Israel

[Militant]

Before we start I’d like to get a few things out of the way.

The word Palestine means nothing. Romans made that up. The correct word is Judea or Samaria or both. They make up present day Israel.

For simplicity sake the so-called Palestinians will be called Arabs. All Muslims in terms of this debate will be called Arabs.

I shall now demonstrate the right Jews have to an Israeli nation. This is both historical and moral. This is to demostate that the Jewish people were not committing imperialism when they returned to ISrael

In 1010 BCE David conquered Jerusalem, beginning the presence of Jews in Jerusalem and the area we know call Israel. This act is regettable, but there are no more Canaaites to complain, they were algamated into the Hebrew people.

The revolt against Roman rule in 66 CE led to a ban on Jews in Jerusalem, however there are reports of Jews in Jerusalem in the 7th century implying this ban was lifted/not enforced. Also this date is after the last Diaspora (post-Roman), implying not all the Jews were removed. The reason for so many Jews living abroad was the result of marrying non-Jews in Europe, Africa and Asia.

The Religion of Peace, Islam, under the Caliphate of Umar, forcibly conquers Israel. Jerusalem was conquered in 637 CE.

In 710 CE the Muslims built the Al-Aqsa Mosque out of the ruins of the Second Temple.

1099 CE Jerusalem falls to Crusaders, thousands of Jews murdered.

1400 CE European Jews return to Israel, now under Egyptian control, to escape religious persecution. In 1492 Jews are forced from Spain. This implies that Jews and Muslims were able to co-exist, it's sad this trend has not continued

1923 CE 70% of the British mandate of “Palestine” is given to Emir Abdullah. It is later called Jordan. This country has never existed prior to this decree.

1920-21 CE Riots by Muslims against Jews, 67 Jews murdered in Hebron alone.

1947 CE The UN votes to partition the remaining 30% into Arab and Jewish states.

1948 CE Israel declared, immediately attacked by Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, and Egypt. “Palestinian Arabs" are encouraged by their Arab brethren to leave in order to assist in the quick and complete victory (destruction) of Israel. Palestinians that left are not allowed to return home. Apparently the Jewish state doesn’t want people that worked against Israel to live in Israel. Shocking.

Land seized by Israel is used to create a defensive boarder (see maps)


http://www.trumanlibrary.org/israel/unplan19.gif

Israel 1947

The Wars of Israel

All have been defensive under International Law. Each time Israel was the smaller force, facing multiple countries, but still won. Almost all territory was return after being captured, like the Sinai. Only positions of massive strategic positions were maintained, like the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem.

http://www.science.co.il/images/maps/Arab-Countries.gif

Countries that have fought against Israel

Wars:

The Independence War: Arab nations attack Israel, the USA, UN and USSR deemed this illegal aggression. The Arab Legion attack civilian buses Dec 14, Jewish militia forces attack Al-Khisas. By June 11 there is a truth, for Israeli forces have driven Arab forces back. July 8, 1948, Egypt resumes warfare. By 1949, the Arab forces are defeated. 750,000 Palestinians become refugees; they were denied the right to settle in neighboring Arab nations. However, 600,000 Jews in Arab nations are expelled, and allowed to settle in Israel. Oddly enough, we never hear about them.

Suez War: Egypt funds Fadeyeen forces against Israel, which launch attacks on Israel proper. Also close down Suez Canal to Israeli shipping. This is viewed as an act of war. By 1957 all Israeli forces withdraw from Sinai, as per agreement.

Six Day War (1967): Egypt built up forces in the Sinai, and closed shipping around the Straits of Tiran. Both of these qualify as acts of war. Jordan entered the war, as did Syria. Golan Heights and East Jerusalem seized by IDF. Both are important strategic positions, and as such are now part of Israel proper. Jordan has given up all claims to E.J. There are rumors of Israeli forces killed POWs, however, official orders stated prisoners were not to be harmed.

Yom Kippur (1973) – Arabs attack on Jewish Holiday. Get beaten back.

So far I have shown that Jews have lived in present day Israel for at least 3000 years. Not only that, but Arabs instigated all wars with Israel. If the Arabs had lived with Jews there would have been no problems (for proof of this I point to the 1.5 million Arabs living and serving (!) in Israel). Arabs have started all the modern conflicts.

Following the holocaust and other acts of an anti-Semitic nature, have demonstrated the need for Jews to have a safe haven in times of troubles. Arabs could have taken advantage of this influx and formed a pluralistic society, sadly they chose war instead. Look where it got them.

In terms of governments, Israel is a democracy, while the “Palestinians” and Arabs have chosen theocracy and autocracy. Why the left has made a pet project of this cause is beyond me. Why we support the most reactionary of governments (theocracy) or the second most (autocracy) in favor of a developed and flourishing free government and people only seems to point to an underlying anti-Jewish sentiment among many leftists. Which runs counter to everything we stand for.

As such, this policy confuses me to no end.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Just browsed over your post and while there will be better historians than me here. I have noticed one glaring error.


Suez War: Egypt funds Fadeyeen forces against Israel, which launch attacks on Israel proper. Also close down Suez Canal to Israeli shipping. This is viewed as an act of war. By 1957 all Israeli forces withdraw from Sinai, as per agreement.


The Suez War started after Egypt nationalised the Suez canal. The British, French and Israelis' colluded together to go to war with Egypt. The plan was that Israel would invade then after a few days Britain and France would deliver an ultimatum that unless the war stopped they would invade. During this invasion the British and French planned to overthrow Nasser and reclaim the canal. Egypt however managed to resist and the war ended in an Egyptian victory, to the embarrassment of the British, French and Israelis'. At no point during this whole debacle did Egypt act as the aggressor and it is a testament to the deviousness of the British, French and Israeli actions that even America condemned them.

[Free Palestine]

Virtually every statement is a complete fabrication. I will only answered the points which I see to be relevant. I don't have enough time or desire to give you a history lesson. Since, from your comments it is clear you only listen to what you want to learn, to back up your probably already biased slant on the Middle East.


I shall now demonstrate the right Jews have to an Israeli nation.

The right to self-determination has never included the right to live in someone else's house, after taking it by force or fraud. Nor does it include the right to set up house in territories that are conquered and occupied as the result of military conflict. International law expressly forbids such a thing. And furthermore, those who insist on the right of Jews to live wherever they choose, by definition deny the same right to Palestinians, who cannot live in the place of their choosing, or even in the homes that were once theirs.


This is both historical and moral.

It is Jewish mythology alone that confers legitimacy of sorts to the Jewish right of return. By the way, there is no system of law which converts a perceived claim by an individual or group into a legally enforceable right. Nor does any system of law confer on any people a perpetual right to a country they (may have) once inhabited some eighteen hundred years ago.


This is both historical and moral. This is to demostate that the Jewish people were not committing imperialism when they returned to ISrael

In this case, Militant asks to concede that the “perception” that Palestine is “their ancient homeland” gives European Jews the right to return. And this right is comprehensive. It empowers European Jews to ‘repossess’ Palestine – take it away from the Palestinians – in order to establish a state of the Jewish people.


70% of the British mandate of “Palestine” is given to Emir Abdullah. It is later called Jordan. This country has never existed prior to this decree.

Jordan is not Palestine.


1947 CE The UN votes to partition the remaining 30% into Arab and Jewish states.

You forgot to mention that during Palestine's period as a British protectorate, the incoming Jewish immigrants became terrorists and terrorized the British until they gave up and left. In the process the upcoming Jewish immigrants became the pioneers of terrorist tactics and struck the British through horrendous acts of terrorism: the bombing of the King David hotel (home of the British office in Jerusalem with the first car bomb. Menachim Begin, the future Israeli Prime Minister was behind that one); the hijacking of the first airplane; the first suitcase bomb, it goes on like this.


“Palestinian Arabs" are encouraged by their Arab brethren to leave in order to assist in the quick and complete victory (destruction) of Israel.

Virtually every statement is a fabrication. As to what caused the refugee problem, I'll simply quote Benny Morris, the Israeli historian who has done the most serious archival work and is generally regarded as the leading scholar on this topic -- and whose opinion is that Ben-Gurion made a serious mistake when he did not "cleanse the whole country," up to the Jordan -- that is, drive out all the Palestinians. Here's his conclusion about the origin of the refugee problem: "Above all, let me reiterate, the refugee problem was caused by attacks by Jewish forces on Arab villages and towns and by the inhabitants' fear of such attacks, compounded by expulsions, atrocities, and rumors of atrocities - and by the crucial Israeli cabinet decision in June 1948 to bar a refugee return," leaving the Palestinians "crushed, with some 700,000 driven into exile and another 150,000 left under Israeli rule."


Six Day War (1967): Egypt built up forces in the Sinai, and closed shipping around the Straits of Tiran. Both of these qualify as acts of war. Jordan entered the war, as did Syria. Golan Heights and East Jerusalem seized by IDF. Both are important strategic positions, and as such are now part of Israel proper. Jordan has given up all claims to E.J. There are rumors of Israeli forces killed POWs, however, official orders stated prisoners were not to be harmed.

Actually Israel started the Six-Day War war with the goal of annexing Arab land. I'd ask you to consider the following collection of quotes from Israeli generals and prime ministers, which support my claims. I don't wish to play the "who started first" game--depending on one's perspective, one can go back thousands of years. I do, however, wish to ask that you do more to ensure some truth in your posts.


In the early hours of 5 June 1967, Israel announced that the Egyptian Air Force had initiated hostile actions. In fact, it was the Israelis who had attacked the Egyptians and destroyed virtually the entire Egyptian Air Force while its fleet was still on the ground. General Matityahu Peled, one of the architects of the Israeli conquest, admitted the true thinking of the Israeli leadership: "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war" (Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972).


Israeli Air Force General Ezer Weizmann declared bluntly that "there was never any danger of extermination" (Ma'ariv, 19 April 1972). Mordechai Bentov, a former Israeli cabinet minister, also dismissed the myth of Israel's imminent annihilation: "All this story about the danger of extermination has been a complete invention and has been blown up a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territories" (Al Hamishmar, 14 April 1972).


In sum, the threat to Israel's survival in 1967 was non-existent. According to the British newspaper The Observer, Nasser's purpose was clearly "to deter Israel rather than provoke it to a fight" (The Observer, London, 4 June 1967). New York Times columnist James Reston reported that "Egypt does not war [...] certainly is not ready for war" (New York Times, 4 and 5 June 1967).

A few months after the war, Yitzhak Rabin remarked:


"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai on 14 May would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it" (Le Monde, 29 February 1968).

Israeli General Peled was even more frank:


"To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to the Zahal [Israeli army]" (Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972).

Finally, in 1982, the Israelis admitted that they had started the war although the pro-Israel lobby in the United States still does not acknowledge this fact. Prime Minister Menachem Begin, in a speech delivered at the Israeli National Defense College, clearly stated that:



"The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him" (Jerusalem Post, 20 August 1982).


All have been defensive under International Law.

As far as the Israeli occupation, there are very few comparable cases of military occupation and radical violation of the Geneva conventions and other international law in the post-World War II period.


Following the holocaust and other acts of an anti-Semitic nature, have demonstrated the need for Jews to have a safe haven in times of troubles.

The fact that Jews have been dispossessed and stripped of their dignity and human rights on numerous occasions in the past is not a license for Israel to do so to the Palestinians in the present.


(Following the holocaust and other acts of an anti-Semitic nature, have demonstrated the need for Jews to have a safe haven in times of troubles.) Arabs could have taken advantage of this influx and formed a pluralistic society, sadly they chose war instead. Look where it got them.

Militant's argument here assumes that Palestine was the only destination for Jewish refugees escaping Nazi persecution. Could not these Jews find refuge – permanent or temporary – in any of the Allied countries (or their vast colonies) whose war effort could have been greatly aided by the influx of Jewish skills, expertise and capital? All this appears implausible to Militant.


Arabs could have taken advantage of this influx and formed a pluralistic society, sadly they chose war instead. Look where it got them.

Maybe if the Israeli's moved to Palestine to live in PEACE, and not destroy 531 palestinians villages, we wouldn't have this problem eh? Look where it got them.


In terms of governments, Israel is a democracy, while the “Palestinians” and Arabs have chosen theocracy and autocracy.

Israel has no constitution, and its basic law includes no right to equality. No bill of rights. No guarantees of things like free speech, freedom of assembly and due process of law.

It is legally defined as a "Jewish nation." As such, Jews are given special privileges for jobs, loans and land ownership, and Jews from anywhere in the world are given preference in immigration, extended automatic citizenship upon coming to Israel over and above longtime Arab residents. Non-Jews are restricted in terms of how much land they can own, and in which places they can own land at all, thanks to laws granting preferential treatment to Jewish residents.

Political candidates who espouse the belief that Israel should be a nation with equal rights for all and not a "Jewish nation" are not even allowed to hold office, or even run for eleciton. Even the Israeli Supreme Court has acknowledged the use of torture against suspected “terrorists” and other “enemies” of the Jewish state.

For you, it is apparently sufficient that Israel has an electoral system, and that Arabs have the right to vote in those elections (though just how equally this right is protected is of course a different matter). The fact that one can't vote for a candidate who questions the special Jewish nature of the state, because such candidates can't run for or hold office, must strike you most as irrelevant — hardly enough for you to call into question Israel's democratic credentials.

If what you see in Israel is democracy, then I'd like to ask you what fascism looks like?


...and only seems to point to an underlying anti-Jewish sentiment among many leftists.

I can't really see how your words here differ from American Senator McCarthy using the dangerously-loaded slur, Communist, applied to anyone he didn't want working in the State Department or in Hollywood.

[Militant]

<<Since, from your comments it is clear you only listen to what you want to learn, to back up your probably already biased slant on the Middle East.>>

Pot meet kettle, my friend, your personalized "group" is I destroy Zionism. Do you deny you have a slant?

<<The right to self-determination has never included the right to live in someone else&#39;s house, after taking it by force or fraud. Nor does it include the right to set up house in territories that are conquered and occupied as the result of military conflict. International law expressly forbids such a thing. And furthermore, those who insist on the right of Jews to live wherever they choose, by definition deny the same right to Palestinians, who cannot live in the place of their choosing, or even in the homes that were once theirs.>>

Jews have lived in Israel since time eternal. The various factions have risen and fell in Judea, yet only Jews have been the permeant fixture, the one thread that binds the history of the region together. Islam is the latest in a string of invaders.

<<It is Jewish mythology alone that confers legitimacy of sorts to the Jewish right of return. By the way, there is no system of law which converts a perceived claim by an individual or group into a legally enforceable right. Nor does any system of law confer on any people a perpetual right to a country they (may have) once inhabited some eighteen hundred years ago.>>

There is perpetually Jewish habitation, the eighteen hundred year gap in which Israel was without Jews is a myth perpetuated by the "Palestinian" lobby.

<<In this case, Militant asks to concede that the “perception” that Palestine is “their ancient homeland” gives European Jews the right to return. And this right is comprehensive. It empowers European Jews to ‘repossess’ Palestine – take it away from the Palestinians – in order to establish a state of the Jewish people.>>

It was the Jewish people&#39;s to begin with. It was taken from us, by them. The Palestinians are guilty of the same "crime" with which you charge the Jews with. History is a series of the strong taking from the weak. The return of Jews to Israel is righting a past wrong.

<<Jordan is not Palestine. >>

It is apart of Biblical Israel. And in turn apart of "Palestine". The Brits gave the Arabs 70 - 80% of "Palestine", but it wasn&#39;t enough. Arabs won&#39;t be happy until the Jews are driven into the sea.

<<You forgot to mention that during Palestine&#39;s period as a British protectorate, the incoming Jewish immigrants became terrorists and terrorized the British until they gave up and left. In the process the upcoming Jewish immigrants became the pioneers of terrorist tactics and struck the British through horrendous acts of terrorism: the bombing of the King David hotel (home of the British office in Jerusalem with the first car bomb. Meantime Begin, the future Israeli Prime Minister was behind that one); the hijacking of the first airplane; the first suitcase bomb, it goes on like this.>>

These actions were regrettable. However, at least most of the targets were military and government targets. What was the importance of the falafel stand that was bombed yesterday? What is the importance of the bombed buses or dance clubs?

<<Virtually every statement is a fabrication. As to what caused the refugee problem, I&#39;ll simply quote Benny Morris, the Israeli historian who has done the most serious archival work and is generally regarded as the leading scholar on this topic -- and whose opinion is that Ben-Gurion made a serious mistake when he did not "cleanse the whole country," up to the Jordan -- that is, drive out all the Palestinians. Here&#39;s his conclusion about the origin of the refugee problem: "Above all, let me reiterate, the refugee problem was caused by attacks by Jewish forces on Arab villages and towns and by the inhabitants&#39; fear of such attacks, compounded by expulsions, atrocities, and rumors of atrocities - and by the crucial Israeli cabinet decision in June 1948 to bar a refugee return," leaving the Palestinians "crushed, with some 700,000 driven into exile and another 150,000 left under Israeli rule.">>

So you found a guy whose opinion does not matter that believes that Israel should have wiped out the Palestinians? Maybe I&#39;m misreading what you wrote, because that does not support your position. Arabs in Israel live a generally good life, in fact many serve in the IDF (although they don&#39;t need to). In fact the highest ranking officer killed during the current uprising was a Muslim Arab.

<<Actually Israel started the Six-Day War war with the goal of annexing Arab land. I&#39;d ask you to consider the following collection of quotes from Israeli generals and prime ministers, which support my claims. I don&#39;t wish to play the "who started first" game--depending on one&#39;s perspective, one can go back thousands of years. I do, however, wish to ask that you do more to ensure some truth in your posts.>>

Then why did they return territory to Egypt? This is as bad as the "war for oil" which has only jacked the price. Why conquer land to give it back?

<<As far as the Israeli occupation, there are very few comparable cases of military occupation and radical violation of the Geneva conventions and other international law in the post-World War II period.>>

Once you ignore the Balkans, Chechya, Rwanda, Latin America, Kashmir and all the other places were violations are going on.

<<Maybe if the Israeli&#39;s moved to Palestine to live in PEACE, and not destroy 531 palestinians villages, we wouldn&#39;t have this problem eh? Look where it got them.>>

I&#39;m not going to deny that some stuff occurred on both sides that is regrettable, but both sides have blood on their hands. One side however, has made it their policy to kill and main as many civilians as possible and I&#39;ll give you a hint, it ain&#39;t the Jews.

And that last jab begs the question, have you been to Israel? It is rather lovely, and the people are smahing. I was in Haifa for half a year leaving with family (I&#39;m ethically Jewish). They live in a community that has loads of Israeli-Arabs (around 50-50) and none of them seemed to be as anti-Israel as you. Actually, they seemed to like living Israel.

<<Israel has no constitution, and its basic law includes no right to equality. No bill of rights. No guarantees of things like free speech, freedom of assembly and due process of law.>>

And yet even without this, they still play by they rules. Would want to be tried by the Palenstanians? Cause this is what it looks like:

http://utah.indymedia.org/uploads/palynch.jpg

<<It is legally defined as a "Jewish nation." As such, Jews are given special privileges for jobs, loans and land ownership, and Jews from anywhere in the world are given preference in immigration, extended automatic citizenship upon coming to Israel over and above longtime Arab residents. Non-Jews are restricted in terms of how much land they can own, and in which places they can own land at all, thanks to laws granting preferential treatment to Jewish residents. >>

Again, after the actions of the last century can you fault a tiny ethic group with having a fallback. And there are ways around many of those laws, don&#39;t worry. &#39;;)

While I don&#39;t like bring up antedotal evidence, my uncle bought a farm for a group of non-Jews. they quietly paid him back, and pay him one dollar a year in rent. Is it perfect? No, but at this point it works, one way or another. That&#39;s capitalism for ya.

<<Political candidates who espouse the belief that Israel should be a nation with equal rights for all and not a "Jewish nation" are not even allowed to hold office, or even run for eleciton. Even the Israeli Supreme Court has acknowledged the use of torture against suspected “terrorists” and other “enemies” of the Jewish state.>>

I direct you to the Knesset page: http://www.knesset.gov.il/faction/eng/FactionEtc_eng.asp

"Any rejection (in the party&#39;s goals or activities) of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish, democratic state.
Any incitement to racism.
Any support of the armed struggle of an enemy state or terrorist organization against the State of Israel
Any hint of a cover for illegal activity."

There are currently several Arab parties and a secularist party in the Knesset.

<<For you, it is apparently sufficient that Israel has an electoral system, and that Arabs have the right to vote in those elections (though just how equally this right is protected is of course a different matter). The fact that one can&#39;t vote for a candidate who questions the special Jewish nature of the state, because such candidates can&#39;t run for or hold office, must strike you most as irrelevant — hardly enough for you to call into question Israel&#39;s democratic credentials.

If what you see in Israel is democracy, then I&#39;d like to ask you what fascism looks like? >>

An example of Facism would be all of Israel&#39;s neighbors but Lebenon, and even that one is touch and go at the moment. I&#39;m currently content with a puralistic nation where even Arabs can vote.

<<I can&#39;t really see how your words here differ from American Senator McCarthy using the dangerously-loaded slur, Communist, applied to anyone he didn&#39;t want working in the State Department or in Hollywood.>>

You can be against Israel, and still not be against Jews, however, you encourage mass violence against the Israeli people to drive them out of their homes. You want to drive them into the sea. Three generations have lived there, many know no other home, and yet you still want them gone. Isn&#39;t this just as bad as the supposed crime against the Palestinians?

[Coggeh]

.....FREE PALESTINE&#33;

[Xvall]

And the Native American have lived in America since time eternal. However, this does not mean that they have the authority to retake the United States with military force and evict everyone currently living in it who is not a Native American.

Also, images do not count as arguments. I can just as easilly post a picture of IDF soldiers harrasing palestineans, or crows of Israelis assaulting a Muslim woman.

[Militant]

<<And the Native American have lived in America since time eternal. However, this does not mean that they have the authority to retake the United States with military force and evict everyone currently living in it who is not a Native American.>>

And yet I see arguments to that end posted here mutliple times. Just check out any thread about capitalism and its crimes. I&#39;ll find a link.

Also those people who say don&#39;t get restricted. :(

<<Also, images do not count as arguments. I can just as easilly post a picture of IDF soldiers harrasing palestineans, or crows of Israelis assaulting a Muslim woman.>>

That was Palestinian on Palestinian violence. If it was a Jew the Mossad would be rounding up all the wome and children and machinegunning them.

He probably was a collaborator (selling flowers to a Jew or something to that extent) or a homosexual (they don&#39;t like them either).

Justice is not carried out like that in Israel, and anyone who compares Israel&#39;s and the Palestinian&#39;s justice system is a fool. One involves judges, the other death squads.

[LSD]

The over-emphasis on the Israeli-Palestinian issue is ludicrous at face, but unfortunately it is also systematic of the contemporary left. This habbit of equating Israel with fascism or even Nazism is counterproductive and blatantly wrong.

I honestly don&#39;t know if it&#39;s actual antisemitism or just more of this postcolonialist white guilt crap, but it&#39;s really got to stop.

That&#39;s not to say, though, that Israel and especially the Israeli government and Defence Forces are not deserving of critisism. Both are indeed quite complicit in creating the current conditions, although not, as the PLO would claim, entirely.

With that in mind, I&#39;m going to take a stab at both sides, starting with Militant:


The word Palestine means nothing. Romans made that up.

So what?

It doesn&#39;t matter where the word comes from, it matters that there was a vibrant thriving culture living there. Whatever the etymology, the existance of a people living within the present borders of Israel cannot be denied.


For simplicity sake the so-called Palestinians will be called Arabs.

That&#39;s a neat trick. You&#39;re trying to minimize the Palestinian cause by implying that "all Arabs are the same".

Well, "arabs" haven&#39;t been a unified people in a long time, if even ever really. The fact that they are ethnically similar does not mean that they are poltiically or even culturally compatible. The Sunni - Shi&#39;a religious wars of the last thousand years are certainly evidence of that.

The fact is, Iran is not Iraq, and Iraq is not Syria. Pretending that "Arabs" are one big monolythic organism trying to "invade" Israel is hyperbolic nonsense.

Palestians are not a "part" of some "Arab army", they&#39;re people. People who have been largely driven from their homes, dispersed, oppressed, and even betrayed by their "fellow" Arab nations.


All Muslims in terms of this debate will be called Arabs.

That makes even less sense.

All Muslims are clearly not Arab, not unless you are claiming that Pakistan and Indonesia are "Arabic"&#33;


The Wars of Israel

All have been defensive under International Law.

Which International Law allows the invasion of a country for nationalizing its water-ways?

Which allows preventative first strikes against airfields?

Israel has sometimes been on the defensive, but it has also been the aggressor. That&#39;s not "unusual", mind you.

There isn&#39;t a state on earth that hasn&#39;t committed one act or another that hurt it&#39;s neighbours, and there are very few that haven&#39;t started a war or two.

They exist, of course, but you&#39;d be hard pressed to find them in the middle east. In an area that politically volatile, tempers flare and wars start. Revising history to try and make Israel appear to be a "perpetual victim" isn&#39;t just academically dishonest, it&#39;s politically pointless.

Israels has started wars. Accept it.

...then ask yourself so what?


Following the holocaust and other acts of an anti-Semitic nature, have demonstrated the need for Jews to have a safe haven in times of troubles. Arabs could have taken advantage of this influx and formed a pluralistic society, sadly they chose war instead.

"Arabs" again... <_<

Did Israel&#39;s neighbours want to see Israel destroyed? Yes.
Did the Palestinians? ...not really.

As you admit yourself, they had been living there, side by side with Jewish immigrants, for quite some time. Were there racist components? You betcha, but they would have adapted.

They would have accepted living in a pluralistic socity if Israel had taken the first step and created a pluralistic society.

They didn&#39;t.

They made the positive action to found a state explicitly based on racial and religious terms. And don&#39;t think that it was "accidental", because it was noticed at the time. A significant section of the Zionist movement begged the new government not to do it ...but they did it anyways.

It would have been such a simple matter to found the new state on principles of secularism and equality. That would have been the propper response to Nazi racism, not "better" racism.


Now, Free Palestine:


It is Jewish mythology alone that confers legitimacy of sorts to the Jewish right of return.

No it isn&#39;t, it&#39;s Israeli law.

The only thing that "Jewish mythology" is used to defend is the existance of the state ...and that&#39;s not really mythology.

There was a Jewish state in present day Israel about 2500 years ago. There has been a continuous Jewish presence there since that time. And thanks to the Romans&#39; meticulous record-keeping, the historical validity for Jewish nationhood there is very had to deny.

Now does that mean that Jewish immigrants have a "right" to displace the people living there? Of course not. But it does mean that they should have the right to immigrate there.

I think we can all agree that setting up a state based on religious principles was a horrible stupid thing to do, but the Jews, especially the European Jews, deserved the ability to set up a government where they could be free of the prosecutions that have defined Jewish life for the past 2000 years.

Over its history, Christian theology is best described as the father, the son, and antisemitism. That Jews wanted to find a place where they could set up a state free of such perpetual hatred is understandable and pretty much unavoidable.


You forgot to mention that during Palestine&#39;s period as a British protectorate, the incoming Jewish immigrants became terrorists and terrorized the British until they gave up and left.

You can&#39;t have it both ways. If the Palestinians are justified in using terrorism to oppose Israeli occupation, than the Jews were justified in using it to oppose British occupation.

Britain was an occupying colonial power. I have no problem with fighting against that, although, obviously, killing civilians is never the way to go.


As far as the Israeli occupation, there are very few comparable cases of military occupation and radical violation of the Geneva conventions and other international law in the post-World War II period.

You are joking right?

How many did people the USSR kill or illegally detain? How about the PRC? How about the DPRK?

On the list of the last 50 years biggest criminals, Israels doesn&#39;t come close to making the cut. Hell, Israel doesn&#39;t even make the list of the 100 worst countries around today.

"few comparable cases"? Don&#39;t be absurd.

Honestly, I think the world is in much deeper shit than you give it credit for, if you think that Israel is unique or especially significant in its violations of international law. For one thing, I would remind you that by these interntional agreements, war itself is illegal. But then, we haven&#39;t had any of them lately, have we... :rolleyes:

The one area in which you are correct, is that Israel has probably broken more General Assembly resolutions than most countries. Certainly it&#39;s been condemned more.

The question here, though, is not why does it keep breaking resolutions, it&#39;s why are there so many goddamn resolutions about fucking Israel?

It&#39;s got like 9 million people in it&#33; China kills that many for breakfast.

And when you look at the countries so gleefully critisizing Israel for its treatment of its people who can&#39;t help but laugh. States like Syria and Saudi Arabia calling Israel oppressive? Don&#39;t tell me that isn&#39;t funny&#33;

Honestly, Baathist Iraq calling Israel "evil" is a lot like Nazi Germany calling Switzerland imperialist.

Israel may have committed its share of crimes, but to date, no mass graves have yet been discovered.


Could not these Jews find refuge – permanent or temporary – in any of the Allied countries (or their vast colonies) whose war effort could have been greatly aided by the influx of Jewish skills, expertise and capital?

NO&#33;

That&#39;s the whole fucking point&#33; No country would take them in&#33;

At the Evian Conference in 1938, the major powers of the world communally decided not to allow escaping German Jews to enter their countries. In the words of the Canadian government "none is too many".

Before you talk about all the "refuge" that escaping Jews could find, I suggest you look up the story of the SS St. Louis.

(HINT: It doesn&#39;t end well).


Israel has no constitution

Not a written one, no, but Israel does hav a constitution; in the same way, by the way, that many countries in the world do, including the UK.


and its basic law includes no right to equality. No bill of rights. No guarantees of things like free speech, freedom of assembly and due process of law.

The Constitution of the State of Israel (http://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles/const-intro-93.htm)


For you, it is apparently sufficient that Israel has an electoral system, and that Arabs have the right to vote in those elections

"sufficient", no. But it&#39;s something.

Certainly a lot more than almost any other country in that region.

Again, Israel has a lot of problems. But even within its own geographic region, it&#39;s one of the better countries around.


If what you see in Israel is democracy, then I&#39;d like to ask you what fascism looks like?

Syria.


And finally, Xvall:


And the Native American have lived in America since time eternal. However, this does not mean that they have the authority to retake the United States with military force and evict everyone currently living in it who is not a Native American.

No, but you have to realize that that cuts both ways.

The Palestinians are there now, they weren&#39;t before, but they&#39;re there now, and so they have rights. Well the Jews are there now too, a lot of them weren&#39;t there before, but like the Palestinians, they&#39;re there now, and like the Palestinians, they have rights.

Harping on the past, be it 600 BCE or 1949, contributes nothing.

Realistic solutions today have to account for the fact that, like it or not, the state of Israel isn&#39;t going anywhere, nor does it have any particular owness to. All states are coercive by nature and Israel is no exception, but that said, it&#39;s no exception; it isn&#39;t exceptional. Not particularly bad, not particularly good.

In terms of the world today, Israel is about average. That means it has a lot of room for improvement. But it also means that it is not deserving of its own thread on this board every couple of weeks or so.

Frankly, it&#39;s not that important&#33;

[Xvall]

And yet I see arguments to that end posted here mutliple times. Just check out any thread about capitalism and its crimes. I&#39;ll find a link.

Also those people who say don&#39;t get restricted.

I&#39;ve never heard anyone here state that the Native American&#39;s should violently reclaim the United States and deport non-native Americans; I&#39;m sure if someone did say that, they would be branded as a racial seperatist and banned.

[Free Palestine]

The over-emphasis on the Israeli-Palestinian issue is ludicrous at face, but unfortunately it is also systematic of the contemporary left. I honestly don&#39;t know if it&#39;s actual antisemitism or just more of this postcolonialist white guilt crap, but it&#39;s really got to stop.

It is true that Israel and its conflict with the Palestinians and the Arab World are getting a disproportionate global attention. (In fact, it quite often works in Israel’s favor: the killing of 20 Israelis would definitely get far more international attention, a far bigger volume of worldwide sympathy for the victims and condemnation of the perpetrators, than the killing of 20 Africans — often, far more than the killing of 200 or 2,000 or even 20,000 Africans, and so on). But are they all antisemites? Not necessarily.

One reason why Sudan (for example) may not get the criticism here (by "here," I refer to the US) that the Israel repression of Palestinians does is because the Sudanese are not recipients of US &#036;5 billion a year in aid from the US, which makes each of we Americans individually and collectively complicit in said repression. Moreover, the repression is about a lot more than that, but an incredibly tyrannical and unjust and systematic theft of land and rights of the Palestinians which includes checkpoints, curfuews, roadblocks, ad nauseum.


There was a Jewish state in present day Israel about 2500 years ago. There has been a continuous Jewish presence there since that time. And thanks to the Romans&#39; meticulous record-keeping, the historical validity for Jewish nationhood there is very had to deny.

Of course there has been a Jewish presence in Palestine for thousands of years However, it was in the late 1800&#39;s when Zionists began immigrating to Palestine en masse. At that time, there were very few Jews living there. The few that were living there, mostly in and around Jerusalem, were very religious Jews. The vast majority of those Jews, who were living peacefully side by side with their Palestinian Arab neighbors, did not support the Zionist enterprise. They believed that it would damage relationships with those neighbors, because of it&#39;s exclusionism.


Now does that mean that Jewish immigrants have a "right" to displace the people living there? Of course not. But it does mean that they should have the right to immigrate there.

And if is this so-called "right" would amount to a Jewish invasion that would necessarily lead to the displacement and dispossession of Palestinians?


NO&#33; That&#39;s the whole fucking point&#33; No country would take them in&#33; At the Evian Conference in 1938, the major powers of the world communally decided not to allow escaping German Jews to enter their countries. In the words of the Canadian government "none is too many".

Before you talk about all the "refuge" that escaping Jews could find, I suggest you look up the story of the SS St. Louis.

That doesn&#39;t wash. One has to ask if the world Jewish hierarchy, by now fully committed to the creation of Israel, had a real interest in exerting its power to overcome American opposition to Jewish immigration? If the Jewish lobbies in the United States could offset the State Department’s opposition to the creation of Israel, were they not capable of overcoming the Administration’s resistance to Jewish immigration? Moreover, the United States and Canada were not the only feasible destination for Jewish refugees.


Over its history, Christian theology is best described as the father, the son, and antisemitism. That Jews wanted to find a place where they could set up a state free of such perpetual hatred is understandable and pretty much unavoidable.

So tell us why the Palestinians should be faulted for Christian anti-semitism and become the victims of the world&#39;s greatest victims.


You can&#39;t have it both ways. If the Palestinians are justified in using terrorism to oppose Israeli occupation, than the Jews were justified in using it to oppose British occupation.

Britain was an occupying colonial power. I have no problem with fighting against that, although, obviously, killing civilians is never the way to go.

I&#39;m afraid you have no idea why the Zionist terror gangs (specifically the Haganah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haganah), Irgun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun), and Lehi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_%28group%29)) terrorized the British in the first place. When the British decided in 1939 that they had already done enough to establish a "Jewish national home" and started to curb Jewish immigration (look up the White Paper of 1939 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939)), the Zionists became enraged and blew up British government offices with their civilian employees and visitors (the King David Hotel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel) in Jerusalem), assassinated British government officials, hijacked a civilian Syrian airliner (they were in fact the first to hijack a Mideast airplane), booby-trapped suitcases, threw grenades in cafes, took/flogged/murdered hostages, killed British soldiers (look up Operation Agatha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Agatha), 2700 Zionist thugs were arrested in response to attacks against British forces). Eventually, the frustrated British began to withdraw and turned the problem over the United Nations.

Then the UN, in &#39;48, under pressure from the US, partitioned Palestine and created the new Jewish state of Israel. This gave the Jews, who still only owned 7% of Palestine, 55% of the land.. And I don&#39;t wish to go on from there for it would take far too much time. I just wanted to give you a better idea of the historical context surrounding the use of terrorism against the British at the hands of Zionist thugs.

Obviously the Jewish immigrants were not fighting foreign occupation of Palestine. The European Jews immigrated to Palestine during its stage as a British Mandate, where Jews were hardly even a small minority. When the British capped Jewish immigration, they terrorized them until they gave up and withdrew. They had no right to &#39;repossess&#39; Palestine from anyone (the British or the Palestinians) in the first place. Get a clue.


"few comparable cases"? Don&#39;t be absurd.

The Israeli occupation is a very unusual case. There are very few comparable cases. The Israelis now have the distinction of running one of the longest post-WWII occupations in the world. Indeed there are exceptions (and they are worth looking at) but those few have almost always led to an extremely harsh reaction: the first Gulf war, for example. But the double standard is dramatically in the opposite direction.


The question here, though, is not why does it keep breaking resolutions, it&#39;s why are there so many goddamn resolutions about fucking Israel?

That there is a huge double standard is unarguable. US crimes, for example, rarely lead to UN resolutions, and when they do, the US vetoes them. Israeli crimes lead to a flow of military and economic aid that is entirely without parallel, and lauding of Israel for its unique humanity, etc. No other country is coddled to anything like that extent. And Palestinians and their leaders are reviled. That&#39;s a dramatic double standard, one that has had an enormous impact on the suffering of the Palestinians.


And when you look at the countries so gleefully critisizing Israel for its treatment of its people who can&#39;t help but laugh. States like Syria and Saudi Arabia calling Israel oppressive? Don&#39;t tell me that isn&#39;t funny&#33;

What&#39;s even funnier is you expecting me to defend such regimes.

[LSD]

It is true that Israel and its conflict with the Palestinians and the Arab World are getting a disproportionate global attention.

That&#39;s a bit of an understatement. I think "global obsession" would better describe it.


One reason why Sudan (for example) may not get the criticism here (by "here," I refer to the US) that the Israel repression of Palestinians does is because the Sudanese are not recipients of US &#036;5 billion a year in aid from the US, which makes each of we Americans individually and collectively complicit in said repression.

How much aid does the US send to Saudi Arabia, again?

How about Colombia?

And how much of your money is going to China?

Again, these countries have massively worse human rights records ...but you want to talk about Israel. <_<


And if is this so-called "right" would amount to a Jewish invasion that would necessarily lead to the displacement and dispossession of Palestinians?

"Jewish invasion"?

It&#39;s called immigration; the free movement of peoples. Don&#39;t tell me you&#39;re in favour of "national borders"&#33;

No one has the right to displace or dispossesse anyone else, but neither does anyone have the right to "cap" immigation because they don&#39;t like the ethnicity or race of the person immigrating.



That doesn&#39;t wash.

"Wash" or not, it&#39;s what happened.


One has to ask if the world Jewish hierarchy


The WHAT&#33;? :o


If the Jewish lobbies in the United States could offset the State Department’s opposition to the creation of Israel, were they not capable of overcoming the Administration’s resistance to Jewish immigration?

The US liked the idea of a state of Israel &#39;cause it meant less Jews in the US. It&#39;s the same reason that Stalin wanted to create a "Jewish homeland".


Moreover, the United States and Canada were not the only feasible destination for Jewish refugees.

You&#39;re right, there were lots of other countries rejecting them too.

Again, look up the SS St. Louis.


So tell us why the Palestinians should be faulted for Christian anti-semitism and become the victims of the world&#39;s greatest victims.

They shouldn&#39;t. I&#39;m just trying to explain the history so you understand the motivation.

There&#39;s no such thing as a "black and white" issue. Ignoring that the early Zionists had reasons for what they did only blinds you to the underlying arguments.

They felt like they had nowhere to go, and sadly they were largely right. So they tried to "return" to what had been their historical kingdom to try and set up some sort of haven so that what happened in Europe could never happen again.


I&#39;m afraid you have no idea why the Zionist terror gangs (specifically the Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi) terrorized the British in the first place.

They tried to cap immigration.

After suffering the greatest mass murder in the history of the world, a colonizing empire was telling them that they had no "right" to settle in the land that they considered to be their historic home. So they fought back.

They were wrong, they were misguided, and they killed a lot of people. But they were desperate and they felt that they had no choice.

hmm... sounds a lot like the Palestinians, doesn&#39;t it?


The Israeli occupation is a very unusual case. There are very few comparable cases.

Well, how about we try anyways?

Israel is illegally occupying territory, yes. But what is more telling than that fact is that the people in those territories are frankly treated better than the citizens of a good many countries. I can certainly say I&#39;d rather live in east Jerusalem than the DPRK.

Does this mean that Israel is blameless or should not be held accountable, of course not. But it does mean that this obsessive focus on it needs to end.


Israeli crimes lead to a flow of military and economic aid that is entirely without parallel

Firstly, no, "cimes" don&#39;t lead to aid, geo-strategic positioning does, and secondly, "without parallel"? Don&#39;t be ridiculous.

Israel gets a lot of US money, that&#39;s &#39;cause she&#39;s one of only a few Middle East allied and the US needs to placement. So what? Do you realize how much of the Saudi economy the US props up? Certainly you wouldn&#39;t deny that Saudi Arabia is a far worse state than Israel ever has been.

And how about China and Colombia? How about the long string of dictators that the US has supported over the years?

There is really nothing "unique" in the US&#39; aid to Israel, not historically, and not today.

There are countries with far worse records than Israel recieving far more money. Again, I would remind you that the PRC has killed more than 10 times the entire Palestinian population.


and lauding of Israel for its unique humanity, etc.

:lol:

Israel is universally condemned by nearly every country on earth except the US and her dependents.

The UN never tires of passing resolution after resolution labeling Israel anything from "racist" to "oppressive" to worse.

There is probably no other nation on earth that is so disproportionately attacked, although Cuba would come to mind. The level of histrionic rhetoric levelled against Israel is entirely out of whack with the degree of her crimes which, although crimes, are really not that relatively serious.

You critisize the Israeli treatment of Arabs, and you&#39;re right. But how are Arabs treated elsewhere? How does Saudi Arabia treat arabs ...you know, if they&#39;re women?

How does Iran treat homosexuals? How does Syria treat ...well, anyone?

I can tell you, if I was arab, I would much rather live in Israel, even with all her discriminatory policies, than nearly any of her neighbours.

Yeah, Israel has problems, and yeah, she&#39;s got a lot of room for improvement. But she is pretty much the only remotely stable democratic republic within 100 miles, and yet she is the most condemned in the region.

You&#39;re damn right there&#39;s a double standard in the world, but it ain&#39;t Israel that&#39;s getting the good deal.


What&#39;s even funnier is you expecting me to defend such regimes.

I&#39;m expecting you to attack them in equal measure to Israel. ...but you&#39;re not doing that are you?

How many people has Israel intentionaly killed last year? 1000? 2000?

How many has it detained without charges? How many has it tortured?

Now, how many has China? How many has North Kore? How many has Syria?

How many people died in the Congo as compared with the last Intifada? A hundred times more? A thousand?

More people were murdered in Africa last year than the entire population of Israel and Palestine. If we give Israel the space it deserves, the account of its crimes would occupy one footnote on one page in the 100 page history of twentieth century barbarism.

Israel isn&#39;t good, but she isn&#39;t that bad either. Again, in terms of the world today, she&#39;s painfully average.

[Free Palestine]

That&#39;s a bit of an understatement. I think "global obsession" would better describe it.

Keep telling yourself that.


The US liked the idea of a state of Israel &#39;cause it meant less Jews in the US. It&#39;s the same reason that Stalin wanted to create a "Jewish homeland".

Not really. The creation of Israel was a power play. It was born out of the contradictions of the history of European Jews, a contradiction that would be resolved by the convergence of Jewish influence and Western imperial power, combining to serve the interests of both. The cost of this project to Palestinians, to Arabs, to Muslims, was not even an issue in an era dominated by Western racism and bigotry – of the Christian, Jewish and secular variety.


"Wash" or not, it&#39;s what happened.

Who is talking about history? I said your argument doesn&#39;t wash.


You&#39;re right, there were lots of other countries rejecting them too.

Again, look up the SS St. Louis.

Again, Palestine was not the only destination for Jewish refugees. Also, why should it have mattered to the Palestinians that the Jewish immigrants, who would accelerate the Palestinian&#39;s own dispossession, were fleeing persecution? Did the European Jews earn the right - because of their long suffering - to a Jewish state in Palestine, even if this would lead to the destruction of Palestinian society? The Palestinian&#39;s sin then, is that they did not recognize the "right" according to you. You&#39;ll have to acquit them on that charge. I think you&#39;ll agree self-destructive sympathy does not come naturally to most people. ;)


I&#39;m just trying to explain the history so you understand the motivation. Ignoring that the early Zionists had reasons for what they did only blinds you to the underlying arguments.

I&#39;m quite aware. I know more about the Middle East than the vast majority of people in the Middle East themselves. I can read and write Arabic. I read about the Middle East on a daily basis. I don’t need any history lessons from you. Get over yourself.


They felt like they had nowhere to go, and sadly they were largely right. So they tried to "return" to what had been their historical kingdom to try and set up some sort of haven so that what happened in Europe could never happen again.

No one disputes that. Zionism was however a colonial-settler project, since it sought to create a state of European Jews on Palestinian land. This would entail, in some combination, the displacement and marginalization of the Palestinians. These are the “wrongs” I dispute, that the Zionists regard as right, legitimate, moral, as necessary for Jewish survival.


After suffering the greatest mass murder in the history of the world, a colonizing empire was telling them that they had no "right" to settle in the land that they considered to be their historic home. So they fought back.

So they could steal more land from the Palestinians?


Israel gets a lot of US money, that&#39;s &#39;cause she&#39;s one of only a few Middle East allied and the US needs to placement.

This is the Israel as an aircraft carrier strategy that is so popular on the Left because it seems free of anti-Semitism. See articles by Jeff Blankfort though, that take this apart very well. Esp "A War for Israel?" In short, it&#39;s really not true at all anymore.


Israel is universally condemned by nearly every country on earth except the US and her dependents.

Good thing I was only refering to the U.S. then.


I&#39;m expecting you to attack them in equal measure to Israel. ...but you&#39;re not doing that are you?

Not every state that resorts to oppression is the possessor of a considerable arsenal of nuclear warheads and missiles, which it refuses to submit to any international inspection. Isn’t it natural for outsiders to look more closely into the doings of such a country?

Not every state which resorts to oppression claims to be a Western democracy (the "only democracy" in its region) and asks for international support on that basis. Isn&#39;t it natural for citizens of other Western democracies to look more closely at the behavior of its "family member?"

Also, not every state that resorts to oppression has been founded by people who were themselves the victims of very cruel oppression, who asked the world for its sympathy and support on that basis, and who often declared that the state they would found would be no ordinary state but “a light unto the nations.” Isn’t it natural for outsiders to judge the actual Israel by the criteria set by Israel’s own Founding Fathers?

Moreover, not every state that resorts to oppression has been founded by an ethnic group which claimed the unique privilege of taking back a land where its ancestors lived 2000 years before and got this enterprise recognized and approved by the League of Nations and later by the United Nations — but with the specific reservation that this enterprise not be at the expense of the people then living in the land. Isn’t it natural for outsiders to scrutinize closely whether this stipulation had been adhered to?

Not every state that resorts to oppression had been founded by people who came from Europe and settled in an already inhabited land. Isn’t it natural for people in countries that put such behavior behind them to inquire into the behavior of those who still act in such a manner?

[LSD]

Keep telling yourself that.

Is that a denial or just snideness for snideness&#39; sake?

The international focus on Israel is entirely disproportionate with the level of her offenses. I really don&#39;t see how you could deny this.

Again, how many people has Israel killed/tortured/imprisoned as compared with even her immediate neighbours? Even her most oppressed citizenry (the Palestinians) have more civil rights than they would if they lived just a little further north, in Syria.


Not really. The creation of Israel was a power play. It was born out of the contradictions of the history of European Jews, a contradiction that would be resolved by the convergence of Jewish influence and Western imperial power

"convergence"? Hardly&#33;

For most of the last 50 years, "western" imperial positions were rather ambivolent. England, for example, while siding with Israel over the Suez issue, generally tended to side with her Arab neighbours on most other issues.

As with most great powers, they served their own interests.

This idea of "great Jewish" influence is utter rubbish. Israel is more rebuked than nearly any other country on earth. Relative to what it&#39;s actually done, it is dramatically the most condemned state around.


Who is talking about history? I said your argument doesn&#39;t wash.

Whether or not any countries were willing to take in Jewish refugees is a question of fact, not argument.


Again, Palestine was not the only destination for Jewish refugees.

It was one of very few, and given the antisemitic sentiments at the time, it was not unreasonable to believe that even those few countries who would accept them could easily change their positions.

Remember, there was nowhere o earth where Jews were more integrated than Germany. There was a great, annd not irrational, fear that if such a thing could happen in one "liberal" western state, it could happen in others.


Also, why should it have mattered to the Palestinians that the Jewish immigrants, who would accelerate the Palestinian&#39;s own dispossession, were fleeing persecution?

You are making a tacit assumption there that immigration naturally requires dispossession. It&#39;s a rather disturbingly nationalist assumption too.

If Jews should not have been allowed to immigrate to Palestine because it would "disposess" the people who already lived there, doesn&#39;t follow that Mexicans should not be allowed to immigrate to the US because it would "dispossess" Americans?

As revolutionary leftists, we oppose state borders as arbitrary and divisive. Capping immigration out of "national" or "ethnic" concerned is always wrong.


Zionism was however a colonial-settler project, since it sought to create a state of European Jews on Palestinian land. This would entail, in some combination, the displacement and marginalization of the Palestinians.

Not nescessarily.

That&#39;s largely what happened, of course, and I am in no way justifying that. But there&#39;s a difference between marginalization and mass-murder. I point this out because there are places in the world where it&#39;s the latter that&#39;s happening.

Those are the places that require our immediate attention, not Israel.

And, by the way, again, focusing on the past accomplishes nothing. Yes, Israel fucked up in the past, yes, it made a whole bunch of monumentally moronic decisions with regards to its government and policy. But none of that really matters any more. Israel has been around for fifty years. That means that we are entering perhaps the third generation of Israelis. This country isn&#39;t going anywhere, and if anyone wants even a hope in hell of a solution, they need to deal with the present condition as it exists.


This is the Israel as an aircraft carrier strategy that is so popular on the Left because it seems free of anti-Semitism.

And what is your theory on American support for Israel?

"world Jewish hierarchy"? :o


Good thing I was only refering to the U.S. then.

:lol:

Well that&#39;s convienient isn&#39;t it&#33; :rolleyes:

How about we look at the international community internationally, OK? So that when we talk about world opinion we actually bring in, you know, the world.

Yeah, the US supports Israel. The US also supports Saudi Arabia and China and sold Saddam Hussein chemical weapons. The US has a long history of being patently immoral in its choice of allies. So what?

The point remains that Israel is constantly subject to an international tirade of abuse not suffered by any other nation on earth. The PRC, which has existed roughly as long as the state of Israel, has in that time killed perhaps as much as 60 million people&#33;

It also happens to be illegally occupying territory (Tibet) in violation of international law. Protesters in Tibet are murdered routinely and far more people are tortured there every year than in the entire history of the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

...but you want to talk about Israel. <_<


Not every state that resorts to oppression is the possessor of a considerable arsenal of nuclear warheads and missiles, which it refuses to submit to any international inspection.

You mean like China and North Korea and Pakistan?


Not every state which resorts to oppression claims to be a Western democracy (the "only democracy" in its region) and asks for international support on that basis.

China claims to be a "people&#39;s republic"; iran claims to be a democracy. States claim a lot of stuff, what matters, though, is what they do.

Are you seriously telling me that Syria is better than Israel because it admits its oppressing its people? Doesn&#39;t it matter more that Syria is oppressing its people far more?

Isreal&#39;s self-assesment may be self-serving and grandiose, but it also happens to be largely true. Israel is a republic, it does have constitutional protections and a recognition of fundamental rights.

Does it protect them as well as it should? No.
Does it employ racist standards? Yes.

But neither of those compare with what Syria or Iran or Saudi Arabi or even Pakistan (another one that claims democracy) are doing.

If you want to criticise Israel for failing to live up to its potential, fine, you should. But do so proportionaly to condemning the other states around the world that are guilty of far more than hypocrisy.


Also, not every state that resorts to oppression has been founded by people who were themselves the victims of very cruel oppression, who asked the world for its sympathy and support on that basis

So they&#39;re hypocrites, they&#39;ve "betrayed" their "founding fathers". Again, so what?

It still doesn&#39;t justify the global obsession on the issue of this microscopic nation and its tiny problems.


Also, not every state that resorts to oppression has been founded by people who were themselves the victims of very cruel oppression, who asked the world for its sympathy and support on that basis

You can&#39;t have it both ways. If the suffering of the Jews is irrelevent to this issue, then it&#39;s irrelevent to this issue. You can&#39;t demand a higher standard because they suffered if you don&#39;t acknowledge that said suffering is a justification for the state&#39;s existance.


and who often declared that the state they would found would be no ordinary state but “a light unto the nations.”

That&#39;s really not that unusual. Most countries claim something of that sort.

Saudi Arabia, for example, claims to be an Islamic "light". Pakistan was founded as a religious "haven" in much the same way that Israel was. And how about Iran? It has openly declared itself to be an Islamic model for the world.

China was founded as a workers paradise, it still claims to be a "people&#39;s republic". North Korea, for its part, states that it is a bastion of proletarian power&#33; Syria claims to be socialist, Turkmenistan claims to be a republic, and don&#39;t get me started about what the US claims to be&#33;

Proclamations of greatness are as old as states themselves. Israel is by no means unique.


Moreover, not every state that resorts to oppression has been founded by an ethnic group which claimed the unique privilege of taking back a land where its ancestors lived 2000 years before and got this enterprise recognized and approved by the League of Nations and later by the United Nations — but with the specific reservation that this enterprise not be at the expense of the people then living in the land. Isn’t it natural for outsiders to scrutinize closely whether this stipulation had been adhered to?

Absolutely, but not to the degree that they&#39;re doing so.

The question of whether or not Israel has succesfuly met its UN burdens in regards to the (rejected, mind you) decision of 1949 is far less important than dealing with the wars, genocides, mass murders, and oppressions happenening every day.

Look, I&#39;m not saying that Israel should be "let off", I&#39;m just saying that we have far more important things to deal with and this undo focus is drawing attention and resources away from issues which actually matter.


Not every state that resorts to oppression had been founded by people who came from Europe and settled in an already inhabited land. Isn’t it natural for people in countries that put such behavior behind them to inquire into the behavior of those who still act in such a manner?

NO&#33;

That is precisely the European post-colonialist bullshit I am so sick of. If it&#39;s white people oppressing dark people, it&#39;s wrong; if it&#39;s dark people oppressing dark people, it&#39;s "culture".

All oppression is wrong, it doesn&#39;t matter what the colour of the hand holding the whip is.

Condemning only those people who&#39;s parents "came from" the same geographic area as you is racism pure and simple. The left desperately needs to realize that internationalism means internationalism.

(ps., I&#39;m still waiting on an explanation for the "world Jewish hierarchy" comment).

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 28 2005, 07:01 AM
The US liked the idea of a state of Israel &#39;cause it meant less Jews in the US. It&#39;s the same reason that Stalin wanted to create a "Jewish homeland".


Not quite. Britain and Lord Balfour created it to be, in their words, an "ulster" in Palestine.



Israel isn&#39;t good, but she isn&#39;t that bad either. Again, in terms of the world today, she&#39;s painfully average.

The average society has racially based citizenship and concentration camps? The average society is that sectarian?

come again?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Not quite. Britain and Lord Balfour created it to be, in their words, an "ulster" in Palestine.

And probably because he didn&#39;t want a Jerusalem in England.


The average society has racially based citizenship and concentration camps? The average society is that sectarian?


If you looked at all the countries in the world. I would say that probably around a quarter to half of them have ethnic discrimination as serious or worse than Israels.

I mean virtually every country in the Middle East has absolutely disgraceful policies towards the Kurds. Which are just as bad if not worse than Israels treatment of the Palestinians.

[Free Palestine]

The international focus on Israel is entirely disproportionate with the level of her offenses. I really don&#39;t see how you could deny this.

I already agreed with you on the issue that Israel and its conflict receives a disproportionate amount of global attention. I even made a point to mention that it quite often works in Israel&#39;s favor. For example, a positive move on the side of Israel would get far more international attention than a similar move by another country, an Israeli leader signing a peace agreement would be more likely to get the Nobel Peace Prize than a leader from a less well-known war-torn country, and so on.


Again, how many people has Israel killed/tortured/imprisoned as compared with even her immediate neighbours?

Israel has more prisoners per capita than any other nation of the world, more than Stalinist Russia, or Red China during their worst periods. It routinely tortures its Palestinian prisoners, and it is one of the few nations that will not officially renounce the use of torture.


Even her most oppressed citizenry (the Palestinians) have more civil rights than they would if they lived just a little further north, in Syria.

I highly doubt Palestinians suffering under a brutal colonial military occupation - one that includes murder, torture, abuse, bulldozing, checkpoints, and land theft - have it better than if the same Palestinians refugees were living in Syria.


For most of the last 50 years, "western" imperial positions were rather ambivolent.

The U.S. has been enabling Israel’s murderous depredations since the Zionist state&#39;s conception. The Balfour declaration, the UN partition plan of 1947, the wars between Israel and its Arab neighbours, and the continuing huge amounts of diplomatic, financial, and military support from the U.S.


England, for example, while siding with Israel over the Suez issue, generally tended to side with her Arab neighbours on most other issues.

If you want to talk about England, look up the Balfour declaration. Israel was an imperialist project, a surrogate imperialism, where Britain, the leading imperialist power, would acquire Palestine in fulfillment of a deal with an influential segment of Jewish bourgeoisie.


As with most great powers, they served their own interests.

Certainly. And Israel&#39;s inception served those interests. The founders of Zionism knew that it would be suicidal to acquire territory for a Jewish state within Europe. In fact, they quickly decided that they would instead harness the support of European powers to create the territorial basis of their state outside of Europe. Since it was not yet a European colony, it would be easier to persuade a European power to help create a Jewish state in Palestine, serving as "a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization against barbarism.” (Check out Theodore Herzl&#39;s "The Jewish state (1896)" (http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/6640/zion/judenstaadt.html) for that quote) Palestine also contains Christian holy lands, another incentive for Europeans to take it away from Muslims and give it to the Jews (a Biblical people).


This idea of "great Jewish" influence is utter rubbish. Israel is more rebuked than nearly any other country on earth. Relative to what it&#39;s actually done, it is dramatically the most condemned state around.

In the text you quoted for this response, I was clearly speaking in regards to the time of the Zionist state&#39;s inception. You then referenced arguments from now to contradict the claim of "Jewish influence." Are you an idiot? What year does your calender say?


You are making a tacit assumption there that immigration naturally requires dispossession.

Not necesarrily. However Jews were in fact entering Palestine under a Zionist plan – first conceived in 1897, and ratified by Britain in 1917 – whose end was to create a Jewish state that would dispossess the Palestinians. Your Mexico/U.S. analogy doesn&#39;t wash, and is too ridiculous to merit comment.


It was one of very few

No it wasn&#39;t.


Not nescessarily. That&#39;s largely what happened, of course...

Indeed, necessarily. The bulk of evidence - the writings of the pioneers of Zionism, the King-Crane Commission, statements by members of the Zionist Commision - shows strongly that most Zionist leaders viewed compulsory expulsion as a necesarry condition for the creation of a viable Jewish state.


Israel has been around for fifty years. That means that we are entering perhaps the third generation of Israelis. This country isn&#39;t going anywhere...

Nobody is asking Israel to &#39;give up&#39; all of the land which was stolen from the Palestinians. We are however, asking Israel to withdraw from the land which it illegally occupies in defiance of UN resolutions and allow the people with an actual right to live there ( under international law ) to return.


Well that&#39;s convienient isn&#39;t it&#33;

I thought this much was obvious. Who else is leading the flow of military, diplomatic, and economic aid to Israel that is entirely without parallel (all while Palestinians are reviled)? Which country did you think I was talking about? Uganda?

Nonetheless, I will be more clear in the future, as you seem to have trouble reading.


Whether or not any countries were willing to take in Jewish refugees is a question of fact, not argument.

I did not dispute that some were. Your argument still doesn&#39;t wash, as I have already demonstrated to you.


If you want to criticise Israel for failing to live up to its potential, fine, you should. But do so proportionaly to condemning the other states around the world that are guilty of far more than hypocrisy.

Stalin&#39;s terror far exceeded Hitler&#39;s too. But to suggest that when criticizing Hitler one must also give a proportionate amount of attention to Stalin&#39;s terror as well would be too ridiculous to merit laughter. One wonders if you have ordered dissidents under Nazi leaders that them and their fellow dissidents could criticize the state only under the condition that they give a proportionate amount of attention to greater suffering (in the Soviet Union).

If a given person is affected only by Israel’s policies and not, for example, by the Chinese government’s policies, your demand for “equal time” criticism seems to be just a ploy by apologetics for Israeli crime (such as yourself) to shut folks up. For example, an famous Israel professor said that the Gaza Strip is the world’s largest concentration camp. Does the professor then have to point out the location and criticise the second largest concentration camp?


NO&#33;..Condemning only those people who&#39;s parents "came from" the same geographic area as you is racism pure and simple.

Nobody here is guilty of doing such a thing. I simply cited numerous plausible explanations that could be found to fit your little "unequal time" phenomenon.

[BuyOurEverything]

I really don&#39;t feel like going through and replying to every point in people&#39;s posts, but I would like to ask Free Palestine what you think the Jews should have done post world war II? The fact that you think western countries would have taken them would be funny if it wasn&#39;t so scary.


In the text you quoted for this response, I was clearly speaking in regards to the time of the Zionist state&#39;s inception. You then referenced arguments from now to contradict the claim of "Jewish influence." Are you an idiot? What year does your calender say?

Didn&#39;t you say that international jewish influence was the reason for the creation of the jewish state and the united state&#39;s support of israel?

[LSD]

I already agreed with you on the issue that Israel and its conflict receives a disproportionate amount of global attention.

But you don&#39;t seem to be willing to take the next logical step, namely prioritization&#33;

If you acknowledge that the Israeli issue is overpublicized and you acknowledge that there are many more important issues in the world, if you are going to be at all intellectually consistant, you have to be willing to act on this knowledge and address those other issues first.

You have to be willing to get the word out, to explain to people that Israel is not the worst nation on earth, that it is not even close. That boycotting Israeli scientists while allowing Chinese is insane. That protesting the speeches of Israeli dioplomats while allowing the speeches of Saudi Arabian ones is absolute nonsense.

In short, you need to call out the bias.


Israel has more prisoners per capita than any other nation of the world

No it doesn&#39;t. It&#39;s actually forty-sixth on that list.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_pri_per_cap


I highly doubt Palestinians suffering under a brutal colonial military occupation - one that includes murder, torture, abuse, bulldozing, checkpoints, and land theft - have it better than if the same Palestinians refugees were living in Syria.

And that&#39;s why you&#39;re so wrong on this issue.

Despite all the wrongs that you listed, and they are wrong, the average palestinian is still safer and freer than the average Syrian.

You see, the reason you don&#39;t hear about protests against Syrian brutalities is that there are no protests ...ever. For all the abuses that Israel has committed, the very fact that there is a thriving resistance movement, one which you admit yourself is mostly nonviolent, shows that the Israeli government is nowhere near the level of the Syrian.

People speak out against the Israeli government every day, and the vast majority of them live. That alone is enough to tell us which nation is better.

How you can even debate that is a mystery to me.


The U.S. has been enabling Israel’s murderous depredations since the Zionist state&#39;s conception.

Yes it has. But the US is not the "west" ...it&#39;s the US.

And while the US has indeed been a staunch ally of Israel, the rest of Europe has been more ambivolent. England has switched sides a couple of times, but for most of the last 50 years they&#39;ve been with the Arab nations. France and the majority of Western Europe has been fairly consistantly against Israel, largely out of a desire for favourable oil contracts, but also because of a latent European racism and an increasing Muslim population.

The simple truth here is that, aside from the US, the "west" has not been a friend to Israel.


If you want to talk about England, look up the Balfour declaration.

How about instead I look at British policy while Israel existed?


Certainly. And Israel&#39;s inception served those interests.

By creating an "oupost of Europe"? Don&#39;t be absurd. Most of the world was "outposts" in one form or another. 400 years of colonialism will do that. The "holy land" for its part had been under European domination since the end of the Great War.

Creating Isreal wasn&#39;t about "spreading European influence", that was already done. In 1949, the talk was more about decolonialization, especially in Britain. After the war, the UK was trying to limit her expenditures and lick her wounds. She pulled out of East Asia, pulled out of India, and lost Newfoundland. This was not the time to try and set up new "colonies".

They let the Zionists set up a state because, for one thing, they really didn&#39;t mind, and for another, it seemed better that they go there then into "white" countries.

If they ship all the Jews to Israel then they can fight it out with the Arabs and Europe wouldn&#39;t have to deal with them.

Again, all these nations that you claim were "conspiring" with the "Jewish hierarchy" were all actively limiting Jewish immigration to astonishing degrees.


Not necesarrily. However Jews were in fact entering Palestine under a Zionist plan – first conceived in 1897, and ratified by Britain in 1917 – whose end was to create a Jewish state that would dispossess the Palestinians.

Some certainly were yes, but a good deal of them, probably the majority, were "entering" because they legitimately had nowhere else to go. Most of the rest were doing so because they felt it was a religious or ethnic obligation.

Very few were intentionaly acting to "dispossess" anyone.


Your Mexico/U.S. analogy doesn&#39;t wash, and is too ridiculous to merit comment.

How about you comment anyways.

I don&#39;t think you realize just how close your position is to the attitudes of the racist American right. You call Jewish immigation to Palestine a "Jewish invasion that would necessarily lead to the displacement and dispossession of Palestinians". How is this any different from the Rightest claims that Mexican immigration will "nescessarily lead" to American "disposession"?

You see, once you start arguing from a racial or ethnic perspective, you&#39;re in a very dangerous place. Palestinians do not have any rights because they are Palestinians, they have rights because they&#39;re people.

But they do not have the right, nor does any occupying power, to limit immigration because they don&#39;t like the "ethnic" background of the immigrants.


No it wasn&#39;t.

Really? And where else exactly could they go.

Your ignorance of history is truly scary.


Nobody is asking Israel to &#39;give up&#39; all of the land which was stolen from the Palestinians. We are however, asking Israel to withdraw from the land which it illegally occupies in defiance of UN resolutions and allow the people with an actual right to live there ( under international law ) to return.

Good&#33; And I am not saying that this demand should not be made, but it should not be the central issue. I&#39;m saying that much more important would be getting countries like Saudi Arabia to respect the basic rights of half its citizens.

No oppression should be tolerated, but we have to triage. We can&#39;t concentrate on the small stuff, not when millions are dying.


I thought this much was obvious. Who else is leading the flow of military, diplomatic, and economic aid to Israel that is entirely without parallel (all while Palestinians are reviled)? Which country did you think I was talking about? Uganda?

I thought, perhaps, you might be talking about the world. You know, the place where the other five and a half billion of us live?

This line of debate began when you said:

Originally posted by you
Israeli crimes lead to a flow of military and economic aid that is entirely without parallel, and lauding of Israel for its unique humanity, etc. No other country is coddled to anything like that extent.

I think that it is both reasonable and prudent to point out how the majority of the world does precisely the opposite.


I did not dispute that some were. Your argument still doesn&#39;t wash, as I have already demonstrated to you.

All that you "demonstrated" was some rubbish about the "world Jewish hierarchy". A comment for which, by the way, I am still awating an explanation.


Stalin&#39;s terror far exceeded Hitler&#39;s too. But to suggest that when criticizing Hitler one must also give a proportionate amount of attention to Stalin&#39;s terror as well would be too ridiculous to merit laughter.

This isn&#39;t about history it&#39;s about politics. And if, in say, 1939, you excluively attacked Germany without a mention for Russia than you would indeed be biased.

But that&#39;s actually a pretty bad example, since, in that case, Germany really was due an extreme amount of condemnation.

Let&#39;s take the more apt analogy of Cuba. Now the Cuban government in 1939 was a dicatorship, one with very vew rights and a good deal of oppression. People were routinely captured and tortured and it would not be unreasonable to comden that government.

But if, in that year, one were to consistantly and predominantely condemn the Cuban government while barely mentioning Germany, if at all, you&#39;re damn right I&#39;d have a problem with it.

It&#39;s the same reason that we have a problem with the US condeming the Soviet Union while ignoring it&#39;s own crimes; it&#39;s the same reason that we find fault with Raegan lambasting the Sandanistas without mentioning the contras. It&#39;s fundamentally dishonest.

This isn&#39;t about a mathematical formula, it&#39;s about basic fairness. I don&#39;t want "equal time", I want time&#33; I want something aproaching a proportionate rebukation for all those nations that are oppressing their citizens.

I want to see the marches against Saudi Arabia&#39;s abuses outmatch those against Israel&#39;s. But, honestly, at this point, any march would be something.


One wonders if you have ordered dissidents under Nazi leaders that them and their fellow dissidents could criticize the state only under the condition that they give a proportionate amount of attention to greater suffering (in the Soviet Union).

Of course not, but they were actually living under the Nazis. Notice that I am not demanding that the PLO, for intance, address other issues. Of course they won&#39;t, they have a specific mandate and they should address it.

But you don&#39;t&#33; You are not living in the occupied territories, you are not a member of the PLO cabinet. You have the opportunity and obligation to deal with truly serious issues around the world.

...as does the rest of the left, as does the rest of the world.

Palestinians should focus on Palestinian issues, I have no problem with that. But the focus that the rest of the world is placing on this tiny nation of 9 million is what galls me. The resolutions, the protests, the boycotts, the rhetoric, coming not from Palestinians but from Europeans and Americans and citizens of countries who have committed atrocities that make Ariel Sharon look like Nelson Mandella.

That&#39;s the problem&#33;


If a given person is affected only by Israel’s policies and not, for example, by the Chinese government’s policies, your demand for “equal time” criticism seems to be just a ploy by apologetics for Israeli crime (such as yourself) to shut folks up.

But that "given person" isn&#39;t me&#33; It isn&#39;t most of the anti-Israel crowd either. It&#39;s, mainly, Palestinians who, you know, live in Palestine and not, say, France.

The issue, again, is not that Palestinians have misplaced priorities, it&#39;s that the rest of the world does.

(ps., I&#39;m still waiting on an explanation for the "world Jewish hierarchy" comment)

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 27 2005, 11:34 PM
The over-emphasis on the Israeli-Palestinian issue is ludicrous at face, but unfortunately it is also systematic of the contemporary left. This habbit of equating Israel with fascism or even Nazism is counterproductive and blatantly wrong.

I honestly don&#39;t know if it&#39;s actual antisemitism or just more of this postcolonialist white guilt crap, but it&#39;s really got to stop.

Anti-semetism?

Good one. But I actually know quite a few Jews who regard it as Fascist, including my (great)uncle who was born in a German concentration camp. That&#39;s just a cheap shot.

No-one I know who suffers from "postcolonial guilt" would take that position, concerned as they are with token issues.

I don&#39;t see how the Nazi comparison is overblown; the vicious gangs that built Israel were trained in demolitions by the Nazis. It&#39;s also documented that many Zionists supported the Nazis and openly label themselves National Socialists.


Did Israel&#39;s neighbours want to see Israel destroyed? Yes.
Did the Palestinians? ...not really.

As you admit yourself, they had been living there, side by side with Jewish immigrants, for quite some time. Were there racist components? You betcha, but they would have adapted.

They would have accepted living in a pluralistic socity if Israel had taken the first step and created a pluralistic society.

They didn&#39;t.

I agree with these points competely, well said.


There was a Jewish state in present day Israel about 2500 years ago. There has been a continuous Jewish presence there since that time. And thanks to the Romans&#39; meticulous record-keeping, the historical validity for Jewish nationhood there is very had to deny.

Wow ... an anarchist defending the state.

There&#39;s about 100 times more compelling evidence to support a unitary Irish state, but you don&#39;t support that&#33;

What is your agenda?


I think we can all agree that setting up a state based on religious principles was a horrible stupid thing to do, but the Jews, especially the European Jews, deserved the ability to set up a government where they could be free of the prosecutions that have defined Jewish life for the past 2000 years.

See, I would be tempted to believe that was your real motivation; concerned for an oppressed group. But you already made it quite plain once that you don&#39;t support the liberation of Ireland from imperialism. So what&#39;s your real motivation?


Over its history, Christian theology is best described as the father, the son, and antisemitism. That Jews wanted to find a place where they could set up a state free of such perpetual hatred is understandable and pretty much unavoidable.

No it&#39;s not. Most Jews were integrated into Christian society, the theory of Marxism is proof of that. Zionism is reactionary dogma that divides the working class along racial lines.


Britain was an occupying colonial power. I have no problem with fighting against that, although, obviously, killing civilians is never the way to go.

Once again, then why the different position on Irish Republicanism?


In terms of the world today, Israel is about average. That means it has a lot of room for improvement. But it also means that it is not deserving of its own thread on this board every couple of weeks or so.

Frankly, it&#39;s not that important&#33;

To Communists it is. We recognise that a nuclear-armed state, installed by imperialists that does the dirty work of capital to control the Middle East is a greater threat to our interests than more backwards developing states like Syria or Iraq, even if the latter are more violent or repressive. The bastion of reaction in a more developed society like Israel is far more fascistic than the backwards tendencies of less developed nations.

Furthermore, without the incredible capital flowing into Israel, it would soon collapse; it&#39;s an artificial state more than any other in existence.

[edit to fix quote code]

[LSD]

Oglach, while I understand that you are passionate about this issue, I would appreaciate it if you would reserve discussions about Irish Republicanism to threads on that subject. Even start a new one and I will respond.

But let&#39;s keep the "Israel" thread about Israel.

That said, quickly, on Ireland,


But you already made it quite plain once that you don&#39;t support the liberation of Ireland from imperialism.

I did absolutely nothing of the kind&#33;

Of course I want to see Ireland free from oppression, I want to see everyone free from oppression. The question, however, is what is the best way to do that?

Does forcing Northern Ireland to join with the Ireland in defiance of what its people want actually accomplish anything?

Changing a capitalist government in London for one in Dublin doesn&#39;t help a person, except for those politicians in Dublin of course, and udnermines basic principles of democracy.

I reject the notion of national and "ethnic" borders as nothing more than the creation of capitalist and precapitalist elites trying to divide for their own interests. Accordingly, I see no legitimacy in the claim that Northern Ireland "must" be a part of one capitalist state and not the other because of "ethnic" history.

The only "liberation" of Ireland, or any part of Ireland, that I support is a true liberation from the enslaving power of capitalism and its statist stooges. That includes America, that includes England, and that includes the Republic of Ireland.


Once again, then why the different position on Irish Republicanism?

Because Britain isn&#39;t an occupying power in the convention sense. The majority of the population wants to remain a part of the UK.

Yes, England invaded centuries ago, and yes, it conquered by bloodshed and war, but that&#39;s pretty much how every state today was formed.

England is occupying Northern Ireland in the same way the the US is occupying America. It&#39;s a tragic story, and it should not have been done, but today we need to look at the interests of the people today. And if the people wish to remain joined, joined they should remain.

If they change their minds tomorrow, of course, I&#39;ll support that as well.


Now, on Israel,


Good one. But I actually know quite a few Jews who regard it as Fascist, including my (great)uncle who was born in a German concentration camp.

Again, I&#39;m not saying that oposition to Israel is antisemitic. I&#39;m opposed to Israel. I just think that there&#39;s a probably a degree of antisemitism contributing to the world&#39;s obsession with the subject, especially in the Arab and Islamic world, although not exclusively.


I don&#39;t see how the Nazi comparison is overblown

Israel is occupying a tiny strip of land, Nazi Germany conquered Europe.

Israel has discriminatory policies based on race; Nazi Germany exterminated people based on race.

Israel has killed, at most, 100,000 civilians; Nazi Germany killed 11,000,000.

As comparisons go, yeah, it&#39;s pretty overblown.


It&#39;s also documented that many Zionists supported the Nazis and openly label themselves National Socialists.

:o

I&#39;d like to see some of that "documentation".


Wow ... an anarchist defending the state.

Again, I am not defending Israel.

As with all states, the Israeli government is an oppressive and coercive body that actively enslaves its people. And I absolutely believe that it must be abolished if freedom is to be achieved.

...but, I am pragmatic enough to realize that that is not going to happen tomorrow. And I am rational enough to understand that issues are unlimited, but our resources are not.

That means that we need to focus our attention, and, frankly, the Israeli issue is simply not deserving of the attention it recieves.

I want to see Israel dismantled, there are just a lot of things I&#39;d rather see first.


See, I would be tempted to believe that was your real motivation; concerned for an oppressed group.

It&#39;s not about my motivation, it&#39;s about the motivations of the Jewish refugees. They had just escaped from the worst oppression in the history of humanity and were desperately looking for safe haven in an unfriendly world.

In those circumstances, I respect their right to try and set up such a place. The way they did that, unfortunately, was monumentally stupid and bigotted, but I understand the motivation.


No it&#39;s not. Most Jews were integrated into Christian society, the theory of Marxism is proof of that.

If your "theory" is telling you that antisemitism has not been a perpetual part of Christianity for the past two thousand years, I would get a new theory.

Many Jews were indeed superficially intigrated, but as the events of the 1930s and &#39;40s show us, those "integrations" were only surface deep.


To Communists it is. We recognise that a nuclear-armed state

Like China and Pakistan and North Korea?


installed by imperialists

Like Saudi Arabia?


that does the dirty work of capital to control the Middle East

Israel doesn&#39;t "control" the Middle East by any means. It serves as a useful geostrategic position, I&#39;ll grant you, but in terms of projecting influence it&#39;s pretty bloody useless.

None of the neighbouring countries respect it or give a damn what it has to say about anything. Aside from the Palestinian issue, Israel doesn&#39;t make the news. It really hasn&#39;t done anything internationaly significant since it made peace with Egypt.


is a greater threat to our interests than more backwards developing states like Syria or Iraq.

And what are "our interests"?

I can tell you that, personally, my interests are the liberation of peoples. It would seem to me that there are far greater exploiters and oppressors than Israel, and I&#39;, not even just talking about "backwards developing states".

The PRC is a good friend of the US, a thriving capitalist state with the fastest growing economy in the world. In terms of projecting local force, it&#39;s pretty much unmatched. It also has a massive nuclear arsenal, an enormous army, and a history of mass murder.

How about we deal with them?

How about North Korea? Pretty much everyone in that country lives an oppressed, brutalised life. You&#39;d probably find better conditions in occupied Palestine.

Oh, and nukes too, of course.

So, how about we deal with them?

Or how about we talk about those "backwards" states, you know, like Syria? A state that can legitimately be called fascist, a brutal government with a long and painful history of torture, abuse, exploitation, and mass murder. They may not be as chummy as the US, but they are hurting a lot more people than Israel ever has.

And while we&#39;re in the region, how about Saudi Arabia? Israel is universally condemned because it limits rights and freedoms based on race, well Saudi Arabia limits them based on sex. Fully half of the population has virtually no rights whatsoever. Even the PLO doesn&#39;t claim that&#33;

...can we deal with them?

Is bigotted exploitation only wrong when it&#39;s European types that are doing it? Is institutionalized sexism more tolerable than instituionalized racism? Why?


Furthermore, without the incredible capital flowing into Israel, it would soon collapse

And so is Saudi Arabia. Even more so, in fact. Unlike Israel, you see, Saudi Arabia isn&#39;t even popular among its own people.

Whatever you want to say about Israel, most of its citizens would probably fight for its existence.

Based on all the criteria you&#39;ve outlined, Saudi Arabia fits the bill better than Israel. But you don&#39;t want to talk about Saudi Arabia do you...


it&#39;s an artificial state more than any other in existence.

It&#39;s been around for fifty plus years. Whatever you label it, it doesn&#39;t appear to be going anywhere.

[Free Palestine]

But let&#39;s keep the "Israel" thread about Israel.

You really haven&#39;t adhered to this demand yourself.


I&#39;d like to see some of that "documentation".

In 1933, the Zionist Federation of Germany sent a letter of support to the Nazi party, later voting 240-43 against a resolution condemning Hitler. Nazi standouts such as Goebbels wrote high praises of Zionism and his party helped secure funds for its leaders. (I take this from an article titled “Israel: Colonial Settler-State.” from the December-January 2001 International Socialist Review) The early Zionists did not hesitate to work with other anti-Semites. Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, collaborated with Count Von Plehve, a proud sponsor of Russia’s worst anti-Jewish pogroms. (Again, same article) It goes on like this, but I&#39;ll stop there.


Again, I am not defending Israel.

Keep telling yourself that.


That boycotting Israeli scientists while allowing Chinese is insane.

I&#39;m not footing the bill for the Chinese occupation of Tibet. I&#39;m footing the bill (unwillingly) for Israel&#39;s unlawful occupation of the West Bank. Which makes me individually (as well as Americans collectively) complicit in said repression. The American taxpayer can therefore legitimately restrict his (or her) criticism to the occupation he (or she) unwillingly pays for.


Despite all the wrongs that you listed, and they are wrong, the average palestinian is still safer and freer than the average Syrian.

Look at Amnesty International’s web page. Look at Human Rights Watch.

Human Rights Watch: Treatment and Rights of Palestinians in Arab Host States (http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/israel/return/arab-rtr.htm) (such as Syria)
Human Rights Watch: Treatment and Rights of Palestinians under Israeli occupation (http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/israel/return/isr-pa-rtr.htm)
Amnesty International: Israel and the Occupied Territories: An ongoing human rights crisis (http://web.amnesty.org/pages/isr-index-eng)


Again, all these nations that you claim were "conspiring" with the "Jewish hierarchy" were all actively limiting Jewish immigration to astonishing degrees.

Indeed, the Zionist project realized the anti-Semite&#39;s dream of cleansing Christian Europe of its Jewish population. Another incentive for them to help create a Jewish state in Palestine.


Very few were intentionaly acting to "dispossess" anyone.

What does it matter what the intentions were? Movements are measured by their effect. Anyway, the bulk of evidence shows strongly that you are wrong and that most Zionist leaders viewed compulsory expulsion as a necesarry condition for the creation of a viable Jewish state. The bulk of evidence shows strongly that the compulsory expulsion of the native non-Jews has been an pre-meditated theme throughout the history of Zionism, and one of it&#39;s goals.


How about you comment anyways.. How is this any different from the Rightest claims that Mexican immigration will "nescessarily lead" to American "disposession"?

Last time I checked, Mexican immigrants were not entering the U.S. en masse under a plan whose end was to create a Mexican state and expel it&#39;s indigenous inhabitants via ethnic cleansing.


...but I would like to ask Free Palestine what you think the Jews should have done post world war II?

Did the Zionists at this time start a dialogue with the Palestinians, explaining to them that the Jews escaping Nazi persecution would enter only as refugees, seeking temporary shelter in Palestine before they could be relocated to countries where they would be welcome?


The fact that you think western countries would have taken them would be funny if it wasn&#39;t so scary.

Really? I said that? Can you show me where? I never said any such thing. I merely said Palestine was NOT the only feasible destination for Jewish refugees.


But you don&#39;t&#33; You are not living in the occupied territories, you are not a member of the PLO cabinet.

Don&#39;t make arrogant assumptions like this in the future. I&#39;m a Palestinian immigrant from Ramallah, was conceived there and lived there the vast majority of my life, and have experienced first-hand the repression faced by Palestinians on a daily basis under the illegal Israeli military operation.


You have the opportunity and obligation to deal with truly serious issues around the world.

I happen to feel a special affinity for the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. I don&#39;t have to address every other issue of equal or greater detriment. Only big-shot columnists and prestigious university administrators could have such an idiotically unworkable conception of activism.

P.S. - How do you know that I ignore the behavior of the Chinese in Tibet, Russians in Chechnya, etc.? I support well intentioned efforts to isolate other oppressive regimes beyond that of Israel for your information.


Palestinians should focus on Palestinian issues, I have no problem with that.

Thanks for your "permission." :rolleyes:


The issue, again, is not that Palestinians have misplaced priorities, it&#39;s that the rest of the world does.

And reasonably so (at least in Western nations). Another reason the subject is arguably more important for citizens of the U.S. than other contemporary crises is because Zionist influence spreads far beyond Israel, and now widely influences the policy makers of our own country. Thus their actions have import beyond the Occupied Territories and potentially affect the lives of ordinary citizens of the U.S. Here Zionist lobbies are extremely powerful with both Congress and the media, and the administration of George W. Bush and his neo-conservative advisers see Israel and its aggressive behavior as a model for their own policies.

[BuyOurEverything]

Did the Zionists at this time start a dialogue with the Palestinians, explaining to them that the Jews escaping Nazi persecution would enter only as refugees, seeking temporary shelter in Palestine before they could be relocated to countries where they would be welcome?

How about you actually answer the question.


Really? I said that? Can you show me where? I never said any such thing. I merely said Palestine was NOT the only feasible destination for Jewish refugees.

Well, you did. But why don&#39;t you suggest another feasible destination...

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 29 2005, 05:11 AM
Oglach, while I understand that you are passionate about this issue, I would appreaciate it if you would reserve discussions about Irish Republicanism to threads on that subject. Even start a new one and I will respond.

But let&#39;s keep the "Israel" thread about Israel.

Well, no, I don&#39;t agree. I&#39;m not doing this to be contrary or rude, I just thought I saw a pretty obvious inconsistency that seems to be more common here. You&#39;re not the only one, but I do try to point out these contradictions when I see them, so it is pertinent. You can&#39;t support the liberation of the Jews and not the Irish without looking pretty hypocritical.



But you already made it quite plain once that you don&#39;t support the liberation of Ireland from imperialism.

I did absolutely nothing of the kind&#33;

Let&#39;s examine that claim...


Of course I want to see Ireland free from oppression, I want to see everyone free from oppression. The question, however, is what is the best way to do that?

Yes, that would be the correct question.


Does forcing Northern Ireland to join with the Ireland in defiance of what its people want actually accomplish anything?

Your question is leading and manipulative, but the answer is yes anyway.

Destroying the Orange state would end the sectarian nightmare that is the six counties. It&#39;s "majority" was created by sticking a border in Ireland which no-one wanted and through gerrymandering voting wards and the occasional pogrom against Catholic communities combined with the regular crushing discrimination that caused so many to flee. It&#39;s like saying it would be wrong to end Jim Crow because the majority wanted it or were not opposed to it.

Once again, a very odd anarchist defence of a very brutal state.


Changing a capitalist government in London for one in Dublin doesn&#39;t help a person, except for those politicians in Dublin of course, and udnermines basic principles of democracy.

How is this related at all? Can you show me one Irish Republican grouping that wanted the north to be ruled from Dublin?

How is it reasonable to break off a part of a country against the wishes of the majority, and then play the democracy card?

By this reasoning, many parts of England could be carved up and given to the 26 county state - "it&#39;s what the majority of Irish London want&#33;" :lol:


I reject the notion of national and "ethnic" borders as nothing more than the creation of capitalist and precapitalist elites trying to divide for their own interests. Accordingly, I see no legitimacy in the claim that Northern Ireland "must" be a part of one capitalist state and not the other because of "ethnic" history.

You&#39;re projecting your own assumptions here; the struggle we wage is not about creating more "ethnic" borders but ending them&#33; Our platform is to unite Protestants and Catholics together in a Workers&#39; Republic. Right now Ireland suffers, like Palestine, from an unnatural border that divides its people. We want to end that&#33; How can a left wing person not support that???

[note: and it&#39;s not really an "ethnic" conflict: most protestants have gaelic derived names. It&#39;s about the sectarian nightmare that Britain created as part of the empire&#39;s divide and rule scheme]


The only "liberation" of Ireland, or any part of Ireland, that I support is a true liberation from the enslaving power of capitalism and its statist stooges. That includes America, that includes England, and that includes the Republic of Ireland.

And will there still be a border that is maintained through garrisons when capitalism is ended in Ireland.

I don&#39;t think so.



Once again, then why the different position on Irish Republicanism?

Because Britain isn&#39;t an occupying power in the convention sense. The majority of the population wants to remain a part of the UK.

The majority of Ireland and Britain don&#39;t want the occupation to continue. The sectarian state and artificial majority was created when Britain couldn&#39;t defeat the republicans in arms and so installed two states to do their dirty work for them, whilst claiming popular "legitimicy". It&#39;s a farce.


Yes, England invaded centuries ago, and yes, it conquered by bloodshed and war, but that&#39;s pretty much how every state today was formed.

Well actually that&#39;s a pretty useless generalisation. Many states were created by popular republican revolutions, not handed down by monarchs.


England is occupying Northern Ireland in the same way the the US is occupying America. It&#39;s a tragic story, and it should not have been done, but today we need to look at the interests of the people today. And if the people wish to remain joined, joined they should remain.

If they change their minds tomorrow, of course, I&#39;ll support that as well.

That&#39;s not actually a valid comparison at all. If there was an anti-colonial war in America like the one fought in the six counties, its equilvelent per capita would be on par with the American civil war.



Good one. But I actually know quite a few Jews who regard it as Fascist, including my (great)uncle who was born in a German concentration camp.

Again, I&#39;m not saying that oposition to Israel is antisemitic. I&#39;m opposed to Israel. I just think that there&#39;s a probably a degree of antisemitism contributing to the world&#39;s obsession with the subject, especially in the Arab and Islamic world, although not exclusively.

That well could be. But it has fuck all to do with RevLeft.



I don&#39;t see how the Nazi comparison is overblown

Israel is occupying a tiny strip of land, Nazi Germany conquered Europe.

Israel has discriminatory policies based on race; Nazi Germany exterminated people based on race.

Israel has killed, at most, 100,000 civilians; Nazi Germany killed 11,000,000.

As comparisons go, yeah, it&#39;s pretty overblown.

If I said it was comparable in every way, then I&#39;d agree that would be overblown.

But it is a state maintained by ghettos, concentration camps, genocide and unprovoked aggression. It was literally founded by Nazi trained gangs and its ideology is Nationalist Socialist.



It&#39;s also documented that many Zionists supported the Nazis and openly label themselves National Socialists.

:o

I&#39;d like to see some of that "documentation".

I will get it tonight for you, or tomorrow at the latest.



Wow ... an anarchist defending the state.

Again, I am not defending Israel.

If your arguments are meant to prolong its existence and justify it ... then that&#39;s exactly what you&#39;re doing.



No it&#39;s not. Most Jews were integrated into Christian society, the theory of Marxism is proof of that.

If your "theory" is telling you that antisemitism has not been a perpetual part of Christianity for the past two thousand years, I would get a new theory.

That&#39;s clearly not what I said.


Many Jews were indeed superficially intigrated, but as the events of the 1930s and &#39;40s show us, those "integrations" were only surface deep.

Superficially integrated to the point that many were very wealthy and influential.



To Communists it is. We recognise that a nuclear-armed state

Like China and Pakistan and North Korea?

You won&#39;t catch me defending them for a second.



installed by imperialists

Like Saudi Arabia?

Yes.



that does the dirty work of capital to control the Middle East

Israel doesn&#39;t "control" the Middle East by any means. It serves as a useful geostrategic position, I&#39;ll grant you, but in terms of projecting influence it&#39;s pretty bloody useless.

An expansionist fascist police state is useless for control?


The PRC is a good friend of the US, a thriving capitalist state with the fastest growing economy in the world. In terms of projecting local force, it&#39;s pretty much unmatched. It also has a massive nuclear arsenal, an enormous army, and a history of mass murder.

How about we deal with them?

How about North Korea? Pretty much everyone in that country lives an oppressed, brutalised life. You&#39;d probably find better conditions in occupied Palestine.

Oh, and nukes too, of course.

So, how about we deal with them?

Are they in the middle east? I thought that was what we were talking about.

Right now, the middle east is the most strategically important part of the globe to the imperialists, thus it gets more attention than on the surface should appear logical.


And while we&#39;re in the region, how about Saudi Arabia? Israel is universally condemned because it limits rights and freedoms based on race, well Saudi Arabia limits them based on sex. Fully half of the population has virtually no rights whatsoever. Even the PLO doesn&#39;t claim that&#33;

...can we deal with them?

I&#39;ve no objection to that at all.


Is bigotted exploitation only wrong when it&#39;s European types that are doing it? Is institutionalized sexism more tolerable than instituionalized racism? Why?

Of course not, but you&#39;ll find that America&#39;s hand is holding up that oppressive state.


Based on all the criteria you&#39;ve outlined, Saudi Arabia fits the bill better than Israel. But you don&#39;t want to talk about Saudi Arabia do you...

I don&#39;t? That&#39;s a pretty incorrect assumption. I agree it&#39;s also important.



it&#39;s an artificial state more than any other in existence.

It&#39;s been around for fifty plus years. Whatever you label it, it doesn&#39;t appear to be going anywhere.

Then why are its supporters always braying about how it&#39;s about to end any moment now? :lol:

[edit to fix quote]

[Guerrilla22]

Again, I think the argument should be that Palestine has the right to exist as a state (which it currently is not) not that Israel has a right to exist (which it currently does) Israel has the right to exist, but Palestine has as much of a right to exist as a soverign state as Israel does. Also zionism= racism, end of argument.

[LSD]

In 1933, the Zionist Federation of Germany sent a letter of support to the Nazi party

It wasn&#39;t a "letter of support", it was a letter requesting a meeting&#33;

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...meethitler.html (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/meethitler.html)


later voting 240-43 against a resolution condemning Hitler.

Yes, because a German organization voting to condemn Hitler in 1933 wouldn&#39;t have caused any problems. :rolleyes:


Nazi standouts such as Goebbels wrote high praises of Zionism

No they didn&#39;t.

The Germans temporily entertained the notion of settling all their Jews somewhere else, possible in Madagascar, but that was a temporarily overlap of interests, nothing more.

Don&#39;t kid yourself, after the Wansee protocals were adopted, Zionists were killed just like everyone else.


Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, collaborated with Count Von Plehve, a proud sponsor of Russia’s worst anti-Jewish pogroms.

Yes he did. He thought that, on this issue, he might find an unlikely ally.

Politics is politics.


It goes on like this, but I&#39;ll stop there.

Good idea, since you&#39;re really not proving anything.

Whether or not certain "Zionists" thought that the Nazis could be used to further their cause is irrelevent. That is not "supporting" the Nazis nor is it "openly calling themselves National Socalists".

It&#39;s politics, nothing more.


I&#39;m not footing the bill for the Chinese occupation of Tibet.

Of course you are.

US trade with China is growing every day. In more ways than one, the Chinese economy is dependent on it. If the US were to summarily stop dealing with them, the Chinese occupation would be in serious trouble.

And, of course, you would no longer be "footing" any "bills".

The US supports and has always supported brutal governments around the world. Look how much of your money is going to fund rightist paramilitaries in Colombia. More people are dying there than in Israel.

So, by your "bill footing" paradigm, should that not be your priority?


The American taxpayer can therefore legitimately restrict his (or her) criticism to the occupation he (or she) unwillingly pays for.

You know what else she "unwilingly pays for"? Saudi Arabia.

Another US dependent state that survives solely by the grace of Uncle Sam&#39;s checkbook. It also happens, of course, to be a brutally regressive and oppressive state that keeps half of its population in virtual slavery.

So why isn&#39;t it your prioirty?


Look at Amnesty International’s web page. Look at Human Rights Watch.

You&#39;re missing the point.

I am not arguing that the Palestinian are not integrated in Syria. I&#39;m arguing that even integrated, they&#39;re still worse off. Notice that your articles there state that they enojy the same rights as other Syrian citizens. Well those rights are miniscule.

That&#39;s the point&#33;

Syrian citizens live in a perpetual state of oppression, be they Palestinian or not. They are constantly terrorized and exploited by a sociopathic brutalitarian government.

If the occupied territories are an open-air prison, then Syria is an open-air concentration camp.


Indeed, the Zionist project realized the anti-Semite&#39;s dream of cleansing Christian Europe of its Jewish population. Another incentive for them to help create a Jewish state in Palestine.

Absolutely. They really liked the idea of getting all the jews "somehere else", preferably where there were other "lesser races" so maybe they could all fight each other and leave Europe alone.

But the flipside of that kind of position is that it means that once the state is set up, these antisemitic "supporters" will have nothing more to do with it. Once they&#39;ve gotten their wish and shipped out the Jews, they couldn&#39;t give two figs as to what happens to the new state.

Which largely explains Europe&#39;s generally unfriendly stance towards Israel. It also refutes your bizzarre theory about the "World Jewish Hierarchy"


What does it matter what the intentions were? Movements are measured by their effect.

Of course intentions matter.

That&#39;s why Lenin and Hitler are not moral parallels. Both set up state insititutions responsible for killing millions, but the difference is Hitler intended to.

Whether the Jewish settlers wanted to hurt the Palestinians or not is essential for understanding the state of Israel and its history.

You are, however, correct in that it doesn&#39;t help us deal with the problems now. To do that, of course, we need pragmatism, rationality, and compromise. Unfortunately these are virtues that neither side seems to posess.


Anyway, the bulk of evidence shows strongly that you are wrong and that most Zionist leaders viewed compulsory expulsion as a necesarry condition for the creation of a viable Jewish state.

While some undoubtably did, that still has not happened.

The Palestinians have not been forcibily exported from the country. And while they do live in abysmal conditions today, no attempt is being made to expell them. Indeed the Israeli government has even given some limited political autonomy to specific Palestinian groups.

That doesn&#39;t mean that Israel is "good", it just means that it&#39;s unspectacular.


Last time I checked, Mexican immigrants were not entering the U.S. en masse under a plan whose end was to create a Mexican state and expel it&#39;s indigenous inhabitants via ethnic cleansing.

Neither were most Jewish immigrants to Palestine.

You stated that the free right to immigrate would lead to a "Jewish invasion that would necessarily lead to the displacement and dispossession of Palestinians". That&#39;s the key word there: "nescessarily.

You are saying that Jews coming into Palestine will "nescessarly" dispossess its native population, and that&#39;s racist

Were there elements of the leadership that wanted to see the Arabs removed? Undoubtably.

But were they the majority of the Jewish population? Not even close.


Really? I said that? Can you show me where? I never said any such thing. I merely said Palestine was NOT the only feasible destination for Jewish refugees.

Then what was?


Don&#39;t make arrogant assumptions like this in the future.

"Assumptions" like that you don&#39;t live in occupied Palestine? :huh:

That&#39;s not an assumption, it&#39;s called an IP address.


I&#39;m a Palestinian immigrant from Ramallah, was conceived there and lived there the vast majority of my life, and have experienced first-hand the repression faced by Palestinians on a daily basis under the illegal Israeli military operation.

So you have an emotional attatchment to this issue. I understand that. But that still does not justify the international focus.


I happen to feel a special affinity for the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. I don&#39;t have to address every other issue of equal or greater detriment. Only big-shot columnists and prestigious university administrators could have such an idiotically unworkable conception of activism.

What, precisely, is "unworkable" about resource prioritization?

About saying, what are the worst offenders in the world and what can I do about it?

What is "unworkable", in the long term, is consistantly dealing with only one issue and allowing the others to go on unchecked. What&#39;s "unworkable" is to say to Saudi Arabia that we tolerate their oppression, that we "don&#39;t mind" Arab-Arab oppression.

What&#39;s "unworkable" is to tell the billion and a half people of China that the international left doesn&#39;t care about their problems, it&#39;s busy dealing with a couple million Palestinians.

You want to know what&#39;s "idiotic"? That more attention is place on Israel with its 9 million than on Saudi Arabia with its 26.

That&#39;s "idiotic".


P.S. - How do you know that I ignore the behavior of the Chinese in Tibet, Russians in Chechnya, etc.?

Since I don&#39;t know you personally, I can only speculate as to what you ignore or don&#39;t. But I can say that it would appear, based on your posts here and your choice in user name, that you treat the Israeli-Palestinian issue as primary.

We all only have so much time and so much energy. If we direct those energies and times to areas which are not the most critical, then we are betraying our obligations as leftists.


I support well intentioned efforts to isolate other oppressive regimes beyond that of Israel for your information.

I should hope so&#33;

But, again, this isn&#39;t about theoretical agreement, it&#39;s about prioritization of resources, and, by the way, this isn&#39;t just about you.

The problem is that the world, and unfortunately especially the left, has an undue obsession with this issue that is not proportionate to its seriousness. As leftists we need to understand that while the actions of the Israeli government are not comendable and the state of Israel does have a history of oppression and exploitation, there are far worse offenders.

When all this energy goes to fighting Israel, it can&#39;t go anywhere else. The protests, the petitions, the marches, the boycotts, the letters, the resolutions, all directed against what is, in the end, not that unusual a state in terms of world history.

While, right now, we have states that are actively exterminating parts of its people, states that keep their population in slavery, and states that are tearing themselves apart, to focus on the Israeli issue is unseemly and biggotted.

There is nothing special about Israel&#33; It is simply nothing short of racism to concentrate all our attention upon it.


Another reason the subject is arguably more important for citizens of the U.S. than other contemporary crises is because Zionist influence spreads far beyond Israel, and now widely influences the policy makers of our own country.


Is this the "World Jewish Hierarchy" argument again?

You do realize that you were restricted for that comment, right? Are you still unwilling to provide an explanation for it?



Olgach,


It&#39;s "majority" was created by sticking a border in Ireland which no-one wanted and through gerrymandering voting wards and the occasional pogrom against Catholic communities combined with the regular crushing discrimination that caused so many to flee.

You&#39;re right, and that was wrong.

But rejecting the popular will is wrong as well. Northern Ireland may be an arbitrary state, but it&#39;s been that way for a very long time now. This is not a question of carving up a new colonial posession, it&#39;s about a longstanding border and what the people within it want done.

Ultimately, this is a question of masters; from which of the British Isles should these particular counties be ruled. Understanding that, I don&#39;t see how that decision should not be that of those counties.

Now, if this was a question of liberation, it would be a different matter ...but it isn&#39;t. Being free from British rule isn&#39;t liberation, it&#39;s transfer of power. This isn&#39;t the 18th century, Britain is a monarchy in name only. Realistically, chaning political leadership will only bennefit those political leaders.

The true oppression in Ireland is that of capital, only fighting fighting that can genuine freedom be achieved. But as long as we are talking about bourgeois questions, it should be left to the bouregois process.


It&#39;s like saying it would be wrong to end Jim Crow because the majority wanted it or were not opposed to it.

No it really isn&#39;t. Jim Crow was about race; Northern Ireland is about geography.

There is no indication that the conditions in the British counties would significantly materially improved in control was transfered to the Irish Republic.


How is this related at all? Can you show me one Irish Republican grouping that wanted the north to be ruled from Dublin?

Well, if one seeks to unify the six British counties of Ulster with the rest of the island, one would almost certainly keep the Irish capital where it is.


How is it reasonable to break off a part of a country against the wishes of the majority, and then play the democracy card?

The problem here is that you&#39;re compressing the time-line. The "country" wasn&#39;t "borken-up" yesterday, it&#39;s been that way for quite a while. Historical longevity, especially that maintained through force of arms, may not seem to be the best basis for state legitimacy, but practically speaking, it&#39;s the most common one.

Because Ireland has been divided as it has, and has remained so, it is not unreasonable to say that a seperate "country" exists there and should be free to make its decisions with regards to political allegiance.

Again, this is not a question of freedom or the lack therof, just political control.


Our platform is to unite Protestants and Catholics together in a Workers&#39; Republic.

Who&#39;s platform?

The term "workers republic" is an historically vague one, but if you mean to say a workers society with full proletarian franchisment then I have no problem with that plan. But that&#39;s not Irish Republicanism, it&#39;s socialist Irish Republicanism and that&#39;s an entirely different thing.

Again, I fully support the liberation of Ireland -- all of Ireland -- from the forces of capitalism and its state agents.

Simply unifying Northern Ireland with the Irish Republic does not do this.

The border of Northern Ireland is indeed arbitrary and was indeed the creation of an oppressive colonial force. But likewise, the border of the Irish Republic itself is fundamentally arbitrary and based solely on accidents of geography and history.

I reject any arguments from "ethnic" or "geographic" motivations, but I will always support the creation of a communistic society whenever feasible.

If you are defining Republicanism to mean the creation of a communist society on the Irish Isle then you can call me a Republican.


And will there still be a border that is maintained through garrisons when capitalism is ended in Ireland.

Absolutely not&#33;


That&#39;s not actually a valid comparison at all.

Actually it is.

Let&#39;s take the example of the Mexican-American war, for instance. The US, through bloody war, invaded and conquered Mexican lands and stole vast amounts of territory. It then carved up arbitrary lines and created new states for itself.

That was a hundred and fifty years ago.

Does Mexico today have a legimite claim to Florida? Can it say that since it was stolen from it, and it was, and since it was arbitrarily devided, and it was, that it should take it back?

In this case, as with Ireland, it must be up to the people who are actually effected -- the people who live there.


But it is a state maintained by ghettos, concentration camps

The "ghettos" and "concentration camps" of Israel cannot be compared with those of Nazi Germany.

The occupied territories have been called an "open-air concentration camp". That&#39;s, of course, in contrast with the closed ones that Germany was so famous for.

The "camps" of Israel are, at worst, expanded prisons. The camps that the Nazis built were nothing short of death factories. The inmates were so malnourished that they would routinely die of starvation. Random execution was common and slave-labour was the order of the day.

Israel is not justified in its treatment of the Palestinians, but to call that treatment even tangentially related to that meated out by the Nazis is historically dishonest.


genocide

Patently untrue.


and unprovoked aggression.

Oh come on. If "unprovoked aggression" is suffient to be compared with Naziism then half the countries on earth are "Nazi".


It was literally founded by Nazi trained gangs and its ideology is Nationalist Socialist.

:lol:

In no way is Israel "National Socialist"&#33;


Superficially integrated to the point that many were very wealthy and influential.

Wealth is no measure of social integration, it just shows the flexibility of capitalism. What is far more telling is how resentful the population was of this wealth and how quick is was to sieze it in violation of all of its own basic "principles" or private ownership.


An expansionist fascist police state is useless for control?

"expansionist"?

Israel hasn&#39;t "expanded" in decades. It certainly isn&#39;t "fascist" in any functional definition of that term. I know that the left has a particular fetish for that word, but it diminishes its value to misuse it.

Call Israel exploitative, oppressive, racist, and militaristic. But don&#39;t call it fascist, because it quite frankly just isn&#39;t.

And in terms of exerting control, yeah Isreal is indeed rather useless. Again, it has zero credibility, zero ability to negotiate or influence its neighours. It&#39;s a good position for the US in terms of geopolitical location, but as a state, it does very little short of keeping the US present.

Saudi Arabi, actually, often provides a similar function, as do other nations in the area, albeit far more intermitently. The beauty of the US&#39; relationship with Israel is that they have them entirely by the balls. Israel is so dependent on the US that they can litterally always ensure their support.


Are they in the middle east? I thought that was what we were talking about.

Maybe you were, I was talking about the world.


Right now, the middle east is the most strategically important part of the globe to the imperialists, thus it gets more attention than on the surface should appear logical.

You&#39;re falling into their trap.

The middle east is not the most important place for imperialists, but that is certainly what they would like you to think.

Of course the US wants the resouces in the middle east (read: oil), but they&#39;ve largely done that. Saudi Arabia is pretty much the staunchest ally the US is going to get (aside from its other dependents of course) and Iraq is now nicely under control.

In terms of "fighting terrorism", don&#39;t get caught up in the rhetoric. The US knows as well as anyone that there&#39;s no real way to do that.

The obsession with Israel isn&#39;t just popular in the left, it&#39;s also kept going by the forces of the right. As long as we focus on Israel and the "Arabs" and the "terrorists", we aren&#39;t focusing on the real issue of US and western imperialism.

The Israelis and the Palestinians seem like characters out of mythology. Great "peoples" battling for millenia, torn by strife and hatred, etc... The media never tires of telling us how "ancient" this conflic is, despite the complete lack of historical basis.

The rulling class likes us to be concentrating on this minor conflict because it&#39;s very much what imperialism is not anymore. By keeping us thinking that imperialism is about fences and racial conflic, we are fooled into recognizing that capitalism has developed beyond this.

The real agents of international exploitation are no longer the army, they are the branch corporate office. And they are spreading to all corners of the world while we are talking about a wall.

Imperialism today is global, and it has no "center". But even if it did, that center would probably well east of the middle east.


You won&#39;t catch me defending them for a second.

I&#39;ve no objection to that at all.

Yes.

I don&#39;t? That&#39;s a pretty incorrect assumption. I agree it&#39;s also important.

As I told Free Palestine, the issue here is prioritization.

I believe that you consider these countries to be problematic, realistically how couldn&#39;t you, but the problem is that nothing is being done.

The level of outcry against Israel is draining even what little support there is for fighting far more dangerous and brutal oppressors.

Again, I am not saying that Israel should not be condemned, nor that it is not in grosse violation of several international standards. I am just saying that there are far more important issues to deal with first.


Then why are its supporters always braying about how it&#39;s about to end any moment now?

Because they&#39;re lunatic nationalists trying to garner sympathy.

[BuyOurEverything]

Again, I think the argument should be that Palestine has the right to exist as a state (which it currently is not) not that Israel has a right to exist (which it currently does)

Why are they mutally exclusive?


Israel has the right to exist, but Palestine has as much of a right to exist as a soverign state as Israel does. Also zionism= racism, end of argument

If you believe that Israel has the right to exist, than you are a zionist. End of argument.

[EwokUtopia]

What everyone forgets is that there is a Jewish homeland that pre-dates the state of israel. Its called the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, and it is an autonomous region in Siberia (really good land actually, like that of my home in southern Ontario) about the size of Belgium. This was created in the 20&#39;s. If the jews decided to set up their fabricated nation in that more isolated region, there would be a hell of a lot more peace. Saying that Palestine was once theirs is like me going to Georgia, Armenia or Dagestan simply based on the fact that I am white (Caucasians came from that region about 7000 years ago). I have no right to be there, and I dont try to go. If I did, being attacked by the actual inhabbitants of the region is a reasonable risk, they have every right to be pissed off.

Israel has no right to exist, but the Jews certainly have a right to live there, as equal citizens, not having their lower middle class live in what, even by American standards, are huge houses. there are far too many people in that region, the Jews really could have picked a better place if they wanted such living space. And not only is zionism racism, but it is anti-semitism. Arabs are semites. Im sure there are good israeli&#39;s (i have only met assholes however), and im sure there are bad Palestinians (I have only met delightful ones), and Im not sure if they can share the land, but if theres any hope for that, the blue star of david must come down. Maybe if we let Buddhists run the country...

[Patrick Arguello]

Again, I am not saying that Israel should not be condemned, nor that it is not in grosse violation of several international standards. I am just saying that there are far more important issues to deal with first.

Not if you&#39;re living in occupied Palestine or you a refugee from there&#33;

Since I joined this site a few days ago I&#39;ve never seen so much pro-Zionist crap on a left site in my life and having been active in the Palestinian solidarity movement for over 15 years this particular thread floored me. I&#39;ve heard/read/seen/listened to all manner of Zionist bullshit propaganda, but to see so much of it in one thread was just unfuckingbelieable. As "Free Palestine" stated much earlier it all refutable. Anyone not so informed as to what&#39;s occuring in Palestine should check out out the Al Awda - The Palestinian Right Of Return Coalition (http://al-awda.org) website and then follow their links page.

Unfortunately for the zionist who started this thread "israel&#39;s" days are numbered, it&#39;s a historical inevitability for all oppressor nations. How it ends for them is largely their choice. But given they&#39;re now the world&#39;s 5th largest armed nuclear (for such a small, insignificant country as someone posted, what do they need with that many nuclear warheads) who knows what crazy Zionist faction in the "israeli" state might do...

Berxwedan Jiyane&#33;

http://users.resist.ca/~ats/Images/Ireland-Palestine.jpg

"It is not those who can inflict the most but those who can endure the most who will finally triumph."

http://clba-laconscience.ifrance.com/images/fplp2.jpg

[LSD]

Not if you&#39;re living in occupied Palestine or you a refugee from there&#33;

Obviously not, but since that group makes up the vast minority of the world&#39;s population, it hardly explains the obsessive focus on the issue.

Again, a concentration on the actions of the Israeli government is perfectly reasonable for those living under said government, it is not for the rest of us.

The world and, unfortunately, the left specifically, needs to prioritize its resources and make rational determinations of greatest need. Israel simply is not nearly as important as the attention it recieves would indicate.

That inbalance needs to be rectified.


Since I joined this site a few days ago I&#39;ve never seen so much pro-Zionist crap on a left site in my life

Define "pro-Zionist" and provide examples.

A vauge assertion is nobody&#39;s friend.


for such a small, insignificant country as someone posted, what do they need with that many nuclear warheads

I don&#39;t know. What does China or North Korea need with them?

Both countries, incidently, with far worse human rights records than Israel.


who knows what crazy Zionist faction in the "israeli" state might do...

Frankly, I&#39;m far more worried about the crazy "faction" that&#39;s actually running the DPRK.

Hypothetical "crazy Zionist factions" make for interesting table talk, but insofar as religious nutballs, there are far too many of them in actual power to worry about the ones who might someday get it.

Israel&#39;s government may be religiously-motivated, but there are countries that are true theocracies.

Surely, they deserve our immediate focus?

Or are the women of Saudi Arabia "not as important" as the Palestinians?

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Patrick [email protected] 1 2005, 04:36 AM

Again, I am not saying that Israel should not be condemned, nor that it is not in grosse violation of several international standards. I am just saying that there are far more important issues to deal with first.

Not if you&#39;re living in occupied Palestine or you a refugee from there&#33;

Since I joined this site a few days ago I&#39;ve never seen so much pro-Zionist crap on a left site in my life and having been active in the Palestinian solidarity movement for over 15 years this particular thread floored me. I&#39;ve heard/read/seen/listened to all manner of Zionist bullshit propaganda, but to see so much of it in one thread was just unfuckingbelieable. As "Free Palestine" stated much earlier it all refutable. Anyone not so informed as to what&#39;s occuring in Palestine should check out out the Al Awda - The Palestinian Right Of Return Coalition (http://al-awda.org) website and then follow their links page.

Unfortunately for the zionist who started this thread "israel&#39;s" days are numbered, it&#39;s a historical inevitability for all oppressor nations. How it ends for them is largely their choice. But given they&#39;re now the world&#39;s 5th largest armed nuclear (for such a small, insignificant country as someone posted, what do they need with that many nuclear warheads) who knows what crazy Zionist faction in the "israeli" state might do...

Berxwedan Jiyane&#33;

http://users.resist.ca/~ats/Images/Ireland-Palestine.jpg

"It is not those who can inflict the most but those who can endure the most who will finally triumph."

http://clba-laconscience.ifrance.com/images/fplp2.jpg
Comrade,

Great to have you on the site, and thank you for the link to the Right of Return group.

Coincidentally, Terrence McSwinney, the man who said "It is not those who can inflict the most but those who can endure the most who will finally triumph," was from my town, Cork. ;)

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by Patrick [email protected] 1 2005, 03:47 AM
But given they&#39;re now the world&#39;s 5th largest armed nuclear (for such a small, insignificant country as someone posted, what do they need with that many nuclear warheads) who knows what crazy Zionist faction in the "israeli" state might do...
Well, given the amount of wars that threaten the destruction of Israel, it&#39;s no wonder that they decided to create nuclear weapons. It isn&#39;t right, and I believe nuclear weapons should be outlawed, but that&#39;s the reason.

Yes, I&#39;m a Zionist, but only one that supports a Jewish nation. Yes, I know that there are many of you that say "Well, why aren&#39;t there homelands for the Welsh or other minorities of the world?" I&#39;ll tell you why, it&#39;s because the Jewish people are the most prosecuted people in history&#33; Of course they should have a home for themselves, lest yet more waves of anti-semitism strike them. I would love to see my people live peacefully amoung Gentiles without tension ever arising between the two groups. I&#39;ve now surrendered to the fact that it seems that mankind always wants scapegoats, and ever since the Romans expelled us from our ancestral homeland, we&#39;ve been wandering, and it seems like anywhere we settle the people lash out at us. When you&#39;ve been through 2000 years of persecution (not me personally of course, but my ancestors were and I&#39;ve even seen the ugly face of anti-semitism) it&#39;s hard for you to trust anyone but yourself.

We need a state of our own, but not one that creates hardship and dispair for others. It makes me furious and sad to see Palestinians to be forced to live this way. However, I think it is absolutely ridiculous that people believe Jews shouldn&#39;t be allowed to live there. If France all of a sudden didn&#39;t allow North Africans to live in France, wouldn&#39;t that be racist? If America shut off the borders (that&#39;s a bad example, as the racist minutemen pigs are trying to do so) that would be racist too. I want more than anything for Israelis and Palestinians to stop fighting and for Israel to give complete equality to the Palestinians.

[Amusing Scrotum]

"Well, why aren&#39;t there homelands for the Welsh or other minorities of the world?"

There is a homeland for the Welsh, its called Wales and its where I&#39;m typing this message from right now.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Chinghis [email protected] 2 2005, 01:15 AM
Yes, I&#39;m a Zionist, but only one that supports a Jewish nation. Yes, I know that there are many of you that say "Well, why aren&#39;t there homelands for the Welsh or other minorities of the world?" I&#39;ll tell you why, it&#39;s because the Jewish people are the most prosecuted people in history&#33;
There are some deep flaws in what you&#39;re saying. I know that the Jews have suffered incredible oppression in history. I would not be one to deny this as I&#39;ve actually lost Jewish relatives to anti-semetism.

But in just straight numbers, they&#39;re far eclipsed by others. The Nazis actually killed far more Soviets than just Jews (it&#39;s overlapping of course; many Russians who died at the hands of the Nazis were Soviets as well) and I don&#39;t think anyone comes close to the number of Native Americans killed. It could be legitimately argued that it&#39;s as high as 99%&#33;

This is just a mythology that you&#39;re peddling to justify hurting Palestinian natives - pretty sick racialist nationalism.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 01:42 AM
But in just straight numbers, they&#39;re far eclipsed by others. The Nazis actually killed far more Soviets than just Jews (it&#39;s overlapping of course; many Russians who died at the hands of the Nazis were Soviets as well) and I don&#39;t think anyone comes close to the number of Native Americans killed. It could be legitimately argued that it&#39;s as high as 99%&#33;

This is just a mythology that you&#39;re peddling to justify hurting Palestinian natives - pretty sick racialist nationalism.
Proportionately, though, over one third of the world&#39;s Jewish population was killed - 6 million out of 17 million.
The Native Americans suffered terribly by European and American cruelty. But I think the vast majority of those killed were by disease. Many millions were also killed by the genocidal policies of Europeans and Americans. What I&#39;m trying to say though is that although they suffered enormously, the Jewish people have suffered more persecution proportionately than anyone on Earth.

Secondly, I have not justified the intolerable acts of cruelty placed on the Palestinians, in fact, I stated just the opposite. Could you point out the spot I said this? Or maybe you couldn&#39;t, because I didn&#39;t say that.

[Atlas Swallowed]

http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=140

Since the European Jews who rule Israel are descended from the Khazars and not the Biblical Jews "the Gods chosen people" arguement is crap. The Palestinian people are more likely to be ancestors of the Jews in the Bible than most Israelis.

[EwokUtopia]

I think that westerners should completely stay out of this topic.
Why?

Israel can not survive long without us, they dont have a good position. Let the peices fall where they may. Without America to pay its gun-bills, it wont last much longer than a decade. Israel is not South Africa, they simply dont have the resources to carry on their Aparthied. Hey, at least the Afrikaners never build a litteral wall of hatred. The Israeli&#39;s seem not to appreciate metaphor, or human rights.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Chinghis [email protected] 2 2005, 03:06 AM
Secondly, I have not justified the intolerable acts of cruelty placed on the Palestinians, in fact, I stated just the opposite. Could you point out the spot I said this? Or maybe you couldn&#39;t, because I didn&#39;t say that.
Sure, you said: "Yes, I&#39;m a Zionist, but only one that supports a Jewish nation."

The Zionist project was to colonise "a land without a people for a people without a land" (after expelling the natives). I&#39;m not saying you&#39;re a bad person, just pointing out that it&#39;s inherent in the idea, whether you like it or not.

[LSD]

Since the European Jews who rule Israel are descended from the Khazars and not the Biblical Jews "the Gods chosen people" arguement is crap.

The "God&#39;s chosen people" argument is crap for far better reasons than that, not the least of which is that "God" is crap.

But as for your assertion that all of European Jewry descends from the 10th century Russian kingdom of Khazaria, well it&#39;s patently false. Undoubtablty, there still survive Jewish families that could, if they had the means, trace their lineage back to ancient Khazaria.

But it is equally certain that a large proportion of Jews could trace themselves back to ancient Judea. Probably another large group can trace back to diaspora intermarriages and conversions.

The real point is that it doesn&#39;t matter one way or another.

The creation of Israel was an emotional act, based on fear and desperation. It really didn&#39;t matter whether or not the specific founders were the descendents of Judeans.

They wanted to create a "nation" where the "Jewish people" would be safe from oppression, and to do so in the place where the Judaism was strong, independent, and prosperous as a free kingdom, 2600 years before.

Their persoan histories really didn&#39;t enter into it.


I think that westerners should completely stay out of this topic.

Amen.

Aside from the stubborness and radicals on both sides, the single biggest roadblock to a peacefull solution has been American intervention.

The rulling class is determined to keep this issue alive because it is a perfect distraction from their oppressions all around the world.

[Militant]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 04:13 AM
I think that westerners should completely stay out of this topic.
Why?

Israel can not survive long without us, they dont have a good position. Let the peices fall where they may. Without America to pay its gun-bills, it wont last much longer than a decade. Israel is not South Africa, they simply dont have the resources to carry on their Aparthied. Hey, at least the Afrikaners never build a litteral wall of hatred. The Israeli&#39;s seem not to appreciate metaphor, or human rights.
I agree with this position, the USA should stop giving Israel and Egypt (yes the USA gives &#39;em a couple billion for tanks too, thanks Carter) money for weapons. This would reduce their defense spending by a third, to 4 billion dollars. Egypt&#39;s would fall to 440 million dollars, with USA aid equaling 85% of their military spending.

So with the most powerful country in the region losing so much spending, I think Israel would be safer without money, then they are with the money.

[WendigoSpooks]

I&#39;m Jewish myself, with relatives living in Israel who have served in the Israeli military, as well as relatives currently active duty in the Israeli military.

I honestly do not believe that Jews have &#39;divine right&#39; or any right whatsoever over Arabs and/or Muslims to have control of the region.

Sure, Jews were in control of the region hundreds and hundreds years ago and for many generations (control of the region was done through slaughtering those that were living in the region), and sure it&#39;s a big part of the Jewish faith and culture to believe that Eretz Yisroel is our home and that we&#39;ve been without one for years and years, but that doesn&#39;t justify Israel&#39;s bullying of Palestinians and the countries surrounding.

Because of diaspora, Jews weren&#39;t in control of the region for hundreds of years, and during that time Arabs and/or Muslims were. After WW1, Great Britain and France had tossed around how to divide up the former Ottoman Empire amongst one another. Then after WW2 and the international feelings of sympathy for Jews because of the Holocaust led to the founding of Israel as a nation. It was said that Israel would receive a portion of the land and that the Arabs and/or Muslims already living there, and making up more than 80% of the population, would retain most of the land. That obviously didn&#39;t happen, Zionists supplied with weapons from the US, began shooting and blowing up the Arab and/or Muslim settlements. And Arabs did the same back. The Zionists, though highly outnumbered, won due to advanced weaponry from America. This was the late 40s.

The situation is so much more difficult than I said here or could ever explain, but to reiterate what I said, I, as a Jew, don&#39;t deserve to live in that part of the world anymore than any Arab or Muslim. Honestly, I believe they deserve to be there more than I do. I guess that is why I&#39;m a member of JATO(Jews Against The Occupation).

Israel is a big fascist bully and no one really ever speaks up about it or say anything against Israel because they do not want to be labeled as &#39;Anti-Semitic&#39;.

Zionists can be just as bad as any militant Christian or Muslim Fundamentalist.

[Free Palestine]

It wasn&#39;t a "letter of support", it was a letter requesting a meeting&#33;

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...meethitler.html (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/meethitler.html)

Wrong letter. I refer here to the memorandum of support the Zionist Federation of Germany sent to the Nazi Party on June 21, 1933. In it the Zionist Federation wrote:


... a rebirth of national life such as is occurring in German life ... must also take place in the Jewish national group.

On the foundation of the new [Nazi] state which has established the principle of race, we wish so to fit our community into the total structure so that for us, too, in the sphere assigned to us, fruitful activity for the Fatherland is possible ...


Yes, because a German organization voting to condemn Hitler in 1933 wouldn&#39;t have caused any problems.

You&#39;re right. We should all be making all sorts of deals with the fascist and anti-Semitic forces instead of fighting them. :rolleyes:



Nazi standouts such as Goebbels wrote high praises of Zionism

No they didn&#39;t.

Just read Goebbel&#39;s twelve-part report in Der Angriff (The Assault) in 1934 praising Zionism. Goebbels even ordered a medallion with a Swastika on one side, and on the other, the Star of David. Go read Brenner&#39;s Zionism, it accounts for Zionist collaboration with Nazis and other anti-Semites in great detail.


Whether or not certain "Zionists" thought that the Nazis could be used to further their cause is irrelevent. That is not "supporting" the Nazis nor is it "openly calling themselves National Socalists".

As far as support, collaboration is support. Especially when you are expressing your hatred for Jews who instead of making deals with anti-Semitic forces, were actually fighting them. Herzl himself, the founder of Zionism, offered to help the Tsar fight Europe’s “noxious and subversive Anarcho-Bolshevik Jews” (as he called them).


..but that was a temporarily overlap of interests, nothing more.


Yes he did. He thought that, on this issue, he might find an unlikely ally.


It&#39;s politics, nothing more.

Rationalize it all you want, it doesn&#39;t change the fact of Zionist collaboration with anti-Semitic forces.


The Palestinians have not been forcibily exported from the country.

What about the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who were dispossessed and forced out of their homes by Zionist terror gangs and never allowed to return? Palestinians have experienced several periods of major displacement, beginning in 1947-48 during the first Arab-Zionist/Israeli war, followed by a second major displacement in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. The Palestinian refugee case is the largest and one of the longest standing refugee cases in the world today.


And while they do live in abysmal conditions today, no attempt is being made to expell them.

Yes there is. There exist continuous attempts of displacement which result from Israeli government policies and practices both inside Israel and in the 1967 occupied Palestinian territories. This includes land confiscation, house demolition, revocation of residency status, and deportation, as well as government policies and armed conflict in various countries of asylum in the region.


Neither were most Jewish immigrants to Palestine.

The statements of the Zionist pioneers shows otherwise.


It is simply nothing short of racism to concentrate all our attention upon it.

Not necessarily. There are countless plausible explanations that could be found to explain your concern with over-prioritization, as I have already shown you.


Yes, I&#39;m a Zionist, but only one that supports a Jewish nation. Yes, I know that there are many of you that say "Well, why aren&#39;t there homelands for the Welsh or other minorities of the world?" I&#39;ll tell you why, it&#39;s because the Jewish people are the most prosecuted people in history&#33;

Yes, the holocaust was one of the worst crimes of the 20th century, but not the only one. For example, the Belgian massacres in the Congo led to between 10-12 million deaths before the 1st World War. For someone who claims to prioritize by body counts, it is very telling to see that LSD has not already contested this claim.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 3 2005, 05:38 PM
Yes, the holocaust was one of the worst crimes of the 20th century, but not the only one. For example, the Belgian massacres in the Congo led to between 10-12 million deaths before the 1st World War. For someone who claims to prioritize by body counts, it is very telling to see that LSD has not already contested this claim.
Could you give me the website/article/bookname?
I didn&#39;t mean to say that the Jewish people are the only persecuted people in history, just more persecution throughout the years than others.

[LSD]

You&#39;re right. We should all be making all sorts of deals with the fascist and anti-Semitic forces instead of fighting them.

No we shouldn&#39;t.

But claiming that failure to condemn a fascist racist enemy with total power over your life is equivilant to support is a ludicrous oversimplification.


As far as support, collaboration is support.

No it isn&#39;t.

Believing that the aims of antisemites can aid in ones "quest" to found a Jewish homeland is a very different thing from actually supporting those aims.

No Zionist actually believed the Nazi racial theory that Jews were inferior, likewise no significant Zionist movements considered themselves to be "National Socalist" in the Hiterlian sense.

Did certain prominent leaders make a Machiavellian bargain and attempt to deal with the proverbial "devil"? Yes.

Does that have anything to do with our present discussion? No&#33;

Whether or not the professional "Zionists" saw the Nazis as a means to their ends, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of Israel&#39;s initial population, and the overwhelming majority of it today, have absolutely no history of Nazi collaboration.

That certain elements put their political aims above morality and even their fellow Jews 60 years ago has no barring on a discussion of the State of Israel today.


Rationalize it all you want, it doesn&#39;t change the fact of Zionist collaboration with anti-Semitic forces.

The fact of some Zionist collaboration with some antisemitic forces.

So what?


What about the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who were dispossessed and forced out of their homes by Zionist terror gangs and never allowed to return?

What about them?

That is a far cry from an enacted state policy of total mass exportation and extermination. While Israel does have instances in its past of haphazardly attempted disposessions, the fact remain that the bulk of the Palestinian population is still in Palestine.


Yes there is. There exist continuous attempts of displacement which result from Israeli government policies and practices both inside Israel and in the 1967 occupied Palestinian territories.

But those "continuous" attempts are amateurish at best.

In fact many contemporary states have been far more effective in eliminating troubling populations. Certainly the Israel&#39;s arab neighbours were when they managed to drive out millenia-old Jewish populations in a matter of years following 1949.

Let me put it this way, if the Israeli government, or the Israeli people, really wanted to drive out all of the Palestinians -- they would&#33;

Evidence suggests that most people, on both sides, want a peaceful solution that works for both.

But as with most conflicts, it&#39;s a long time coming.

But, again, that isn&#39;t "unusual". It&#39;s exactly typical of, again, most conflicts.

So, again, why are we focusing on it??


Not necessarily.

If it isn&#39;t racism, it&#39;s just stupidity.

There is nothing "special" about the Israel case, certainly nothing so important that it deserves the attention it recieves.


There are countless plausible explanations that could be found to explain your concern with over-prioritization, as I have already shown you.

All of which I have rebutted, and none of which you have since reconstructed.

...so what else you got?