Origins of Israel

[Bud Struggle]

have you ever been in a fight Bud? The reason I ask is because desicion making is much different when your in a situation of desperation and terror.

That's why you have to isolate yourself from the irrational responses. The point of being in a fight is to win--not to flail about or to just hit blindly. And personally I've never been in a fight (at least since I was in fourth grade.) I've never been in a situation I couldn't talk or charm my way out of.

[RGacky3]

The point of being in a fight is to win--not to flail about or to just hit blindly.

Thats fine, but the point stands what dean was saying and what I was saying which is.


Of course we agree about innocent people. But the point was your "game" statement. Its not a game. The 9-11 victims are the losers, as are the Palestinians. The point was to show how absurd it is to simply the issue as "winner and losers" who should "know their place."

Its not "rules of engagement" there are none, they are made by those in power, your in a fight to win, of coarse, but guess what, if you say terrorists are evil, then you have to say YOUR government is evil, unless your using a different standard, if your saying the USSR was bad, then you have to say CAPITALISM is bad, if your saying the palestinians are just loosers, because of what is done to them, then so are the 911 victims.

All I'm asking is for you to be consistant and not a hypoctrite.

[Bud Struggle]

Thats fine, but the point stands what dean was saying and what I was saying which is.There are winners and loosers. But when you say I said people "should know their place" You are just making that up. I'd be the last person to say that.


Its not "rules of engagement" there are none, they are made by those in power, your in a fight to win, of coarse, but guess what, if you say terrorists are evil, then you have to say YOUR government is evil, unless your using a different standard, if your saying the USSR was bad, then you have to say CAPITALISM is bad, I'm not saying that America isn't wrong on this issue. They are. I've said that before. I was even suggesting ways to change America's attitude. Calling America EVIL is just unproductive--it gets you nowhere and gets you marginalized and you lose. And you lose each and every time. Those sort of theatrics are maybe fine in a IWW meeting--but they don't play in the real world.


if your saying the palestinians are just loosers, because of what is done to them, then so are the 911 victims. The Palestinians are losers because they haven't figured a way to solve the problem of Israel. The 9/11 victims aren't going to figure anything out--they're dead. The Palestinians are a group of people with a mission and a cause and a need to figure the're way out of a very difficult situation. The 9/11 victims are random people caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.


All I'm asking is for you to be consistant and not a hypoctrite. And I'm asking you to make a coherent analogy.

[Dean]

Maybe it's me--but when I make decisions (not that I have any decision making powers in the Palestine situation) I always try to detach myself from the situation. I look at the ends I want to achieve and try to find the best way to move in the direction I want. Once I establish the moral goal, and the rules of engagement--the rest is the game to get where I'm going. It clears the air of any emotional responses that I might make. Those emotion responses the the biggest hindrance to success.

Here's an interesting book that sums up how NOT to make decisions: it is slightly off topic, but it expains how to be successful in areas where so many people fail. It's officially about how to invest money, but it explain how to make decisions of any sort in any situation.

http://www.jasonzweig.com/brainbook.html#summary

I don't think that Hamas or Fatah, for instance, are being irrational at all. The Palestinians voting for these organizations are not being irrational either.

Hamas is driven underground by Israel's targeted killings. Political normalization is an impossibility if you can't even have a presence without being a target. Fatah is increasingly alienated from the population because they voted for Hamas, and are uneasy about their peers being targeted by a state that tries to empower them (Fatah).

In fact, Palestinian support for Hamas has finally started to pay off. They brought the embargo to the forefront of public debate by the use of militancy, and this culminated in the Flotilla raid. subsequently, Israel was forced to raise restrictions on movement of goods.

[hatzel]

The above comment made me think it might be a good time to throw this one out there:

Islamic Movement: Israeli Arabs will reject peace achieved by current PA leaders (http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/islamic-movement-israeli-arabs-will-reject-peace-achieved-by-current-pa-leaders-1.315626)


Speaking at a rally titled "Al-Aqsa in danger" Sheikh Kamel Khatib said that Israeli Arabs would not recognize a potential peace deal signed by the current PA leadership, saying no one authorized them "to speak in our name."



Calling out to the Palestinian negotiators, Khatib said Arab Israelis "will stomp on any paper or signature which you agree to on our behalf – we will not recognize it."


Even though I really don't like most of what that guy's saying, as it's all a bit...well, tosh. A bit too 'push them into the sea', a bit too 'Israel wants to conquer Mecca', but there is a good point raised. Namely...why exactly is Abbas even involved anywhere? Of course he doesn't represent the Palestinians within Israel (but then why should he?), but does he even represent the Palestinian Territories? Last time I checked, his elected term of office expired almost two years ago, and since then he alone has decided to extend his office as sees fit. So sure, he's now an unelected leader. Hence a lot of the Hamas - Fatah friction, Hamas one of the most frustrated at Abbas's continuation as president, despite being unelected.


So, really, why do we even bother talking about peace? If a peace is agreed between Netanyahu and Abbas in the coming year, then a 'foreign' and 'illegitimate' (according to some Palestinians) regime will have come to an agreement with an 'illegitimate' and 'unelected' regime. And I can't see that really working out. Hell, even if a two-state solution were found, I wouldn't put it past Hamas to merely shift their attentions from being 80% against Israel, 20% against Fatah to being 80% against Fatah and 20% against Israel. Cue the civil war if an unelected leader reaches any agreement that isn't universally supported by the Palestinian people.

[RGacky3]

There are winners and loosers. But when you say I said people "should know their place" You are just making that up. I'd be the last person to say that.


Your implication is that.

When you talk about lambs and wolves, when you talk about the poor, your implication is thast who they are and they should know their place. THe palestinians are weak, and thus its their place to be oppressed.


Calling America EVIL is just unproductive--it gets you nowhere and gets you marginalized and you lose. And you lose each and every time.

The same with calling terrorists Evil, listen bud, I don't call america evil, I don't call terrorists evil, because there are motivations and justifications on both sides.

But, if your going to make moral judgements on "terrorists" then be consistant.


The Palestinians are losers because they haven't figured a way to solve the problem of Israel. The 9/11 victims aren't going to figure anything out--they're dead. The Palestinians are a group of people with a mission and a cause and a need to figure the're way out of a very difficult situation. The 9/11 victims are random people caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The Palestinains were in the wrong place (their home) at the wrong time (when the UK wanted to kick them out), the 9/11 victims were loosers, they died, the Palestinian are not in this situation because they messed up, they arn't in this situation because they failed, they are in this situation because someone put them there.

Let me ask you, would you call the North Korean people loosers as well? Because they happened to be born in a place rulled by a lunetic?

Unless your going to actually understand the situation, for what it is, and understand the different roles in the situation you not going to be able to analyse it correctly.

My point in the 9/11 analogy was that the victims in 9/11 did'nt do anything to deserve it, they did'nt do anything wrong, they were VICTIMS, the palestinian people are victims, theres very very little THEY can do. But by having the viewpoint that they are just loosers, and they just lost a competition, as if it was a ping pong game, your implying that this is something deserved, thats the problem with right wing thought, it ignores the reality of conditions, situations and power discrepencies, they consider it to be a game, like football, where either your good, or bad, either you try hard or you don't, its not like that Bud.

[Ele'ill]

As I said a thousand times--I DON'T SUPPORT the State of Israel's actions towards the Palestinians. But just because the Israelis kill innocent people doesn't give the Palestinians the right to kill innocent people.

No one has the right to kill innocent people.



You're defining the word innocent based on what you read or hear on the news. A bombing by Palestinian militants involving civilian deaths might have killed militant settlers- Israel can conveniently call these militant settlers 'civilians' when they are quite clearly enemy combatants in the eyes of the Palestinians- as they frequently engage in anti-Palestinian 'actions' as their own entity or in collaboration with the IDF. Where as a bombing by IDF whatevers involving Palestinian deaths, historically, has been legit in the sense that actual non-combatant civilians were killed.


Edit- I am not saying all deaths by Palestinian militants involve combatants- but it is something to keep in mind.

[hatzel]

It's not so difficult to find numbers (http://www.btselem.org/english/Statistics/Casualties.asp) to clarify...

[RGacky3]

Its funny that the media in the US does'nt reflect the statistics at all, well, its not news, but fpr people who parrot the US line it is.

[hatzel]

Me, I can't talk for the US media. My nose is firmly planted in the BBC, the JC and Ha'aretz, when it comes to the mainstream media...

Still, I don't think numbers really mean much in this context. Does it matter how many people of each side have died? I'd suggest no. The circumstances are much more important. What does it mean if we're told that 10 people are killed? How were they killed? For instance, did they die like:


Ben Zion (Haim) Haneman
21 year-old resident of Mushav Nov, killed on 18.09.2007 , Nablus district. Additional information: Killed in an exchange of gunfire with armed Palestinians during an army operation.

...or did they die like:


Avraham Ozeri
86 year-old resident of Gillo, East Jerusalem district, killed on 23.10.2008 , East Jerusalem district, by stabbing. Additional information: Stabbed by a Palestinian while he was standing next to his house.

...or maybe like:


Manal Hassan 'Ali al-Batran
32 year-old resident of al-Bureij Refugee Camp, Deir al-Balah district, killed on 16.01.2009 , Deir al-Balah district, by a missile, during the course of a targeted killing. Additional information: Killed when her house was bombed, apparently with the aim of killing her husband.

...or like:


Muhammad Muzayen Musa Sha'ban
22 year-old resident of Gaza city, injured on 15.01.2009 , by a missile, and died on 31.01.2009. Did not participate in hostilities when killed. Additional information: Wounded while fleeing from his home, near the house of senior Hamas official Mahmud a-Zahar, which was being bombed, and died some two weeks later from his wounds. Two of his brothers were killed in the incident.

...or even like:


'Iz a-Din Radwan Radwan al-Jamal
14 year-old resident of Hebron, killed on 13.02.2009 , by 0.22-caliber bullets. Did not participate in hostilities when killed. Additional information: Killed while standing on the roof of a house and throwing stones at soldiers at the pharmacy checkpoint.

Call me old fashioned, disrespectful, condescending, whatever, but I think it does make a difference. Quoting numbers can only do so much, if the numbers can't be understood as representative of something.

[Dean]

Call me old fashioned, disrespectful, condescending, whatever, but I think it does make a difference. Quoting numbers can only do so much, if the numbers can't be understood as representative of something.

The deaths themselves don't provide understanding as to the causes and perpetuation of the conflict. It is only via analysis of the power structures in place, and of their relation to the conflict, that will answer these questions.

[Ele'ill]

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2010/09/402652.shtml

[hatzel]

...some of us might just like to just point out that there is a reason that the 'proper' UN are doing their own investigation. Mainly because the upper echelons of the UN, as well as many western governments, pretty much dismiss the UNHRC as a bit of an Israel-bashing entity, not the comprehensive, free from bias bunch they're supposed to be. They did under Kofi, as they do under Ban Ki-moon. So let's not run around expecting the UN to pay any attention to that, they'll let their own investigation help them decide what exactly they'll want to do about the situation :)

[ComradeMan]

If you question the legitimacy of Israel as a nation state then technically you question the legitimacy of nearly all nation states- see the problem?

Re Arab-Israelis- I know some Arab-Israelis personally- they obviously have a particular viewpoint on the problem but I don't think they are discriminated against directly in Israel and they all have Israeli passports. Of course prejudice is bound to exist. Racism didn't disappear with apartheid etc etc.

But the whole problem is very complex and I don't think it helps by bringing it down to such binary analyses either.

[L.A.P.]

Cry harder.

He does have a point though.

[Che a chara]

Displacements are wrong, end of. This is why the state of Israel is largely illegitimate as it continues to displace and expand it's borders contrary to international law and human rights.

[ComradeMan]

Displacements are wrong, end of. This is why the state of Israel is largely illegitimate as it continues to displace and expand it's borders contrary to international law and human rights.


largely illegitimate- Which bits are legitimate and which bits aren't then? In your opinion.

[Che a chara]

largely illegitimate- Which bits are legitimate and which bits aren't then? In your opinion.

Well the borders that are recognised by international law. Beyond that it is criminal.

What isn't legitimate is the war crimes carried out by the Zionist government; the inhumane blockade, the daily acts of aggression, oppression, attacks on their neighbours, land theft, the racist and sectarian agenda and the lies that are fed to the media.

[American Assasin]

A good source for information about the truth is this jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html

[Che a chara]

A good source for information about the truth is this jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html

Erm, no .... more twists and distortions which only looks at the history through the eyes of Israel and the USA and gives one side of the story.

[Tommy4ever]

Right, I've not read this entire thread but thought I might contribute some answers for the original questions. From what I've read so far people have basically been saying ''the evol Imperialists signed a blood pact with the Zionist Imperialist scum to DESTROY THE ARAB PEOPLEZ!'' :blushing:

To understand why Israel was created we must delve back into the latter half of the 19th century. During this period the Zionist movement was born. Essentially the Zionist movement wanted a homeland for the Jewish people. Nothing more, nothing less. But this raised an important question - where? The Jewish people were spread widely across the entire world (mostly in Central and Eastern Europe though) and were the majority nowhere. The solution was for the Jews to emigrate to a new land and colonise it (this might have been partly inspired by the European colonisation of Africa which occured at the same time as Zionism developed at the tail end of the 19th century). The obvious choice was the Holy Land, this was extremely popular with the Jews themselves within the movement as this land was obviously their Biblical home. However there were problems. The only power that was really receptive to the Zionist movement was Great Britain - it did not own Palestine - the region belonged to the Ottoman Empire.

At this time the British actually offered a strip of land aproximately consisting of modern Uganda as the Jewish homeland. The Zionists were nearly accepted the proposal. Remember that at this time the prospects of getting any of the Holy Land were very poor.

From the early 20th century Jews started to emigrate to the Ottoman province of Palestine as Zionists bought up land. The Turks accepted this as it brought some wealth to an impoverished backwater province and helped refocus some anti-Turk hostility. But at this stage it was small scale.

After the Great War modern day Israel, Palestine and Jordan became the British Mandate of Palestine (basically these lands were annexed from the now defunct Ottoman Empire). This was when Zionism really kicked off and mass immigration of Jews into Palestine really began. The rise of Nazi Germany helped push the immigration into overdrive. By the the mid 30s the Arabs were starting to get really concerned at fears of Zionism played a major role in a large anti-British rebellion.

After WWII the Jews owned large tracts of land in Palestine and made up a significant amount of the population (33%). The area quickly erupted into chaos. The Zionists started a powerful terrorist movement aimed against both the British and the Arabs, the Arabs likewise starting to attack both British and Jews (although they were not nearly as well organised). The British essentially wanted to get the hell out of that mess and rushed through the partition.

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/mjacobs/Maps/Israel-1948-49.gif

Here is a map. Well as soon as the British withdrew Israel and Palestine were drawn to the borders of the map on the left. A war immediately ensued in which the Israelis, against all odds, smashed a league of Arab states and annexed large amounts of land.

From then on Jewish immigration increased significantly whilst the Arabs were driven out. Methods of driving out the Arabs vary. Many were killed, many more fled as war refugees (1/2 of Jordan's population is made up of Palestinian war refugees and their families) and many more were forced out by Jewish settlement programs.

Why do Western governments support Israel?

A mixture of reasons. Firstly - guilt tripping. The Western world fealt very guilty about what had happened during the War and this played a major role in building support for Israel.

Secondly - Cold War politics. During the Cold War many Arab regimes adopted pro-Soviet foriegn policies (read Nasser) so Israel was a useful counter.

Thirdly - Jewish population in the US. There is a very significant Jewish population in the US which is very pro-Israel. The Arab population has never been so large or so influencial. Therefore this plays an important role.

Fourthly - end-timers. You may find this hard to believe but there is a very powerful force in the US that pushes for pro-Israel policies based on the hope that a powerful Israel will push on armageddon and their 'rapture' into heaven. :laugh:

Fifthly - culture. Israel has a pretty Western culture, the Arab world does not.

Finally - Islamism. In a world in which the greatest foriegn threat to Western powers is Islamic extremism Israel is again a useful bulwark.

Why are leftists against Israel?

Tradtion.

Barbarous Imperialism - colonisation, treatment of Palestinians etc.

Sticking up for the little guy.

Leftists usually attack anything pro-US.

Israel is pretty right wing.

Just my input. :)

[Viet Minh]

Can somebody explain to me, in a nutshell:
- How was Israel created?
- Why do Western governments support Israel?
- Why does the left oppose Israel?

Plain statements of fact please, no 'because they are bourgeois imperialist scum'. Cheers.

Reminded me of this picture..
i54.tinypic.com/2hib4v4.jpg


The area has been fought over for centuries, claims of 'its their land' are moot, especially in terms of leftist ideology. I also balk at the idea of supporting either Israel or Palestine, why not just support peace? Neither state is exactly secular, there are Muslims and Christians in Israel, and Jews and Christians in Palestine, but in both cases there are accusations of mistreatment and inequality.

Support my 3-state solution!!

[RGacky3]

I also balk at the idea of supporting either Israel or Palestine, why not just support peace?

Thats like saying I don't support the guy beating up a guy with a baseball bat or the guy getting hit with a baseball bat, I support peace, its rediculous. This is a case of Isreal oppressing palestinians, what your assuming is a false equivilancy.

[PhoenixAsh]

Reminded me of this picture..
i54.tinypic.com/2hib4v4.jpg


The area has been fought over for centuries, claims of 'its their land' are moot, especially in terms of leftist ideology. I also balk at the idea of supporting either Israel or Palestine, why not just support peace? Neither state is exactly secular, there are Muslims and Christians in Israel, and Jews and Christians in Palestine, but in both cases there are accusations of mistreatment and inequality.

Support my 3-state solution!!

Follwing that line of reasoning historically then nobody belongs there but the original settlers in the regions that were dispersed when the Judean people displaced them.

Fact of the matter is that there was (relative) peace amongst the population in the region and the three religions were living there rather pleasantly for that time frame untill some dimwit thought it a good idea to start migrating there in large numbers and arming themselves using terrorist activities with the sole purpose of carving out a nation based on judaism at the expence of all others who lived there.

A three state solution is not a solution at all. That country can not be devided in equal parts without the parts being devided into a mosaic. which does not bode well to national unity...given the very, very umatchable ideologies and political and national interests.

Not in the least the interest of zionism which clearly states and propogates that the whole of the region belongs to the Jewish faith and no other should have ownership of land there but jews.

It also completely ignores the fact that there has been a population control policy going on getting massive amounts of people into Israel in the last 52 years...completely unbalancing the division between the three groups.

Not to mention the fact that the original partition was grossly unfiar to start with. Seeing as 30% of the population got about 65% of the available land.

The only solution is a secular one nation state....and that means the destruction of the institutions of Israel. (note; INSTITUTIONS.... NOT its people)



Also...refering back to your immage...it really doesn't matter how much land you take for you to be imperialistic in your designs.

[Viet Minh]

Thats like saying I don't support the guy beating up a guy with a baseball bat or the guy getting hit with a baseball bat, I support peace, its rediculous. This is a case of Isreal oppressing palestinians, what your assuming is a false equivilancy.

Yes there is a huge imbalance in power, and definite abuse of that power, but (to use your analogy) if you as an outsider saw that would you go and beat up the guy with the baseball bat, or would you try to seperate them till they calmed down? Because remember you could shoot the guy with the baseball bat but his brother will just come back with a gun.


Follwing that line of reasoning historically then nobody belongs there but the original settlers in the regions that were dispersed when the Judean people displaced them.

No that's not my line of reasoning, I'm sorry if I implied as much. I don't support any concept of nationalist territorialism, be it jewish or arab.


Fact of the matter is that there was (relative) peace amongst the population in the region and the three religions were living there rather pleasantly for that time frame untill some dimwit thought it a good idea to start migrating there in large numbers and arming themselves using terrorist activities with the sole purpose of carving out a nation based on judaism at the expence of all others who lived there

Yes there was a purposeful zionist movement, although the common perception is of jewish refugees from Germany, there were also many immigrants from Russia and other parts of Europe, since the late 1800's. It was they who started a terrorist campaign against the British.


A three state solution is not a solution at all. That country can not be devided in equal parts without the parts being devided into a mosaic. which does not bode well to national unity...given the very, very umatchable ideologies and political and national interests.

At the moment its unthinkable, although in some areas Muslims and Jews live together in relative peace, this is greatly hampered by the actions of the Israeli army, and perhaps to an extent Hamas/ Fatah etc. But those political/ national interests should have no part of the 3rd State, by its constitution.


Not in the least the interest of zionism which clearly states and propogates that the whole of the region belongs to the Jewish faith and no other should have ownership of land there but jews.

Hence my suggestion that the 3rd State be in Gaza, where people are desperate for peace. And together they fight against any sort of aggression from either side of the divide.


It also completely ignores the fact that there has been a population control policy going on getting massive amounts of people into Israel in the last 52 years...completely unbalancing the division between the three groups.

This will still be an issue but at least there will be a safe region for Arabs/ Muslims and indeed jews who want to live in peace and without fear.


Not to mention the fact that the original partition was grossly unfiar to start with. Seeing as 30% of the population got about 65% of the available land.

Agreed and Israel continues to try to expand its borders. However the greatest issue we have to deal with is the immediate danger to civilians, the third state would ideally take equal amounts of land from both Arab and Israeli areas, and possibly create a 'buffer zone' between them.


The only solution is a secular one nation state....and that means the destruction of the institutions of Israel. (note; INSTITUTIONS.... NOT its people)

With all due respect would that not mean the destruction of the institutions of hamas and fatah as well? I am no doubt subject to western propaganda and my own ignorance here but they seem to have a certain religious agenda also, with martyrism etc. If we went back to the situation before the borders were constructed would we not just go back to the civil war and bloodshed that preceded them? Or are you talking about removing the Israelis from all (current) Israeli/ Palestinian territory?


Also...refering back to your immage...it really doesn't matter how much land you take for you to be imperialistic in your designs.

Agreed

[RGacky3]

or would you try to seperate them till they calmed down? Because remember you could shoot the guy with the baseball bat but his brother will just come back with a gun.


No I would try and seperate HIM, I would stop HIM from beating the guy, I'm not in favor of terrorism, but to act as if its juts 2 poeple fighting is ignorant, you have one party oppressing another, you got to stop the oppression.

[9]

Support my 3-state solution!!

Haha.....? Well, at least its original... more than can be said of the other 'solution' slogans, I guess...

Still, I think I'll have to pass. :p

[RED DAVE]

To understand why Israel was created we must delve back into the latter half of the 19th century. During this period the Zionist movement was born. Essentially the Zionist movement wanted a homeland for the Jewish people. Nothing more, nothing less.You are ignoring the fact that this is a proposal to solve "the Jewish Question" as it was known through bourgeois nationalism.


But this raised an important question - where? The Jewish people were spread widely across the entire world (mostly in Central and Eastern Europe though) and were the majority nowhere. The solution was for the Jews to emigrate to a new land and colonise it (this might have been partly inspired by the European colonisation of Africa which occured at the same time as Zionism developed at the tail end of the 19th century).Where is your class analysis of the role of Jews in Europe? This is just potted history. In the 19th Century, Zionism was a tiny movement among Jews. Socialism and assimilationism were at least as popular.


The obvious choice was the Holy LandActually, the Zionists toyed with other places, such as Uganda.


this was extremely popular with the Jews themselves within the movement as this land was obviously their Biblical home. However there were problems. The only power that was really receptive to the Zionist movement was Great Britain - it did not own Palestine - the region belonged to the Ottoman Empire.As I state above, Zionism was far from "extremely popular" among Jews. It basically represented a petit-bourgeois ideology, ignoring class divisions in Europe and among Jews themselves.


At this time the British actually offered a strip of land aproximately consisting of modern Uganda as the Jewish homeland. The Zionists were nearly accepted the proposal. Remember that at this time the prospects of getting any of the Holy Land were very poor.And, please note, the Zionist movement was kissing the ass of the imperialist powers. They attempted to make deals with the Ottomans, the Germans and the British. No account was ever taken in Zionist literature of the existing population.


From the early 20th century Jews started to emigrate to the Ottoman province of Palestine as Zionists bought up land. The Turks accepted this as it brought some wealth to an impoverished backwater province and helped refocus some anti-Turk hostility. But at this stage it was small scale.And, again, represented, in spite of the idealism of rank-and-file Zionists, the beginnings of an outpost of imperialism. The migration to Palestine corresponded to the Jewish migration to the West, especially the USA.


After the Great War modern day Israel, Palestine and Jordan became the British Mandate of Palestine (basically these lands were annexed from the now defunct Ottoman Empire). This was when Zionism really kicked off and mass immigration of Jews into Palestine really began.There was no mass migration at that time. And, I might add, the softened position of the British had to do with Zionist collaboration with the Brits during WWI.


The rise of Nazi Germany helped push the immigration into overdrive.Wrong. There was relatively little immigration to Palestine before WWII in spite of Zionist propaganda.


By the the mid 30s the Arabs were starting to get really concerned at fears of Zionism played a major role in a large anti-British rebellion.This is so as the Zionists, while pursuing their own agenda, were collaborating with the British in oppressing the Palestinian Arabs.


After WWII the Jews owned large tracts of land in Palestine and made up a significant amount of the population (33%). The area quickly erupted into chaos. The Zionists started a powerful terrorist movement aimed against both the British and the Arabs, the Arabs likewise starting to attack both British and Jews (although they were not nearly as well organised). The British essentially wanted to get the hell out of that mess and rushed through the partition.The Partition was designed to serve both British and US imperialism and was supported by the Russians.

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/mjacobs/Maps/Israel-1948-49.gif

More later. On a personal note, during the 1950s, when most American Jews accepted Israel on the basis of a refuge from the Holocaust, and recognized that there were significant problems involving the Arab people there, the Zionists were pushing a program of virulent racism and Cold War imperialism. I know because I was nearly recruited to Zionist as a teenager and remember the propaganda vividly.

RED DAVE

[Viet Minh]

No I would try and seperate HIM, I would stop HIM from beating the guy, I'm not in favor of terrorism, but to act as if its juts 2 poeple fighting is ignorant, you have one party oppressing another, you got to stop the oppression.

Whose to say if the other guy had the baseball bat he would not be beating down harder on the other guy, for whatever reason, rightly or wrongly. Violence breeds violence, if you're not creating a new completely equal and secular state, whats the point in the destructiveness of a regime change? Or back to the analogy, yes stop him from beating the other guy up but just beating up the guy with the baseball bat will necessarily solve the problem, you need to stop them fighting and phsyically disarm them if possible. Can you tell I used to work with kids in Glasgow? :D

[RGacky3]

Whose to say if the other guy had the baseball bat he would not be beating down harder on the other guy, for whatever reason, rightly or wrongly.

No one, but so what, you still stop the guy with the baseball bat from hitting the other guy without one, how the hell is that an argument?


whats the point in the destructiveness of a regime change? Or back to the analogy, yes stop him from beating the other guy up but just beating up the guy with the baseball bat will necessarily solve the problem, you need to stop them fighting and phsyically disarm them if possible. Can you tell I used to work with kids in Glasgow?

You need to stop the guy with a baseball bat from beating the guy wihtout one, thats whats causing the fighting, you stop that the reason for fighting is gone and most of it will go.

Enough with the false equivilancy.