy that is Israel. I heard somewhere that more Palestinians are killed by Palestinians than by Israelis. I wouldn't be surprised if thats true. Palestine is incredibly sectarian, as is Israel. Perhaps its the weather over there

I can symapthise with Israeli jewish attitude that fears persecution under an Arab authority and I can of course symapthise with the palestinian attitude that they have been displaced and are suffering. But, as many people say, I think its the west bank extremist settlers and the fundamentalist, anti-modernist Hamas and Hizbullah who are blinded by religious nationalism who fuel the animosity that leads to regular violence. They need to get two-states: Israel and Palestine

[Bud Struggle]

one state ? no chance Bud mucks. They are two totally different cultures and religions. Both very incompatible and too much history and bloodshed has occurred.

The 2 state solution is what should be worked towards. As long as Israel vastly cuts it's boundaries and East Jerusalem is Palestinian territory, then I don't see why Palestine will feel the need to further the war.

Maybe--but Israel is never going to give up East Jerusalem. On the other hand there is exactly no reason Israel should still hold the West Bank or have any say over what goes on in Gaza.

East Jerusalem being an "International City" might work.

[Che a chara]

Yeah probably saying they are 2 totally different peoples is a bit dramatic. Incompatible would be the right word.

[Dimentio]

Israel's going nowhere folks. They have too much power and capital, even if the US limits ties with them, they'll still command a lot of collateral, and fire power to not exist. The proper scenario is for the US to kick Israel in the balls and recommend sanctions if they don't adhere to law and human rights and stop settlements on occupied territory.

Israel are their own worst enemy that any attack on them now will be like a 'preventive war' type scenario. They have made their bed so they'll have to lie in it.

There is a reason that Israel is getting tens of billions of dollars of the USA each year, and that is that their army in relation to their economy is bloated. The US aid is literally their lifeline. If Israel wants to survive without US aid, the ordinary Israelis must see their standard of life drop quite much. That would also mean that Israel's army will need to develop all of its own technologies, or buy weapons from other sources than the west, which will mean a continuing dropping standard of the quality of the arms.

Israel would most likely not accept that though, and there is a risk that they could unleash the "Samson scenario".

[freepalestine]

Why does America fund Israel in the first place?what does that mean then?comrade


Its ironic that they are considered so different. Its like two brothers that hate each other yet have so much in common. There are a lot of similarities with Hebrew and Arabic culture. The Arab world is also very divided a long religious, cultural and language lines. Some people have an idea that the Middle East is a huge swathe of Arab Muslim countries who share a common enemy that is Israel. I heard ..... I wouldn't be surprised if thats true. Palestine is incredibly sectarian, as is Israel. Perhaps its the weather over there

I can symapthise with Israeli jewish attitude that fears persecution under an Arab authority and I can of course symapthise with the palestinian attitude that they have been displaced and are suffering. But, as many people say, I think its the west bank extremist settlers and the fundamentalist, anti-modernist Hamas and Hizbullah who are blinded by religious nationalism who fuel the animosity that leads to regular violence. They need to get two-states: Israel and Palestine
although you arent clued up on the history of the levant ,that's the best post youve ever written as a zionist.although you seem to like the idea of divisions,palestine took in many refugees and opressed in the times of the ottoman empire.chaldean,circassian,armenian,etcetera.and is a diverse nation.for instance,i'm not muslim(nor religious),and have 'arabjew+arabchristian' palestinian ,family background .
as for anyone living under a palestinian authority.get real.one state solution means an equal state.not a reversed occupation.
check what zionism has done in palestine(and the levant countries),before getting ahead of yourself.

[graffic]

although you arent clued up on the history of the levant ,that's the best post youve ever written as a zionist.

Thanks for the label. Perhaps I will address you as "Palestinian nationalist" from now on, or not.



as for anyone living under a palestinian authority.get real.one state solution means an equal state.not a reversed occupation.


Great.

[freepalestine]

it's not about nationalism.it's about zionism as a racist ideaology,grafic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FipR2FdNlbw

[Bud Struggle]

In their own way both the Israelis and Palestinians are equally racist. The problems is that right now the Israelis hold the upper hand. The field need to be flattened--and that should be the removal of US aid--or maybe mutual aid to both the Israelis and Palestinians only if they work together.

[freepalestine]

apart from that being a sweeping statement bud.
zionist fascism has held the upperhand,since they came to palestine 80 years ago.

[graffic]

it's not about nationalism.it's about zionism as a racist ideaology,grafic.
[/YOUTUBE]

You know that not all Zionists are the same, and not all Zionists are racists. You also know that Hamas and Hizbullah are also psychotic racists.

Its not about "zionism as a racist ideology", its much more than that. I like the video, very nice music.

[Dean]

Its ironic that they are considered so different. Its like two brothers that hate each other yet have so much in common. There are a lot of similarities with Hebrew and Arabic culture. The Arab world is also very divided a long religious, cultural and language lines. Some people have an idea that the Middle East is a huge swathe of Arab Muslim countries who share a common enemy that is Israel. I heard somewhere that more Palestinians are killed by Palestinians than by Israelis. I wouldn't be surprised if thats true. Palestine is incredibly sectarian, as is Israel. Perhaps its the weather over there

Its not ironic and its not the "weather." It's the introduction of foreign imperialism and a white nationalist regime responsible for systematic ethnic cleansing that causes the conflict. Its quite simple if you're not averse to the facts.

[graffic]

Just read that post above... "Zionist fascism" :rolleyes:

Great thing about the internet is that I can just leave this page right now, rather than have to politely ask to end a discussion and physically leave a room. I shouldn't have expected anything else from you actually,"Freepalestine".

[GreenCommunism]

It's the introduction of foreign imperialism and a white nationalist regime responsible for systematic ethnic cleansing that causes the conflict
i disagree with that, zionist terrorism happened during and after ww1 and it was hard to manage for the british. the holocaust did help, but not that much. it probably helped encourage immigration after like 10-20 years after the holocaust.

[Bud Struggle]

apart from that being a sweeping statement bud.
zionist fascism has held the upperhand,since they came to palestine 80 years ago.

Yes, it was a bit too sweeping. A better way of saying it is that both the leadership of the Israelis and the Palestinians take a racist approach when dealing with their neighbors. And I agree that the Israelis have had the upper hand for a long time--and that must be ended.

But as long as both sides continue their race based, religion based feud with the other there is litle hope of peace. I don't think either side has the capibility to reason their way out of this situation and so if there is a solution is has to be imposed from the outside.

America for all its tarnish reputation is still the best choice but their misguided support of the Israeli state has to stop and humanitarian (not military) aid should be given to both sides fairly.

[Left-Reasoning]

There needs to be no state for the people in that area.

Fixed.

[graffic]

Its not ironic and its not the "weather." It's the introduction of foreign imperialism and a white nationalist regime responsible for systematic ethnic cleansing that causes the conflict. Its quite simple if you're not averse to the facts.

You completely misunderstood my point. I didn't mention causes of the conflict, I was saying its ironic that many people see both sides as being very different when they actually share a lot in common.

[bricolage]

I think if we are talking about of a potential 'end' of Israel, it's going to come from demographics. The birth rate in the Palestinian territories and of the Arab population is far outstripping that of the Israeli population, meaning it won't be long until they are governing as a complete minority. In many ways the Jewish state will be increasingly untenable if this were to happen. Even Israeli politicians are wary of this; http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/03/barak-apartheid-palestine-peace

[GreenCommunism]

i don't know, the orthodox are making alot of children.

[bricolage]

i don't know, the orthodox are making alot of children.

The birth rates are not the same though and in the Palestinian territories the birth rates are not as a divided as they are in Israel between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews.
Plus no more than say 20% of the Israeli population are Orthodox Jews.
Although last time I checked all this data was a while ago, the levels might have changed a bit by now.

[Ele'ill]

Why does America fund Israel in the first place?


Israel is basically an autonomous US military base. Ok that was kind of sarcastic. Kind of.

[Dean]

You completely misunderstood my point. I didn't mention causes of the conflict, I was saying its ironic that many people see both sides as being very different when they actually share a lot in common.

Ah, but later on you posited arguments in reference to why the conflict exists, and they were wrong. Do you agree with my representation or not?

[syndicat]

Zionism was created in eastern Europe and was a European colonialist ideology, based on a racist sense of entitlement and superiority towards a an indigenous population in a third world country. Ilan Pappe's "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" gives a very well researched account of the period in 1947-48 when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were driven out of the country their ancestors had lived in for centuries. He shows that the executive committee of the Zionist movement, headed by Ben Gurion, clearly intended to use force to ethnically cleanse as much of Palestine as they could get away with. The UN partition committee was naive. In the absence of any armed force to defend the Palestinians...who had been largely disarmed by the Brits after the Palestinian riots and rebelliions of the '30s...the Palestinians were sitting ducks for the well armed Hagana and Zionist paramilitary groups like Irgun. Over 400 Palestinian villages were completely wiped out.

Of course the USA itself, being founded as a European settler state, was also formed by ethnic cleansing of the indigenous. It's just that those actions took place back in the 1600s to 1800s. The ethnic cleansing in Palestine has taken place continuously since 1947. The state of Israel has not given up that founding ideology, but continuously pursues the same aim, bit by bit...the constant new settlements in the West Bank, the seizure of the hill acquifer in the West Bank, the hoarding of Palestinians into the Gaza prison camp (all of Gaza is a prison camp). And all of these actions being done in continuous violation of what passes for international law, such as the fourth Geneva convention. Thus the Israel blockade of Gaza is itself an entirely illegal operation, but Israel has been able to act continously while thumbing its nose at world opinion, due to the billions in aid it receives from the USA. In destroying the infrastructure in Gaza and making life extremely miserable there, Israel encourages Palestinians to leave Palestine...which is the ultimate aim of Zionism.

Internally the Palestinians within Israel, who are citizens of Israel, are second-class citizens. They do not have equal rights with Jewish Israelis. A huge part of the land of Israel is held for occupation and use by Jews only.

Israel receives this aid because of the role Israel plays as an outpost of imperialism in the mideast. Israel is by far the strongest military power in the region, and staunch ally of the USA and western capitalist interests.

A solution would be for Israel to grant equal rights to Palestinians and annex Gaza and West Bank, and recognize the right to return of Palestinians forced out. Israel won't do this unless forced to because Jews would again become a minority in Palestine as they were in 1947.

It's very likely that many of the Palestinians are descendants of the ancient Judeans, who were later converted to Islam or Christianity.

[graffic]

Ah, but later on you posited arguments in reference to why the conflict exists, and they were wrong. Do you agree with my representation or not?

Just re-read the post, I see what you mean now.

I disagree with this yes:"the introduction of foreign imperialism and a white nationalist regime responsible for systematic ethnic cleansing that causes the conflict"

There have been tensions before the introduction of foreign imperialism and, as Quaterback says, for a long period in history. If you replace the word ethnic cleansing with genocide, both sides bear responsibility for genocide. If a Palestinian authority had more power, evidence suggests it would ethnically cleanse Palestine of Jews. Its wrong that Israelis have the upper hand, but the ideology of Hamas and Hizbullah, as we know, is anti-modernist, religious and of course nationalist. Its like the Christian Right in America only more violent and less agreeable with western liberal democracy.

Although I know generally what it means, I just typed "white nationalist" into wikipedia. Although its not an absolutely reliable source, the definition is "all white state... social Darwinism...National Socialism" and more.

I'm confused you use that phrase since I'm presuming you know that Israeli Jews can be dark skinned, and presumably you know Zionism is not the same as "white nationalism". Secondly, I'm presuming you know that Israel's not based on any form of social darwinism etc, thats an anti-semitic idea of Jews seeing themselves as superior and entitled to more than others. Presuming you know those things, don't know why you use that term

[syndicat]

If a Palestinian authority had more power, evidence suggests it would ethnically cleanse Palestine of Jews.

but in the late '40s there was no sign of Palestinians taking any such position. They don't operate with an exclusivist ideology which is what Zionism is.

[graffic]

but in the late '40s there was no sign of Palestinians taking any such position. They don't operate with an exclusivist ideology which is what Zionism is.

Saying Zionism is an "exclusivist ideology" is a pretty bold statement. Plenty of Zionists were opposed to the domination of the local population and worked to include them in the kibbutz system. There were divisions within the intellectual movement of Zionism. The pre-war Jewish Agency was dominated by socialist thinkers who wanted to work with the native Arab population. Zionism only became nationalist and statist ideology after WW2.

The Arabs living in the area considered themselves Jordanians or South Syrians. The British allowed Jewish immigration so that it wasn't a strain on the Palestinian people and their local economy. Sometimes Britain advocated immigration, other times they wanted to pull back or stop it entirely. In the end a two state solution was proposed in which Jerusalem would become an international city. Israel accepted the proposal while the Arabs declined.

The Israeli Declaration was far from exclusivist ". . . we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions--provisional and permanent."

But then that never happened... Surrounding Arab states invaded Israel to wipe it out, but they got their asses kicked. About 700,000 Palestinians left their land because of the war. Immediately after the war, there was some flexibility with returning property to refugees, but for the most part Israel claimed that it didn't have a legal responsibility to return the land. In 1949 Israel said it would be willing to look at land return or at the very least compensation, however only within the context of peace agreements with Arab countries. Unfortunately Arab countries declined to hold such agreements.

You say the Palestinians didn't have their own version of nationalism however I'm presuming you know there was never such thing as a "Palestinian" people. Israel is the ancestral homeland of a nationless people, the Arab Palestinians are the remnants of very recent Muslim Imperialism. And you blame Zionists trying to cope with the fuckin' holocaust for being "exclusivist", despite the fact that a significant portion were socialist and open to working with the local population.

[mikelepore]

There needs to be one state (preferably not called Israel OR Palestine) for the people in that area.

You're on the right track there. I say the "two state solution" is a horrible idea. The lasting solution will be when no one may expel anyone from anywhere, when there is an expectation that one's next door neighbors may speak different languages, practice different religions, etc., and all of the people will share the same neighborhood and go to to same workplaces and schools. This idea isn't too radical, it just has to be pushed boldly by a new generation in spite of the people who say that it's impossible. This idea may have be forced into effect by a slim majority over the strongest objections of a significant minority, and it will be hard for about ten years at the most and after that a lot easier. Administration of society must be carried out by people for being human beings, not for being Jews or Palestinians. In short, the solution for the middle east is exactly the same as the solution for Montgomery, Alabama around 1960, which is ethnic integration, with just a change of the ethnic labels. No other outcome deserves to be considered.

[syndicat]

first of all you're wrong about pre-WW2 Zionism. Herzl was explicitly anti-socialist and you can find intensions of displacing the Palestinians from that earlier time. for example, the strategy of the Jewish Agency was to buy land from absentee Palestinian landlords and then expel all the Palestinian peasants. and this land held to this day excludes non-Jews.


Surrounding Arab states invaded Israel to wipe it out, but they got their asses kicked. About 700,000 Palestinians left their land because of the war. Immediately after the war, there was some flexibility with returning property to refugees, but for the most part Israel claimed that it didn't have a legal responsibility to return the land. In 1949 Israel said it would be willing to look at land return or at the very least compensation, however only within the context of peace agreements with Arab countries. Unfortunately Arab countries declined to hold such agreements.


this is Zionist propaganda. The Arab states made no serious attempt to defend the Palestinian population. The only actual force of any consequence was the Arab Legion, which is why the Zionist armies didn't seize the West Bank. moreover, Hagana and the other paramilitaries entered Palestinian villages without any provocation and murdered people or forced them to leave. The massive Palestinian population of Haifa was forced out at gunpoint, through artillery bombardments and such. again, read "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" by Ilan Pappe.



You say the Palestinians didn't have their own version of nationalism


you're putting words in my mouth. that's not what I said. I said they didn't have an exclusivist ideology. in 1947 there was no uprising of the Palestinians against the Jews and the Palestinians most often were simply surprised when armed Jewish paramilitaries entered their peaceful villages, sand without any provocation, ordering them to go. There had been before 1947 an intelligence operation by the Jewish paramilitary organization to find out who the local leaders and nationalists were in the villages. These people were systematically targeted for assassination in these incursions into the Palestinian villages. More than 400 Palestinian villages were simply wiped out. moreover, this operation began BEFORE there was any significant presence of foreign Arab armies. according to memoirs from 1947-48 leaders like Ben Gurion WANTED an Arab invasion to give them cover for their ethnic cleansing operation. And in the diaries and memoirs from the executive committee meeting of the Jewish leaders, they talked openly about "cleansing" the area of the "dirty Arabs". it's just that they didn't say this so often for public consumption.


however I'm presuming you know there was never such thing as a "Palestinian" people. Israel is the ancestral homeland of a nationless people, the Arab Palestinians are the remnants of very recent Muslim Imperialism. And you blame Zionists trying to cope with the fuckin' holocaust for being "exclusivist", despite the fact that a significant portion were socialist and open to working with the local population.

again, this is Zionist propaganda. there had been a Palestinian nationalist movement in the '30s which demanded independence from Britain. There is no reason to believe the ancestors of the Palestinians were simply people who moved into the area during some Muslim invasion. In fact their ancestors had lived there for centuries, and it is very likely that many of them are descendants of the ancient Judeans.

great way to show you're open to "working with the local population": come into their villages, seek out and assassinate their leaders, and either murder the population (as happened in several cases) or force them out at gunpoint.

[freepalestine]

Saying Zionism is an "exclusivist ideology" is a pretty bold statement. Plenty of Zionists were opposed to the domination of the local population and worked to include them in the kibbutz system. There were divisions within the intellectual movement of Zionism. The pre-war Jewish Agency was dominated by socialist thinkers who wanted to work with the native Arab population. Zionism only became nationalist and statist ideology after WW2.zionism is an exclusivist ideology,it's a fact.to say that zionists wanted to coexist as equals is far from the reallity of what zionists at the time planned.zionism is a colonialist ideology,they had no reason to accept the existence of the people who may (or may not???)have been residing in palestine.zionism was a nationalist,western colonialist project from the outset.to claim early zionism as socialist is a pretty bold statement also,in my opinion.it's obvious that the ideas of the ultra right wing of zionism( ,jabotinsky etal)is much in the ascendency these days,and has been for years.has for palestinians on kibbutz-what has cheap third world labour?in their own country.


The Arabs living in the area considered themselves Jordanians or South Syrians. you may pull the wool over some people's eyes with statements like that. obviously you would also say that there is already apalestinian state ,namely jordan.maybe that's a bold statement for you to say on here ,also.
n.b.jordan was a creation of the zionists and british imperialism.don't speak about palestinian history of which you are using revisionist arguments,and further know little about.read shlomo sand's book ;l


The British allowed Jewish immigration so that it wasn't a strain on the Palestinian people and their local economy. Sometimes Britain advocated immigration, other times they wanted to pull back or stop it entirely. In the end a two state solution was proposed in which Jerusalem would become an international city. Israel accepted the proposal while the Arabs declined.

The Israeli Declaration was far from exclusivist ". . . we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions--provisional and permanent."

But then that never happened... Surrounding Arab states invaded Israel to wipe it out, but they got their asses kicked. About 700,000 Palestinians left their land because of the war.immediately after the war, there was some flexibility with returning property to refugees, but for the most part Israel claimed that it didn't have a legal responsibility to return the land. In 1949 Israel said it would be willing to look at land return or at the very least compensation, however only within the context of peace agreements with Arab countries. Unfortunately Arab countries declined to hold such agreements.
the british were fully complicit in the setting up of the zionist state.
you may be aware that the arab states didnt enter the areas of palestine given to the zionists,they arrived to protect the palestinians within the 47%areas of palestine left to the natives.this has you might be aware was due to the ethnic cleansing of palestinians in the zionist portion of palestine which had 50% of palestinian arabs dwelling.and spilled over into the u.n.'s designated sector for the palestinians. the zionists wanted them out of all palestine-(and maybe jordan,syria,lebanon which hasnt happened,),see plan dalet and other sources of your socalled socialist zionism and its policies of ethnic cleansing!



You say the Palestinians didn't have their own version of nationalism however I'm presuming you know there was never such thing as a "Palestinian" people. Israel is the ancestral homeland of a nationless people, the Arab Palestinians are the remnants of very recent Muslim Imperialism. And you blame Zionists trying to cope with the fuckin' holocaust for being "exclusivist", despite the fact that a significant portion were socialist and open to working with the local population.so now you resort to the usual right wing zionist revisionism,"the "palestinian people" never existed as a people.the palestinians have always been in palestine,judea,cannan or whatever name was given in history books.the palestinians were the original people of that land.like other peoples through history,they changed from religion to religion be it judaism,christianity,islam,samaritan or whatever.just has say russians,morroccans,south arabians,ukranians and people in the caucus's changed from one religion to another relgion,through their history.
european zionists wanted an excusionist european colonialist settler state ,excluded the native peoples,by ethnic cleansing .

[Mahatma Gandhi]

The Palestinian situation is unfortunate indeed, but it is equally true that not one Arab nation has so far helped the Palestinians. Blaming Israel in such a scenario is like blaming your neighbors for not feeding you when your own family has let you down.

[syndicat]

first of all, due to U.S. and other imperialist aid over the years, Israel is by far the strongest military power in the region. second, the Arab states are ruled by the local elites who are often complicit in or are allied with imperialism, as in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Egypt is the second largest recipient of U.S. military aid, and is a dictatorship, as the Arab states generally are. do you expect the elites of any country to aid the masses of even their own country much less another one?

[Gecko]

technology always advances and eventually becomes more accessible and manageable to a broader spectrum worldwide..
if this same historical principle holds for nuclear weapons then it's just a matter of time before third world states,groups or even perhaps individuals will be able to master that technology as well...
and that definitely would doom the existence of a tiny israel which could be wiped off the face of the earth with even a small nuke..

[Mahatma Gandhi]

first of all, due to U.S. and other imperialist aid over the years, Israel is by far the strongest military power in the region. second, the Arab states are ruled by the local elites who are often complicit in or are allied with imperialism, as in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Egypt is the second largest recipient of U.S. military aid, and is a dictatorship, as the Arab states generally are. do you expect the elites of any country to aid the masses of even their own country much less another one?

Good point. And that's why national liberation struggles are meaningless in the larger scheme of things. Liberation of Palestine is therefore the liberation of the Palestinian bourgeois from Israel; it does nothing for the workers in either Palestine or Israel.

[RGacky3]

The Palestinian situation is unfortunate indeed, but it is equally true that not one Arab nation has so far helped the Palestinians. Blaming Israel in such a scenario is like blaming your neighbors for not feeding you when your own family has let you down.

Thats like blaiming other African nations for South Africas Apartied, other Arab states are not occupying Gaza, they arn't blocading, they arn't building settlements, its Isreal.

[syndicat]

Good point. And that's why national liberation struggles are meaningless in the larger scheme of things. Liberation of Palestine is therefore the liberation of the Palestinian bourgeois from Israel; it does nothing for the workers in either Palestine or Israel.

but the Palestinians are oppressed as a people as well as being oppressed as working masses. zionism was a kind of European colonialist incursion, a settler state, with a racist subordination and displacement of the Palestinians. Israel is unwilling in any case to accept as a long term solution a real Palestinian state with equal sovereignty. their long term aim is to get rid of them, push them out and take over all of Palestine. a "two state" solution isn't really viable because it leaves untouched the problem of the Palestinians within Israel being second-class citizens without equal rights.

[Scary Monster]

technology always advances and eventually becomes more accessible and manageable to a broader spectrum worldwide..
if this same historical principle holds for nuclear weapons then it's just a matter of time before third world states,groups or even perhaps individuals will be able to master that technology as well...
and that definitely would doom the existence of a tiny israel which could be wiped off the face of the earth with even a small nuke..

Wow I didnt know Glenn Beck had a revleft.com account

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Jeez, talk about paranoid right-winger. I dont know how many times ive heard these asinine scare-mongering talking points from the likes of Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and such, during the past 10 years :lol:

[Bud Struggle]

zionism is an exclusivist ideology,it's a fact.to say that zionists wanted to coexist as equals is far from the reallity of what zionists at the time planned.zionism is a colonialist ideology,they had no reason to accept the existence of the people who may (or may not???)have been residing in palestine.zionism was a nationalist,western colonialist project from the outset.to claim early zionism as socialist is a pretty bold statement also,in my opinion.it's obvious that the ideas of the ultra right wing of zionism( ,jabotinsky etal)is much in the ascendency these days,and has been for years.has for palestinians on kibbutz-what has cheap third world labour?in their own country.

Oh stop it. The Moslems are as bad as the Jews when it comes to exclusivism: Sharia law. The particular exclusion of Christians and Jews in Moslem countries. The Moslem extremism. The fact that once a land is "Moslem" it can't become non Moslem. That lack of democratic freedom in any non USA dominated Moslem state.

There's nothing good or peaceful or egalitarian or democratic or Proletarian or Communist about anything Moslem. True, they have been discriminated against by the Israelis, true they are in that particular place of Palestine an oppressed people--but in the rest of the Moslem world they are as fine if not better oppressers of freedom than the Israelis.

[Dean]

Oh stop it. The Moslems are as bad as the Jews when it comes to exclusivism: Sharia law. The particular exclusion of Christians and Jews in Moslem countries. The Moslem extremism. The fact that once a land is "Moslem" it can't become non Moslem. That lack of democratic freedom in any non USA dominated Moslem state.

There's nothing good or peaceful or egalitarian or democratic or Proletarian or Communist about anything Moslem. True, they have been discriminated against by the Israelis, true they are in that particular place of Palestine an oppressed people--but in the rest of the Moslem world they are as fine if not better oppressers of freedom than the Israelis.
You don't seem to know what you're talking about. Sharia law is not xenophobic (though it can be), it exists in states as law that exclusively applies to muslims.

In addition, it has historically been Europeans who acted against Jews - the middle east has historically been a safe haven for Jews. Today, Iran is the primary middle-east safe-haven for Jews, with the largest Jewish population out of any Muslim nation.

The bottom line is that western hysteria about "evil Muslims" doesn't live up to the facts. Anti-Zionist claims, on the other hand, typically don't go far enough, due to Israel's overbearing presence in media propaganda.

[graffic]

@syndicat

You are completely mistaken about pre-WW2 Zionism. The Jewish Agency at this time was very influenced by the Russian Zionist Achad Ha-Am. Achad denounced the political Zionism of Herzl and condemned Jews that supported the concept of "a land without people for a people without land." He recognized the Arab presence in the region and denounced other Zionists who ignored the Arab question.

This is why the Jewish Agency worked together with the Zionist Fund to purchase land from Arab land owners, as well as work with local Arabs. Socialist Zionists advocating participating with the local Arab population were not the only left wing group. There were other less popular groups advocating equality between Jewish and Arab working classes in a "binational state".

Zionism is a much more complex ideology than what you are trying to simplistically paint it as. The nationalist wing of Zionism became much more prominent after WW2, which given the reality of anti-semitism and the holocaust at that time, doesn't surprise me.



in 1947 there was no uprising of the Palestinians against the Jews and the Palestinians most often were simply surprised when armed Jewish paramilitaries entered their peaceful villages, sand without any provocation, ordering them to go. There had been before 1947 an intelligence operation by the Jewish paramilitary organization to find out who the local leaders and nationalists were in the villages. These people were systematically targeted for assassination in these incursions into the Palestinian villages. More than 400 Palestinian villages were simply wiped out. moreover, this operation began BEFORE there was any significant presence of foreign Arab armies.

Again, complete bollocks. You want to make into an ethnic issue. In 1929, there was no Jewish state of Jewish military occupation, yet the Palestinians slaughtered untold numbers of Jews across the country in a series of progroms. One day in Hebron, 70 Jews were killed in riots. Between 1936 and 1939, 600 Jews were killed in riots. From the 1940's until the 1960's the Arab battle-cry was "drive the Jews into the sea".

Your problem with your ethnically reductionist take on the conflict is that you favour one type of ethnically defined nationalism over another.

Syria wanted to dominate the Arab areas of Palestine. King Abdullah of Transjordan would never have accepted Palestinian leadership in Palestine, nor Syrian leadership. He entered the war to dominate Palestine.

[Bud Struggle]

You don't seem to know what you're talking about. Sharia law is not xenophobic (though it can be), it exists in states as law that exclusively applies to muslims.Then please lets see you walk through any Moslem city wearing a croos or a mongen David around your neck. Let's see you discuss the advantages of Christ over Mohammed in Damascus or Mecca. My wife had to remove her Croos when we were in Gaza (when it was part of Israel.)


In addition, it has historically been Europeans who acted against Jews - the middle east has historically been a safe haven for Jews. Today, Iran is the primary middle-east safe-haven for Jews, with the largest Jewish population out of any Muslim nation. You are right--Europeans have had a long history of anti-Semistim, but that's changed and now it's focused in the Middle East. This is now.


The bottom line is that western hysteria about "evil Muslims" doesn't live up to the facts. Anti-Zionist claims, on the other hand, typically don't go far enough, due to Israel's overbearing presence in media propaganda. Both are bad. I'm no friend of Zionism, but I really don't think Moslem extremism is much better.

Religious and national and racial extremisn is ALL BAD.

Israel/Palestine should be an egalitarian non ethnic non religious part of the world. No one but the people should control it.

[Dean]

Again, complete bollocks. You want to make into an ethnic issue. In 1929, there was no Jewish state of Jewish military occupation, yet the Palestinians slaughtered untold numbers of Jews across the country in a series of progroms. One day in Hebron, 70 Jews were killed in riots. Between 1936 and 1939, 600 Jews were killed in riots. From the 1940's until the 1960's the Arab battle-cry was "drive the Jews into the sea".

This couldn't have been due to labor laws excluding Arabs from industry (in an attempt to make exclusively "Jewish" industry), and not as a result of massive dispossession of the Arab villager and peasant population:


The calvary of primitive accumulation or rather its Palestinian re-enactment, which is only the most striking act of a drama which has affected the entire region, dates back to the middle of the last century. It began in the year 1858 when the Ottoman Empire, to which Palestine and the other countries of the Near East belonged, promulgated its law on landed property. The only way this archaic and antiquated empire could compete with the modern powers of Europe, albeit briefly, was by accentuating its pressure on the peasant masses. The object of this law was to replace traditional collective or tribal ownership with individual land ownership. Rather than being paid collectively, taxes were henceforth to be levied on individuals. In the case of defaulted payment the individual would be held responsible, thereby weakening any resistance to the increased tax burden imposed by the state.

The peasants who shared the fruits and the use of the land according to the rules of village or tribal organisation, reacted in various ways to the new law. Some simply refused to conform to the law and never had their lands registered. At the time of the creation of the Israeli state in 1948, they were expelled from their lands on the pretext that they had no proof of ownership. Others included in their declaration to the state only that third which was cultivated annually, omitting the two-thirds that lay fallow. Still others registered an area less than the cultivated part, knowing well that the Ottoman state was not able to exercise effective control over everyone. Finally numerous villages registered their whole territory in the name of the village chiefs since they paid less tax or were exempt from taxation. The latter took advantage of the customs of the empire, whose immense size compelled the central power to buy off the village chiefs in order to dissuade them from assuming the leadership of peasant revolts.


Consequently the enforcement of the Ottoman Code led to a strengthening of the role of the village chiefs. Originally they became landowners «to render a service» to the peasants, but the day would surely come when their heirs would try to profit from this distinction that nobody had wanted. For its part, the state decided to apply that rule of the code by virtue of which lands without owners (in fact the fallow lands or any that had not been declared) should be considered property of the empire (called miri) and on the strength of this legal title began to sell land from vast estates to Lebanese, Syrian, Egyptian and Iranian merchants. These attempted to take over effective possession of the lands, with varied success depending on the degree of resistance by the peasants. Those who were not successful retained their titles to the land which they sold to Zionist organisations a few years later at quite handsome prices.


Wait. The empire stole lands from the Arabs and the Zionists bought the land? Let's see:



Zionist capital had already attempted to set up colonies in Palestine before the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Yet it was only able to implement its plan on a large scale under the British mandate, in particular with assistance from the Rothschild Foundation3 (http://libcom.org/history/agonising-transformation-palestinian-peasants-proletarians#footnote3_b3zfjt3), this time thoroughly transforming the relations of production. The purchase of land by the Jewish Colonisation Association, which was founded for that purpose, could naturally mean nothing other than the eviction of the Palestinian sharecroppers and farmers. In reality even though the deeds to this land were held by the large absentee landlords who willingly sold most of it in the first few years after the war (see Table I), the land which carried these deeds remained the indispensable source of the Palestinian peasants' livelihood.



The dispossessed fellah had to become an agricultural labourer on his own land. The fierce exploitation of local manpower by Zionist capital at the beginning of the century was further exacerbated by the principle of Jewish Labour designed to preserve the colonial settlement project. This principle entitled the immigrants to expel the fellahin from their jobs while the Zionist fund financed the difference in wages in order to facilitate the employment of European labour power. This situation could not continue, long without violent confrontations because the expelled peasants were left only with the certainty of a slow death while they watched the colonists occupy their land. For this reason there have been nearly permanent social revolts from 1921, 1925, 1929, 1933, 1936 to the present.

http://libcom.org/history/agonising-transformation-palestinian-peasants-proletarians

You're right, it is rather nuanced. But the character of capital and imperialism have been fairly consistent. The Palestinian working class has always been the target of exploitation in these conflicts. Foreign capital has always sought to disposses and reclaim as exclusively Jewish, or to sell (as is the case of Syrian et al. speculators)assets in the region.

There is no question that the Palestinian conflict has become a major asset in the political establishment of nations like Egypt, Iran and of course Israel. But none of this changes the character of the Israeli state.

It's always been an European nationalist - white nationalist - regime. Any dissimilarities in your Wikipedia article are mere formalities; the same kind of nationalist European conflicts are seen in Zimbabwe and S. Africa.

[Bud Struggle]

Wait. The empire stole lands from the Arabs and the Zionists bought the land?

But the position of Communism is that NOBODY owns the land. Every "owner" of the land is a thief.

[syndicat]

This is why the Jewish Agency worked together with the Zionist Fund to purchase land from Arab land owners, as well as work with local Arabs.

And then expelled the Palestinian peasants who lived on it. That's certainly exclusivist as well as being unjust.


From the 1940's until the 1960's the Arab battle-cry was "drive the Jews into the sea".

Nope. The Palestinians of Haifa didn't try to "drive the jews into the sea." but that is exactly what the Jewish paramilitaries did to them in 1948. again, see Ilan Pappe's "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine." He points out that the live and let live attitude of so many Palestinians was what made it fairly easy for Jewish agents to infiltrate Palestinian villages and collect info on their leaders...who were then targeted for assassination when the Hagana entered the village.

Zionism is by definition an exclusivist ideology since it's aim, as understood among the Jewish leadership who oversaw Hagana in 1947-48, including Ben Gurion. Their aim was to drive out the Palestinians.

When the UN partitioned Palestine in 1947, the area given to the Jews had only a slight Jewish majority. This was completely unacceptable to the Zionist leadership. They demanded that there be an overwhelmingly Jewish population or the Jewish state would not be feasible. Even defining the state as a "Jewish state" is excluvist because it implies second-class status for non-Jews. And in fact the behavior of Hagana and the other paramilitaries in 1947-48 was as I described: drive out as many Palestinians from as much of Palestine as they could. They destroyed more than 400 Palestinian villages in the process of this ethnic cleansing. Nowadays ethnic cleansing of this sort is regarded as a "crime against humanity." So Israel was founded on a massive crime against humanity.


Your problem with your ethnically reductionist take on the conflict is that you favour one type of ethnically defined nationalism over another.


Bullshit. You apparently can't reason straight either. To point out that the zionist state was founded on ethnic cleansing is not to propound any ethic nationalism of any kind. It's an example of why ethnic nationalism can lead to oppression and injustice.

[Bud Struggle]

Zionism is by definition an exclusivist ideology

So is Islam in the Arab states.


. To point out that the zionist state was founded on ethnic cleansing is not to propound any ethic nationalism of any kind. It's an example of why ethnic nationalism can lead to oppression and injustice.

There really is no difference between Zionism and Arab nationalistic Islam.

[Dean]

But the position of Communism is that NOBODY owns the land. Every "owner" of the land is a thief.

So was the position of the peasants, before they were forced to change:

The object of this law was to replace traditional collective or tribal ownership with individual land ownership. Rather than being paid collectively, taxes were henceforth to be levied on individuals. In the case of defaulted payment the individual would be held responsible, thereby weakening any resistance to the increased tax burden imposed by the state.

[Bud Struggle]

So was the position of the peasants, before they were forced to change:

So is that the position of Hamas? Really, what does the religion of ethniciticy of the people living on the land matter? Jews shouldn't be included or excluded, Palestinians shouldn't be included or excluded--everyone should be treated the same.

Does it mater that Moslems are moving into Europe? Does it matter that Jews live in Palestine? No one owns the land--everyone should be free to live where they want.

[syndicat]

There really is no difference between Zionism and Arab nationalistic Islam.

Palestinian Christians have made this complaint to me. however, they do not take this as justifying the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by the Zionist forces, and they are supportive of the Palestinian struggle.

there are a number of Arab states where various minorities have existed, like the Zorastrians and Christian and Kurdish-speaking minorities in Iraq. This was particularly true of Palestine where in the pre-WW2 era there were both Christian and Moslem Palestinians and Armenians, and cities where there was a mixed Jewish and Arab population. There was conflict between Jews and Arabs in Palestine in the '30s...a period when the Jewish Agency was buying land from absentee landlords and expelling Palestinian peasants who had lived on the land for generations. Might this not create animosity? also, the British imperial regime acted in ways entirely prejudiced in favor of the Jews.

there was no armed, centralized Moslem nationalist paramilitary trying to attack and drive Jews out of Palestine in 1947-48. I'm sure that there has been persecution against various minorities by Arab Moslems at various times. But this does not justify the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by Hagana and other Jewish paramilitaries in 1947-49. It was in fact a massive crime against humanity.

[Gecko]

Wow I didnt know Glenn Beck had a revleft.com account

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Jeez, talk about paranoid right-winger. I dont know how many times ive heard these asinine scare-mongering talking points from the likes of Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and such, during the past 10 years :lol:


hell,if I was a zionist fascist pig I be scared shitless too.... :lol:

[Bud Struggle]

Palestinian Christians have made this complaint to me. however, they do not take this as justifying the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by the Zionist forces, and they are supportive of the Palestinian struggle.

there are a number of Arab states where various minorities have existed, like the Zorastrians and Christian and Kurdish-speaking minorities in Iraq. This was particularly true of Palestine where in the pre-WW2 era there were both Christian and Moslem Palestinians and Armenians, and cities where there was a mixed Jewish and Arab population. There was conflict between Jews and Arabs in Palestine in the '30s...a period when the Jewish Agency was buying land from absentee landlords and expelling Palestinian peasants who had lived on the land for generations. Might this not create animosity? also, the British imperial regime acted in ways entirely prejudiced in favor of the Jews.

there was no armed, centralized Moslem nationalist paramilitary trying to attack and drive Jews out of Palestine in 1947-48. I'm sure that there has been persecution against various minorities by Arab Moslems at various times. But this does not justify the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by Hagana and other Jewish paramilitaries in 1947-49. It was in fact a massive crime against humanity.

Nothing I said "justifies" anything. The particulars are different in all cases--but for the most part the Arab states are just as ethnically and religiously intolerant as the Israelis. Hey, there's an ethnic Arab/Moslem minority in Israel, too.

[syndicat]

Nothing I said "justifies" anything.

then what is your point? obviously there was an alternative strategy available to the Jewish settlers in Palestine in the 1940s. They could have attempted to work something out with their Palestinian neighbors. The UN partition plan was mainly a setup for the Zionists. Nor was it acceptable to them as planned because it would have left only a slight Jewish majority in the Jewish state, so the Jewish leaders would have had to accommodate and share power with Palestinian represenatives.

from a left point of view, what was required was a working class movement based on solidarity, not a cross class exclusivist nationalist project.

[Bud Struggle]

from a left point of view, what was required was a working class movement based on solidarity, not a cross class exclusivist nationalist project.

Correct. And WAS is the operative word. That was the past--now there are two religio-ethnic forces fighting each other. Currently neither are working class movements based on solidarity.

[syndicat]

and one is a capitalist state that is propped up by American imperialism because of the imperialist role it plays in the middle east, and has been engaged since the '40s in a persistent practice of ethnic cleansing, which is a crime against humanity. hence that state needs to be opposed, and its unjust practices towards the Palestinian masses opposed.

[Dean]

So is that the position of Hamas? Really, what does the religion of ethniciticy of the people living on the land matter? Jews shouldn't be included or excluded, Palestinians shouldn't be included or excluded--everyone should be treated the same.

Does it mater that Moslems are moving into Europe? Does it matter that Jews live in Palestine? No one owns the land--everyone should be free to live where they want.

What are you talking about? The ethnicity of people does matter, when it comes to state structures. Clearly it shouldn't, I don't think anyone is arguing that here.

But blindly throwing idealist phrases into the argument doesn't change a thing.

So, when capitalists accumulate land and redistribute it to European capitalists, especially with an ethno-nationalist ideology and policies for the region, it does, in fact, matter. All the "land is everyone's, ethnicity doesn't matter" grandstanding in the world won't change the underlying fact.

[#FF0000]

I am sure we can all agree that Jews in Palestine is definitely not the problem. An explicitly Jewish State being founded by force in Palestine is the problem.

[Atlee]

America has to stop funding Israel. Without money people will have to start to work together. There needs to be one state (preferably not called Israel OR Palestine) for the people in that area.

At that point extremism by either side should be stopped.

I have said many times over that the United Nations needs to move into the Heart of Our Souls being this the cradle of faith. All nations in the place with all faiths. This would be showing the totality of humanity as one.

[Atlee]

Why does America fund Israel in the first place?

While this for sure has a historical reason of fundamental faith basis I cannot help but think of what historically should have been, Plan B.

The British backup plan was to send European Jews to Madagascar after WW II. :cool:

[Atlee]

East Jerusalem being an "International City" might work.

How about all of Jerusalem being an international city under the United Nations this way no one side can claim it ever again because it belongs to the world.

We could start a new movement: UN to Jerusalem (insert peace dove here and a global flag of the world)

[Atlee]

I think if we are talking about of a potential 'end' of Israel, it's going to come from demographics. The birth rate in the Palestinian territories and of the Arab population is far outstripping that of the Israeli population, meaning it won't be long until they are governing as a complete minority. In many ways the Jewish state will be increasingly untenable if this were to happen. Even Israeli politicians are wary of this; http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/03/barak-apartheid-palestine-peace

You all know what I like about learning and teaching socialism, word meanings. In this case I would like to express the radish from its French term as being the root. I will not go into the secondary meaning here.

Socialism has within it the first inalienable right of humanity, the right of life. Capitalism has no such right and in fact punishes those with higher birthrates to pay more for basic human needs. By not having capital a person, community, society, race, or faith can be oppressed. Socialism as a theory of awareness and expression does not require capital, but does ask that we reach out to our fellow man (or woman) in an act of kindness with humility and dignity. We must pull the root of capitalism from the soil of socialism.

[Atlee]

But the position of Communism is that NOBODY owns the land. Every "owner" of the land is a thief.

Venturing into ideology here, the "owner" in "state" capitalism which is a form of communism makes the "owner" the "state" which therefore is the "thief"? :confused: i.e. Stalinized.

On the other side the "owner" was based within decentralization (Mao pulling away from Stalin after 1951) making the whole community the "owner" and every individual within personally responsible for the land.

I cannot help but think there is a cultural and religious basis for this difference that in turn makes radical democracy more and more local. The ancient Greeks once said, "A polis (city) should be no larger than the voice of its ruler to be effective." This might help explain all the differences that arise for international conflicts we have historically seen or read about between communist counties and now looking at a possible Fifth International.

[Bud Struggle]

Venturing into ideology here, the "owner" in "state" capitalism which is a form of communism makes the "owner" the "state" which therefore is the "thief"? :confused: i.e. Stalinized.

I'm just saying that it doesn't seem very "Communist" to want to take land away from one group of people and give it to another--no matter who they are. I don't see the point at least from a Communist angle to take land from one religious ethnocentric group and give it to another no matter how old their ties to the land are.

I would rather think Communists would want to open up that country to everyone who wants to live there with everyone participating equally in the government of the place. Anything else is resorting to Bourgeoise politics.

Maybe I'm wrong about that--but I don't see the Communist point in supporting the Palestinians. I see the realpolitik point in supporting them. (I also do see the Communist point in OPPOSING the Israelis, though.)

[RGacky3]

Most communists are not ideologically dogmatic, and black and white, they do what is best for the common people, which is ultimately communism, but in such a case as gaza and isreal is something else.

[Atlee]

I'm just saying that it doesn't seem very "Communist" to want to take land away from one group of people and give it to another--no matter who they are. I don't see the point at least from a Communist angle to take land from one religious ethnocentric group and give it to another no matter how old their ties to the land are.

I would rather think Communists would want to open up that country to everyone who wants to live there with everyone participating equally in the government of the place. Anything else is resorting to Bourgeoise politics.

Maybe I'm wrong about that--but I don't see the Communist point in supporting the Palestinians. I see the realpolitik point in supporting them. (I also do see the Communist point in OPPOSING the Israelis, though.)

What we have are three groups that want the same land, Jews, Christians, and Muslims... I think that is why they call it, "The Holy Land"? :rolleyes: The problem is putting three groups into one the same space. :confused: Physics of Dr. Who anyone? :bored:

Communist of history have run up against this problem before. The Weegers in western China have been oppressed for decades. Jews in Russia are treated as second class. Lets not even begin with Africa... :crying:

Maybe there should be a solid plan or faith meeting ideology as there right here on RevLeft, Christian Communists and Socialist Christians among others.

[Bud Struggle]

[Edit] Sorry.

[freepalestine]

Saying Zionism is an "exclusivist ideology" is a pretty bold statement. Plenty of Zionists were opposed to the domination of the local population and worked to include them in the kibbutz system. There were divisions within the intellectual movement of Zionism. The pre-war Jewish Agency was dominated by socialist thinkers who wanted to work with the native Arab population. Zionism only became nationalist and statist ideology after WW2.zionism is an exclusivist ideology,it's a fact.to say that zionists wanted to coexist as equals is far from the reallity of what zionists at the time planned.zionism is a colonialist ideology,they had no reason to accept the existence of the people who may (or may not???)have been residing in palestine.zionism was a nationalist,western colonialist project from the outset.to claim early zionism as socialist is a pretty bold statement also,in my opinion.it's obvious that the ideas of the ultra right wing of zionism( ,jabotinsky etal)is much in the ascendency these days,and has been for years.has for palestinians on kibbutz-what has cheap third world labour?in their own country.


The Arabs living in the area considered themselves Jordanians or South Syrians. you may pull the wool over some people's eyes with statements like that. obviously you would also say that there is already apalestinian state ,namely jordan.maybe that's a bold statement for you to say on here ,also.
n.b.jordan was a creation of the zionists and british imperialism.don't speak about palestinian history of which you are using revisionist arguments,and further know little about.read shlomo sand's book ;l


The British allowed Jewish immigration so that it wasn't a strain on the Palestinian people and their local economy. Sometimes Britain advocated immigration, other times they wanted to pull back or stop it entirely. In the end a two state solution was proposed in which Jerusalem would become an international city. Israel accepted the proposal while the Arabs declined.

The Israeli Declaration was far from exclusivist ". . . we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions--provisional and permanent."

But then that never happened... Surrounding Arab states invaded Israel to wipe it out, but they got their asses kicked. About 700,000 Palestinians left their land because of the war.immediately after the war, there was some flexibility with returning property to refugees, but for the most part Israel claimed that it didn't have a legal responsibility to return the land. In 1949 Israel said it would be willing to look at land return or at the very least compensation, however only within the context of peace agreements with Arab countries. Unfortunately Arab countries declined to hold such agreements.
the british were fully complicit in the setting up of the zionist state.
you may be aware that the arab states didnt enter the areas of palestine given to the zionists,they arrived to protect the palestinians within the 47%areas of palestine left to the natives.this has you might be aware was due to the ethnic cleansing of palestinians in the zionist portion of palestine which had 50% of palestinian arabs dwelling.and spilled over into the u.n.'s designated sector for the palestinians. the zionists wanted them out of all palestine-(and maybe jordan,syria,lebanon which hasnt happened,),see plan dalet and other sources of your socalled socialist zionism and its policies of ethnic cleansing!



You say the Palestinians didn't have their own version of nationalism however I'm presuming you know there was never such thing as a "Palestinian" people. Israel is the ancestral homeland of a nationless people, the Arab Palestinians are the remnants of very recent Muslim Imperialism. And you blame Zionists trying to cope with the fuckin' holocaust for being "exclusivist", despite the fact that a significant portion were socialist and open to working with the local population.so now you resort to the usual right wing zionist revisionism,"the "palestinian people" never existed as a people.the palestinians have always been in palestine,judea,cannan or whatever name was given in history books.the palestinians were the original people of that land.like other peoples through history,they changed from religion to religion be it judaism,christianity,islam,samaritan or whatever.just has say russians,morroccans,south arabians,ukranians and people in the caucus's changed from one religion to another relgion,through their history.
european zionists wanted an excusionist european colonialist settler state ,excluded the native peoples,by ethnic cleansing .

[Dean]

I'm just saying that it doesn't seem very "Communist" to want to take land away from one group of people and give it to another--no matter who they are. I don't see the point at least from a Communist angle to take land from one religious ethnocentric group and give it to another no matter how old their ties to the land are.

I would rather think Communists would want to open up that country to everyone who wants to live there with everyone participating equally in the government of the place. Anything else is resorting to Bourgeoise politics.

Maybe I'm wrong about that--but I don't see the Communist point in supporting the Palestinians. I see the realpolitik point in supporting them. (I also do see the Communist point in OPPOSING the Israelis, though.)

Communists don't uncritically support Palestinian positions.

You don't understand the right of return for Palestinians in the same way you wouldn't understand why the black population in the US deserves some compensation for their history as slaves (and subsequent history as part of the lowest echelon of the exploited working class).

[graffic]

@Dean

Your are correct that one of the problems was that Zionist funds were able to legally buy land from foreign land lords and then evict the local population. Ottomans got defeated in world war 1 and lost the land to the British.

Obviously ethnic cleansing occurred however you seem to want to gloss over the divisions within the intellectual movement of Zionism. There were plenty of Zionists that wanted to work with the native Arab population.

CHOMSKY

WATZAL: Does Zionism have anything to do with the fate of the Palestinians?

CHOMSKY: "This is a very complex problem. It depends on what you mean by Zionism. I was a Zionist activist in my youth. For me, Zionism meant opposition to a Jewish state. The Zionist movement did not come out officially in favor of a Jewish state until 1942. Before this it was merely the intent of the Zionist leadership. The Zionist movement for a long time stood against the establishment of a Jewish state because such a state would be discriminatory and racist."

Socialist Zionists were opposed to the restrictions on immigration. They wanted free and unlimited immigration into Palestine, which the Arabs were adamantly opposed to. This led to riots in the 1920s and 1930s. Free and unlimited immigration was the primary concern, as Zionism at this time still advocated binational governance, as well as other alternative political models.

It was the socialist Zionists that dominated the pre-WWII Zionist arena as evidenced by the spread and popularity of the Kibbutzim, voting records and many other factors. There were Marxist Zionists, socialist Zionists, anarchist Zionists, and right-wing nationalist Zionists.

Given the reality of the holocaust and anti-semitism at the time after WW2 it doesn't surprise me that the idea of a Jewish sate was more popular than binational, and the Zionism that people like Chomsky advocated sidelined.


The Israel Declaration of Independence said, as I quoted it in a previous post, " . . we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions--provisional and permanent."

But the Arab states went to war with Israel in 1948 is because they all wanted to dominate Palestine themselves and colonize it.

You persistently denounce Zionist colonizers but are apologetic to surrounding Arab nation states. Unfortunately the Palestinian agenda is dominated by people who advocate Palestinian landlords over Jewish landlords, allowing class exploitation to exist, and persecution of Jews.

[Dean]

@Dean

Your are correct that one of the problems was that Zionist funds were able to legally buy land from foreign land lords and then evict the local population. Ottomans got defeated in world war 1 and lost the land to the British.

Obviously ethnic cleansing occurred however you seem to want to gloss over the divisions within the intellectual movement of Zionism. There were plenty of Zionists that wanted to work with the native Arab population.
An Israeli general, who was responsible for the well being of the Palestinians, is said to have been angered by David Ben-Gurion when he started expelling Arab Palestinians from their lands.

I don't gloss over these debates, however. It's just that, just like within the Democrat-Republican milieu, the militant racists consistently win and define policies.


CHOMSKY

WATZAL: Does Zionism have anything to do with the fate of the Palestinians?

CHOMSKY: "This is a very complex problem. It depends on what you mean by Zionism. I was a Zionist activist in my youth. For me, Zionism meant opposition to a Jewish state. The Zionist movement did not come out officially in favor of a Jewish state until 1942. Before this it was merely the intent of the Zionist leadership. The Zionist movement for a long time stood against the establishment of a Jewish state because such a state would be discriminatory and racist."
Chomsky is 100% correct, I've cited him in the past for my understanding of "peaceful Zionism" as well: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1067083&postcount=25


The Israel Declaration of Independence said, as I quoted it in a previous post, " . . we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions--provisional and permanent."

But the Arab states went to war with Israel in 1948 is because they all wanted to dominate Palestine themselves and colonize it.
So, a constitution claims that Arabs have equal rights, and asks them to "participate in peaceful state-building" in the context of anti-Arab aggression - militarily and economic - and then foreign states mount the inevitable attack (read: typical power plays) on the fledgling regime, and what does this prove, exactly?

It says a couple things clearly for me, which have been stated before:
-Capitalist regimes - Israel, Egypt, Syria and the like - all played their parts in the exploitation of
-Palestinians, who have been the consistently exploited population in the conflict.



You persistently denounce Zionist colonizers but are apologetic to surrounding Arab nation states.
Where have I done this? There is no disparity in my attacks on Israel and other regimes, and their actual shareholdings in management of the conflict.


Unfortunately the Palestinian agenda is dominated by people who advocate Palestinian landlords over Jewish landlords, allowing class exploitation to exist, and persecution of Jews.
Actually, as has been cited, the Palestinian agenda is hardly represented by these states except in propaganda. What is represented in terms of foreign economic and aid policy is purely the self-interests of those who manage the states.

It's real shit that defines the conflict, not your silly fantasies and moralist grand-standing:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11680



The military invasion of the Gaza Strip by Israeli Forces bears a direct relation to the control and ownership of strategic offshore gas reserves.
This is a war of conquest. Discovered in 2000, there are extensive gas reserves off the Gaza coastline.
British Gas (BG Group) (http://www.bg-group.com/OurBusiness/WhereWeOperate/Pages/pgIsraelandAreasofPalestinianAuthority.aspx) and its partner, the Athens based Consolidated Contractors International Company (http://www.ccc.gr/) (CCC) owned by Lebanon's Sabbagh and Koury families, were granted oil and gas exploration rights in a 25 year agreement signed in November 1999 with the Palestinian Authority.
The rights to the offshore gas field are respectively British Gas (60 percent); Consolidated Contractors (CCC) (30 percent); and the Investment Fund of the Palestinian Authority (10 percent). (Haaretz, October 21, 2007).

The PA-BG-CCC agreement includes field development and the construction of a gas pipeline.(Middle East Economic Digest, Jan 5, 2001).
The BG licence covers the entire Gazan offshore marine area, which is contiguous to several Israeli offshore gas facilities. (See Map below). It should be noted that 60 percent of the gas reserves along the Gaza-Israel coastline belong to Palestine.
The BG Group drilled two wells in 2000: Gaza Marine-1 and Gaza Marine-2. Reserves are estimated by British Gas to be of the order of 1.4 trillion cubic feet, valued at approximately 4 billion dollars. These are the figures made public by British Gas. The size of Palestine's gas reserves could be much larger.

[Palestine]

What happened to Palestine, was simply a conspiracy from many parts, the Zionist movement had many contacts in the British government, and the Arab leaders knew perfectly well what was going on, they didn't care. Why they didn't they care? simply because they weren't even chosen leaders, they were employees for the British imperialist colonialist government, so how dare they oppose anything.
The British gave Tel Aviv an autonomous rule, the British stayed in Palestine for 30 years, they built fortifications everywhere, and they weren't some bullshit, they were castles, impenetrable. The British kept arming the Zionist terrorist groups in Palestine, and training them, while they went after the Palestinians and frisked them, their houses, they took every piece of arm they had.
Now enough with the British and their nasty role, back to the main problem the Zionist movement, they started building kibbutzim, in the kibbutz, they lived a communist life, and those who came to the kibbutz were rich people, who wanted to live simple, those were the base of the Zionist militias, they started training men and women, to be as guards for the kibbutzim, they had rifles, and grenades, and machine gun.
The Zionist movement started building, they started with the Hebrew University, which was established for Jews in Europe, who wanted to come to Jerusalem and study, and they established couple of hospitals, one of them was the Rothschild's hospital in Jerusalem.
The first hint that a Zionist State was on the way was the Lord Balfour's declaration which was on 2/11/1917 and in it was :"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people[/URL], and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
After this it became obvious that the British were building and taking the rifles from the Palestinians for a reason, after all they wanted to ease the job for the militias, each year more and more Jewish immigrants came from Europe. The British executed any Palestinian who tried to revolt, they didn't want any resistance at all. The Palestinians were a bit naive, they didn't really know what was going on, the Zionists befriended them but for a reason, they were doing that to know whose planning an attack on a Jewish colony or kibbutz, and then they will take them down.
Things started to get tense after the 1936 revolt, which started after the British decided to give the Jews the western wall to pray, which was the sparkle, the Palestinians started strikes and demonstrations, and the British police brutally stopped them, many people were killed, some Palestinians could get rifles from Syria, but they weren't many, they replied back to Zionist attacks.
Things started escalating and the British army didn't do anything, the Zionists attacks increased and they even started to attack the British to force them to withdraw from the area, massacres occurred in many places, and the Zionists didn't mercy anyone they killed whole towns, many people started fleeing after rumors of militias heading to their towns, they fled to Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and the West Bank.
Until the British withdrawn from Palestine ending the mandate era, and the Zionists announced the establishment of the state of Israel, on what was known as the land of Palestine.
then the war broke out and here are some statistics about the numbers:
Israel: 29,677 initially rising to 115,000 by March 1949. This includes the entire military personnel count—both combat units and logistical units. Note that the entire Jewish population in Israel in May 1948 was 806,000
Egypt: 10,000 initially, rising to 20,000
Iraq: 3,000 initially, rising to 15,000 – 18,000
Syria: 2,500 – 5,000
Jordan: 8,000 – 12,000
Lebanon: 1,000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_home_for_the_Jewish_people)
Saudi Arabia: 800–1,200
Arab Liberation Army: 3,500 - 6,000
Do the math and tell me who had more soldiers, and note that the Israelis were better equipped.
The Zionists have no homeland here, I don't give a shit who promised them what, or if they were living here 2000 ago, thats totally not my business, the 2 states solution is impossible and impractical, the government of Israel can't take out 500 thousand settlers in the West Bank, they are crazy and armed, they prefer to die than get out, they terrorize the Palestinians, burn their trees, and attack them, that is never mentioned, thanks to the unbiased media. The only solution is a bi-national state, who doesn't like it can simply pack his stuff and leave for a place he likes.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917#cite_note-0"]

[Bud Struggle]

^^^^Thanks for the cut and paste.



The Zionists have no homeland here, I don't give a shit who promised them what, or if they were living here 2000 ago, thats totally not my business, the 2 states solution is impossible and impractical, the government of Israel can't take out 500 thousand settlers in the West Bank, they are crazy and armed, they prefer to die than get out, they terrorize the Palestinians, burn their trees, and attack them, that is never mentioned, thanks to the unbiased media. The only solution is a bi-national state, who doesn't like it can simply pack his stuff and leave for a place he likes.

I agree. The Israelis should have no homeland and neither should the Palestinians. People should live where they want. If Jews want to settle the West Bank, let them. If Palestinians what to live in--Jerusalem--let them. No terrorism, no meanness--but people should be allowd to live where they want. (And yea Israel is BY FAR the aggresser here.)

[Palestine]

^^^^Thanks for the cut and paste.



I agree. The Israelis should have no homeland and neither should the Palestinians. People should live where they want.

The only and paste was the statistics and the Balfour declaration. :)

And btw the only reasonable solution is the bi-national state, the problem is, Jews want a Jewish state, and the refugees want to get back, which means a demographic threat to the Jews.

[Bud Struggle]

The only and paste was the statistics and the Balfour declaration. :)

And btw the only reasonable solution is the bi-national state, the problem is, Jews want a Jewish state, and the refugees want to get back, which means a demographic threat to the Jews.

It certainly is--and they should have two choices--live with the changing demographic or have more babies.

[graffic]

Dean, you were/are trying to make out that the current racist situation in Israel has been the same throughout history. It had strong socialist foundations, unfortunately due to anti-semitism and Jewish nationalism, political Zionism became the dominant force. However, I don't think that warrants us to ignore the complex history of the movement.

And its not astonishing that capitalist wars hand land capital from one set of capitalists to the other. Its wrong to make it an ethnic issue by ignoring the commonality of this incident to others where ethnicity isn't such an obvious factor.

[syndicat]

Here is Israeli historian Ilan Pappe on the current situation:


The decline in Israel's reputation since the brutal attack on the Gaza flotilla is unlikely to influence the country's leaders

At the top of Israel's political and military systems stand two men, Ehud Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu, who are behind the brutal attack on the Gaza flotilla that shocked the world but that seemed to be hailed as a pure act of self-defence by the Israeli public.

Although they come from the left (Defence minister Barak from the Labour Party) and the right (Prime Minister Netanyahu from Likkud) of Israeli politics, their thinking on Gaza in general and on the flotilla in particular is informed by the same history and identical worldview.

At one time, Ehud Barak was Benjamin Netanyahu's commanding officer in the Israeli equivalent of the SAS. More precisely, they served in a similar unit to the one sent to assault the Turkish ship last week. Their perception of the reality in the Gaza Strip is shared by other leading members of the Israeli political and military elite, and is widely supported by the Jewish electorate at home.

And it is a simple take on reality. Hamas, although the only government in the Arab world elected democratically by the people, has to be eliminated as a political as well as a military force. This is not only because it continues the struggle against the 40-year Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip by launching primitive missiles into Israel – more often than not in retaliation to an Israel killing of its activists in the West Bank. But it is mainly due to its political opposition for the kind of "peace" Israel wants to impose on the Palestinians.

The forced peace is not negotiable as far as the Israeli political elite is concerned, and it offers the Palestinians a limited control and sovereignty in the Gaza Strip and in parts of the West Bank. The Palestinians are asked to give up their struggle for self-determination and liberation in return for the establishment of three small Bantustans under tight Israeli control and supervision.

The official thinking in Israel, therefore, is that Hamas is a formidable obstacle for the imposition of such a peace. And thus the declared strategy is straightforward: starving and strangulating into submission the 1.5 million Palestinians living in the densest space in the world.

The blockade imposed in 2006 is supposed to lead the Gazans to replace the current Palestinian government with one which would accept Israel's dictate – or at least would be part of the more dormant Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. In the meantime,Hamas captured an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, and so the blockade became tighter. It included a ban of the most elementary commodities without which human beings find it difficult to survive. For want of food and medicine, for want of cement and petrol, the people of Gaza live in conditions that international bodies and agencies described as catastrophic and criminal.

As in the case of the flotilla, there are alternative ways for releasing the captive soldier, such as swapping the thousands of political prisons Israel is holding with Shalit. Many of them are children, and quite a few are being held without trial. The Israelis have dragged their feet in negotiations over such a swap, which are not likely to bear fruit in the foreseeable future.

But Barak and Netanyahu, and those around them, know too well that the blockade on Gaza is not going to produce any change in the position of the Hamas and one should give credit to the Prime Minister, David Cameron, who remarked at Prime Minister's Questions last week that the Israelis' policy, in fact, strengthens, rather than weakens, the Hamas hold on Gaza. But this strategy, despite its declared aim, is not meant to succeed or at least no one is worried in Jerusalem if it continues to be fruitless and futile.

One would have thought that Israel's drastic decline in international reputation would prompt new thinking by its leaders. But the responses to the attack on the flotilla in the past few days indicate clearly that there is no hope for any significant shift in the official position. A firm commitment to continue the blockade, and a heroes' welcome to the soldiers who pirated the ship in the Mediterranean, show that the same politics would continue for a long time.

This is not surprising. The Barak-Netanyahu-Avigdor Lieberman government does not know any other way of responding to the reality in Palestine and Israel. The use of brutal force to impose your will and a hectic propaganda machine that describes it as self-defence, while demonising the half-starved people in Gaza and those who come to their aid as terrorists, is the only possible course for these politicians. The terrible consequences in human death and suffering of this determination do not concern them, nor does international condemnation.

The real, unlike the declared, strategy is to continue this state of affairs. As long as the international community is complacent, the Arab world impotent and Gaza contained, Israel can still have a thriving economy and an electorate that regards the dominance of the army in its life, the continued conflict and the oppression of the Palestinians as the exclusive past, the present and future reality of life in Israel. The US vice-president Joe Biden was humiliated by the Israelis recently when they announced the building of 1,600 new homes in the disputed Ramat Shlomo district of Jerusalem, on the day he arrived to try to freeze the settlement policy. But his unconditional support now for the latest Israeli action makes the leaders and their electorate feel vindicated.

It would be wrong, however, to assume that American support and a feeble European response to Israeli criminal policies such as one pursued in Gaza are the main reasons for the protracted blockade and strangulation of Gaza. What is probably most difficult to explain to readers around the world is how deeply these perceptions and attitudes are grounded in the Israeli psyche and mentality. And it is indeed difficult to comprehend how diametrically opposed are the common reactions in the UK, for instance, to such events to the emotions that it triggers inside the Israeli Jewish society.

The international response is based on the assumption that more forthcoming Palestinian concessions and a continued dialogue with the Israeli political elite will produce a new reality on the ground. The official discourse in the West is that a very reasonable and attainable solution is just around the corner if all sides would make one final effort: the two-state solution.

Nothing is further from the truth than this optimistic scenario. The only version of this solution that is acceptable to Israel is the one that both the tamed Palestine Authority in Ramallah and the more assertive Hamas in Gaza could never ever accept. It is an offer to imprison the Palestinians in stateless enclaves in return for ending their struggle.

Thus even before one discusses either an alternative solution – a single democratic state for all, which I support – or explores a more plausible, two-state settlement, one has to transform fundamentally the Israeli official and public mindset. This mentality is the principal barrier to a peaceful reconciliation in the torn land of Israel and Palestine.

[graffic]

edit the post and make it a link so it doesn't take up the whole screen

[Dean]

Dean, you were/are trying to make out that the current racist situation in Israel has been the same throughout history. It had strong socialist foundations, unfortunately due to anti-semitism and Jewish nationalism, political Zionism became the dominant force. However, I don't think that warrants us to ignore the complex history of the movement.
No, I've never implied that the situation "hasn't changed;" my links paint a different story which I endorse. Nor do I believe that we can "ignore the history," in fact, history indicates - quite clearly - that the creation of Israel is the expulsion of the Jewish people from Europe and the creation of a Jewish ghetto.


And its not astonishing that capitalist wars hand land capital from one set of capitalists to the other. Its wrong to make it an ethnic issue by ignoring the commonality of this incident to others where ethnicity isn't such an obvious factor.
How am I "making it into an ethnic issue" beyond the ethnic nationalism of the Zionist paradigm? I am not blaming Jews, nor am I in fact blaming Israeli white nationalism as the sole bearer of responsibility. I'm pointing out that Israeli racists have been the dominant force of capital in the region, not unlike Danish, French and British nationalists have been the dominant force of capital throughout Africa.

This is nothing new; it does have an "ethnic character" but is not exclusively ethnic or based on ethnic divisions. Those divisions exist only insofar as they are asserted by capitalists.

You just get uncomfortable when people point out that racist nationalists on the Zionist side have consistently been empowered, and in the position to define the character of the conflict, as well as to perpetuate and intensify the conflict.

You keep decrying "ethnicism" of the conflict, as if that meant anything at all. All we have done is to point out the character of white nationalism in the region. Now, if I was hung up on ethnicity, I wouldn't call it "white" nationalism. The fact that you take particular reservation with the term says more about your ethno-centrism than anything else; by concerning yourself this way, you make the issue an "ethnic" one.

[graffic]

The interesting thing about conversations or debates is that we often seem to not change a view, or admit we are wrong. If anything people became more adamant than before.

I'll leave you to have the last word Dean because you come across as a clever guy and you seem to be very passionate about getting your view across, and proving that you are right.

The only thing I said was that its important to remember Zionism's socialist roots, which you seem to acknowledge, so thats progress.

[NGNM85]

Israel is sowing the seeds of it's own demise. The more settlements it builds, the more a two-state solution becomes impossible. The Israeli government (And the United States.) have rejected every attempt at reconciliation. The UN, the Arab League, Hamas, etc., are all essentially on the same page. Peace is possible, but they aren't even interested. If this trend continues at some point a peaceful resolution will likely become impossible.

[freepalestine]

The interesting thing about conversations or debates is that we often seem to not change a view, or admit we are wrong. If anything people became more adamant than before.

I'll leave you to have the last word Dean because you come across as a clever guy and you seem to be very passionate about getting your view across, and proving that you are right.

The only thing I said was that its important to remember Zionism's socialist roots, which you seem to acknowledge, so thats progress.
maybe you should understand zionism yourself

[Che a chara]

Dubai have issued an arrest warrant for the Israeli PM on a murder charge. Let's hope this is the start of a worldwide crackdown on the Zionist war criminals.

[Guerrilla22]

Israel will never go away, it's getting the clap. There forever.