Israeli kibbutz [Archive]

chimx

24th April 2007, 01:11

However, they later changed their mind and decided on Palestine since there was supposidly a hebrew kingdom there over 2000 yrs ago.

Hah... you prefaced that with "supposedly?"

The problem is, again, Palestine didn't belong to the British forgein minister, nor to the zionists.

You say this but gloss over the fact that Palestine didn't belong to the Palestinians either. It was Ottoman territory. They didn't even call the area Palestine. And if memory serves... the Ottomans got defeated in WWI, and lost their territory to... now who was it? Oh that's right, the British.

Palestine belonged to its inhabitants who were the 95% of the population and owned and operated the vast majority of the land.

As far as I know, foreign Ottoman feudal landlords owned the majority of the land. Someone correct me if I'm wrong (preferably with evidence). From what I remember, one of the biggest problems was that Zionist funds legally bought a great deal of the land from these foreign land lords, making them the landlords, which allowed them to evict the local population.

Druing the creation of this settler-colony, the majority of the arabs were expelled by the zionists in the biggest campaign of ethnic cleansing and expulsion in modern history.

Well that's a pretty bold statement. Obviously ethnic cleansing occurred, but "the biggest" in all of modern history? Got any statistics to back that up?

But my qualm is that you gloss over the divisions within the intellectual movement of Zionism. Plenty of Zionists were opposed to the domination of the local population and worked to include them in the Kibbutz system.

--

In the end, my largest problem with the anti-Israel folk is that it borders on racist antisemitism half the time. To quote RAAN: "Racism and its historical accomplice, nationalism, have been carefully developed to a point where they can be engineered and manipulated to cause workers around the world and even in the same country to fight each other over the scraps of power thrown to them by the bourgeoisie. Such artificial divisions in the proletariat are always to the benefit of the capitalist system that is ultimately at fault for creating these tensions."

As it is now, LOTS of Jews and Palestinians both live in the area and have for a long time. You sound like you are advocating the expulsion of Jews, or the very least, the creation of Palestinian landlords over Jewish landlords.

Neither is an acceptable solution because it allows class exploitation to persist--something that is blind to ethnicity. Stop making Jews the enemy. Capitalism is.

RNK

24th April 2007, 02:30

Rule from Istanbul or Constantinople or whatver the fuck, then rule from London, then rule from Tel-Aviv -- in all cases, the people themselves, who live there, do not rule.

Revolution Until Victory

24th April 2007, 03:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 12:11 am

However, they later changed their mind and decided on Palestine since there was supposidly a hebrew kingdom there over 2000 yrs ago.

Hah... you prefaced that with "supposedly?"

The problem is, again, Palestine didn't belong to the British forgein minister, nor to the zionists.

You say this but gloss over the fact that Palestine didn't belong to the Palestinians either. It was Ottoman territory. They didn't even call the area Palestine. And if memory serves... the Ottomans got defeated in WWI, and lost their territory to... now who was it? Oh that's right, the British.

Palestine belonged to its inhabitants who were the 95% of the population and owned and operated the vast majority of the land.

As far as I know, foreign Ottoman feudal landlords owned the majority of the land. Someone correct me if I'm wrong (preferably with evidence). From what I remember, one of the biggest problems was that Zionist funds legally bought a great deal of the land from these foreign land lords, making them the landlords, which allowed them to evict the local population.

Druing the creation of this settler-colony, the majority of the arabs were expelled by the zionists in the biggest campaign of ethnic cleansing and expulsion in modern history.

Well that's a pretty bold statement. Obviously ethnic cleansing occurred, but "the biggest" in all of modern history? Got any statistics to back that up?

But my qualm is that you gloss over the divisions within the intellectual movement of Zionism. Plenty of Zionists were opposed to the domination of the local population and worked to include them in the Kibbutz system.

--

In the end, my largest problem with the anti-Israel folk is that it borders on racist antisemitism half the time. To quote RAAN: "Racism and its historical accomplice, nationalism, have been carefully developed to a point where they can be engineered and manipulated to cause workers around the world and even in the same country to fight each other over the scraps of power thrown to them by the bourgeoisie. Such artificial divisions in the proletariat are always to the benefit of the capitalist system that is ultimately at fault for creating these tensions."

As it is now, LOTS of Jews and Palestinians both live in the area and have for a long time. You sound like you are advocating the expulsion of Jews, or the very least, the creation of Palestinian landlords over Jewish landlords.

Neither is an acceptable solution because it allows class exploitation to persist--something that is blind to ethnicity. Stop making Jews the enemy. Capitalism is.
I said supposidly coz the condition of that system is disputed. Some say it was a state implying a modern one. Others say it got nothing to do with a state and was simply some loose kingdoms and stuff like this. I never meant it didn't exist. :)

"it was Ottman terretory"??
what the hell are you talking about??
so Algeria was French terretory during the French colonization according to your "logic"
India was British terretory during British colonization?
France was Nazi terretory during Nazi occupation?
Angola was Portoguese terretory during colonization??
BULLSHIT.
A colonizer and invader would NEVER have a claim to the land he invaded and coloinized, thats absured, to say the least.
they might control it through the government, no question about it.
but the land belongs to its inhabitiants.
I'm not just making this up, during the Belfour decleration, and under BRITISH colonization, not ottman, over 97% of the land was owned and operated by the Arabs. And yes, both the British and the Ottman called the area Palestine (although it doesn't matter what they called it)
but that even doesn't matter, coz right before the creation of the zionist colony, Arabs owned over 94% of the eintire area of Palestine (I will provide the evidence latter in the post)

now again, I'm talking about the Belfour decleration which was almost during the British Mandate times. and during those times, the Ottmans, aside from ending their colonization of Palestine, didn't own most of the land, far from it.

"From what I remember, one of the biggest problems was that Zionist funds legally bought a great deal of the land from these foreign land lords,"

I don't know about you, but for me, the statment "a great deal" seems to mean AT LEAST quarter of the entire land.
the fact is, however, the zionists, due to rejection from Palestinians and restriciton form the Bristih, were able to only purchase 5.8% of the entire area of Palestine.

here is the evidence that Palestine belonged to the Palestinian people, not to the Ottman Sultan, not to the British forgien minister (although it's quiet obvious and doesn't need any evidence) and that the zionists were only able to purchase 5.8%:

- The CCP Refugee Office (a UN offical commitee) estimated that although only a little more than a quarter was considered cultivable, more than 80 percent of Israel's total area of 20,850 km.sq. represented land abandoned by the Arab refugees. Three-quarters of the former Arab land was sub-marginal land or semi-desert in the Negeb.
(The Establishment of the State of Israel as a Jewish State from Chapter I in: Israel –An Apartheid State, by Uri Davis, Zed Books, London and New Jersey, 1987)

- According to the Survey of Palestine prepared by the UN prior to the 1947 partition, P.566, over 94% of Palestine's total area belonged to Palestinians, and the zionists own 5.8% (hardly a "great deal" ;) )

- Subcommittee 2 of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestine Question stated in its report to the United Nations General Assembly the following:
Closely connected with the distribution of population is the factor of land ownership in the proposed Jewish State. The bulk of the land in the Arab State, as well as in the proposed Jewish State, is owned and possessed by Arabs. This is clear from the following statistics furnished to the Sub-Committee by the United Kingdom representative, showing the respective percentages of Arab and Jewish ownership of land in the various sub-districts of Palestine.
(Official Records of the Second Session of the General Assembly Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestine Question, Summary Records of Meetings, 25 September-25 November, 1947, pp. 292-293.)

- Even Ben-Gurion himself, admitted Palestine belongs to the Palestinian people, not the Ottman Sulatn, not the British Forgein minister, and not the zionists (although they do own 5.8%). In a UNCCP document dated July 4, 1947, oral evidence were presented at a public meeting were Ben-Gurion was present. Ben-Gurion was discussing the “disparities between Jews and Arabs” in Palestine. He stated:
“I shall mention only a few [referring to the disparities between Arabs and Jews]. There is the disparity in numbers. There are some 600,000 Jews in Palestine and some 1,100,000 Arabs. There are no reliable figures in this respect. There is an even greater disparity than that. The Arabs own 94% of the land, the Jews only 6%. The Arabs have seven States, the Jews none..."
here is the document found on line to check for yourself:

http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/7735b7...71?OpenDocument (http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/7735b7dc144807b985256e8b006f4a71?OpenDocument)

now serioulsy, what more evidence do you need to believe Palestine didn't belong to the invading Britsih but to the Palestinian people??
forget about everything, just look at what Ben-Gorion statment. He himself saying Palestine belongs to the Palestinian people

I NEVER advocated the expulsion of the jews. Israel is a settler-colony built on stolen land (not to mention Aprtheid). the Palestinains should reclaim their land and a secular democratic Palestine shoud replace this colony where jew and arab have equal right.
Now were the hell was I "making the jews the enemy"
that is an inuslt to me.
I made the ZIONSITS, not the jews, the enemy.

so please, the issue is already complicated, please know what the hell you are talking about before posting :)

chimx

24th April 2007, 04:44

Oh the irony that you mention Ben Gurion. He was apart of the original Jewish Agency that worked with Zionists on immigration. What you forget to mention is that the pre-War Jewish Agency was dominated by socialist thinkers that *wanted* to work *with* the native Arab population.

The Jewish Agency at this time was extremely influenced by the Russian Zionist Achad Ha-Am (meaning "One of the People", his real name was Asher Ginsberg). Achad denounced the political Zionism of Herzl and condemned Jews that cheered the Zionist mantra "a land without people for a people without land." He more than recognized the Arab presence in the region and denounced other Zionists that ignored the Arab question.

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

Of course, Socialist Zionists that advocated participating with the local Arab population were not the only left wing group. Other less popular groups advocated a "equality between the Jewish and Arab working classes in a binational state."

Zionism as an ideology and its engagement of Palestinians is extremely more complex than what you are trying to simplistically paint it as.

--

Now you keep mentioning the Balfour declaration. Pay attention to the wording of the document in that it was Balfour saying to a leading Zionist that Britain supports the creation of a home for Jewish "in Palestine". Churchill later came out and clarified, in what was one of the first "white papers" on the area, that this meant allowing Jewish immigration so much as it wasn't a strain on the local economy and the Palestinian people.

Then things went back and forth for a while. Sometimes Britain advocated immigration, other times they wanted it to halt all together. In the end a two state solution was proposed in which Jerusalem would become an international city. Israel accepted this proposal while the Arabs declined.

What is also interesting is that if you read the State of Israel Declaration of Independence, you will see that Zionists advocate a stance nearly identical to your own. You say, "the Palestinains should reclaim their land and a secular democratic Palestine should replace this colony where Jew and Arab have equal right." The Israeli Declaration says, ". . . we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions--provisional and permanent."

Revolution Until Victory: you are a Zionist and didn't even know it! :D

Of course, as we all know, this never came about. Surrounding Arabic states invaded Israel to wipe it out, but they got their asses kicked. The result of this war was that about 700,000 Palestinians left their land because of the war. Many fled to neighboring Arab countries. Immediately after the war, there was some flexibility with returning property to refugees, but for the most part Israel claimed that it didn't have a legal responsibility to return the land. This changed in 1949 when Israel said that it would be willing to look at land return or at the very least compensation, but only with in the context of peace agreements with Arab countries. Unfortunately the latter declined to hold such agreements.

--

As a side note to some of your earlier comments, by the later half of the 1800s, only 20 percent of Galilee and 50 percent of Judea was owned by peasants. Absentee landlords and foreigners owned the rest. Socialist Zionists sought to buy this land, but not to create communities with new landlords, but rather ones that were collectively managed. This is where the Kibbutz system was born to return to the original post. Some Kibbutzim did do this, others allowed the Arab tenets to remain on the land, while other times the Arab tenets were evicted.

The 2nd option is what happened most often. It should be noted that the 2nd wave of Jewish immigration into Palestine was opposed primarily *not* by Muslim Palestinians because they were allowed to continue to work their land more often than not. It was the area's Christian population that was more vehemently opposed to Jews entering the area. Arabic anti-immigration sentiment only really increased a lot after WWI.

--

so please, the issue is already complicated, please know what the hell you are talking about before posting

Cute. I do know what I'm talking about.

Rage Against Right

24th April 2007, 09:30

Its good to see debate but i myself kind of mislead it by being misinformed, but i was really asking of the idea of kabbutzims and how the acted socially and whether they may survive today in other countries in a completly different part of the world, this is what i was leaning towards

Revolution Until Victory

24th April 2007, 17:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 03:44 am
Oh the irony that you mention Ben Gurion. He was apart of the original Jewish Agency that worked with Zionists on immigration. What you forget to mention is that the pre-War Jewish Agency was dominated by socialist thinkers that *wanted* to work *with* the native Arab population.

The Jewish Agency at this time was extremely influenced by the Russian Zionist Achad Ha-Am (meaning "One of the People", his real name was Asher Ginsberg). Achad denounced the political Zionism of Herzl and condemned Jews that cheered the Zionist mantra "a land without people for a people without land." He more than recognized the Arab presence in the region and denounced other Zionists that ignored the Arab question.

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

Of course, Socialist Zionists that advocated participating with the local Arab population were not the only left wing group. Other less popular groups advocated a "equality between the Jewish and Arab working classes in a binational state."

Zionism as an ideology and its engagement of Palestinians is extremely more complex than what you are trying to simplistically paint it as.

--

Now you keep mentioning the Balfour declaration. Pay attention to the wording of the document in that it was Balfour saying to a leading Zionist that Britain supports the creation of a home for Jewish "in Palestine". Churchill later came out and clarified, in what was one of the first "white papers" on the area, that this meant allowing Jewish immigration so much as it wasn't a strain on the local economy and the Palestinian people.

Then things went back and forth for a while. Sometimes Britain advocated immigration, other times they wanted it to halt all together. In the end a two state solution was proposed in which Jerusalem would become an international city. Israel accepted this proposal while the Arabs declined.

What is also interesting is that if you read the State of Israel Declaration of Independence, you will see that Zionists advocate a stance nearly identical to your own. You say, "the Palestinains should reclaim their land and a secular democratic Palestine should replace this colony where Jew and Arab have equal right." The Israeli Declaration says, ". . . we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions--provisional and permanent."

Revolution Until Victory: you are a Zionist and didn't even know it! :D

Of course, as we all know, this never came about. Surrounding Arabic states invaded Israel to wipe it out, but they got their asses kicked. The result of this war was that about 700,000 Palestinians left their land because of the war. Many fled to neighboring Arab countries. Immediately after the war, there was some flexibility with returning property to refugees, but for the most part Israel claimed that it didn't have a legal responsibility to return the land. This changed in 1949 when Israel said that it would be willing to look at land return or at the very least compensation, but only with in the context of peace agreements with Arab countries. Unfortunately the latter declined to hold such agreements.

--

As a side note to some of your earlier comments, by the later half of the 1800s, only 20 percent of Galilee and 50 percent of Judea was owned by peasants. Absentee landlords and foreigners owned the rest. Socialist Zionists sought to buy this land, but not to create communities with new landlords, but rather ones that were collectively managed. This is where the Kibbutz system was born to return to the original post. Some Kibbutzim did do this, others allowed the Arab tenets to remain on the land, while other times the Arab tenets were evicted.

The 2nd option is what happened most often. It should be noted that the 2nd wave of Jewish immigration into Palestine was opposed primarily *not* by Muslim Palestinians because they were allowed to continue to work their land more often than not. It was the area's Christian population that was more vehemently opposed to Jews entering the area. Arabic anti-immigration sentiment only really increased a lot after WWI.

--

so please, the issue is already complicated, please know what the hell you are talking about before posting

Cute. I do know what I'm talking about.
first of all, it's a big lie that the zionists wanted to work with the arabs. They wanted the land WITHOUT the arabs. After the zionist movement gained momentum during the 20th century, the Plan to ethnicly cleanse the Palestinains was getting more clear. I don't think I even need to provide evidence.
true Ahad was opning zionist eyes to the fact that Palestine was not a land without a people. No question about it. He was even talking of how bad the zionist settlers were treating the Palestinains and also opposed the political zionism of Herzel. That is true.

"Zionism as an ideology and its engagement of Palestinians is extremely more complex than what you are trying to simplistically paint it as."

how the hell was I "simplistically paint it as"??

All I said was the zionists expelled over 800,000 Palestinians and weren't intending on living WITH the arabs.

"In the end a two state solution was proposed in which Jerusalem would become an international city. Israel accepted this proposal while the Arabs declined."

now what part of it doesn't get through your thick skull??
Palestine belongs to the Palestinain arab people. Your again painting the arabs to be anti-peace when they rejected the plan. Why the hell would thy accept it??
what fools on the face of earth would give away over 55% of thier land to recent forgien immigrants whom barley owned 5% of it??? Be serouis.

"Surrounding Arabic states invaded Israel to wipe it out, but they got their asses kicked. The result of this war was that about 700,000 Palestinians left their land because of the war."

Now, I don't give a shit what that pieace of paper said, singed by about 35 zionist, of which only around 2-4 were born in Palestine and the vast majority of the rest were European, I only care about realties on the ground. I could come up with a beautifuly written paper talking about equality and justice, but do the exact opposite on the ground.
All I know is that when this delceartion came out, Israel was already in possesion of over 55% of the land of Palestine of which the zionists own only less than 6%.
so how on earth the arabs, or anyone else, would accept such a thing?
now here you are proving again you have no idea what your talking about. The result of the war wasn't the expulsion of the refugees. BEFORE one arab soldier set a foot on Palestine, half of the total sum of refugees expelled were expelled by Ben-Gurion and half of the villages depopulated and destroyed too. So the ethnic cleansing started before the arabs attacked.

"Immediately after the war, there was some flexibility with returning property to refugees"

what the hell is your problem?? are you serious?? right after the war, any Palestinian who attempt to return was SHOT ON THE SPOT and was labeled an "infltrator" on his own land!

"but only with in the context of peace agreements with Arab countries. Unfortunately the latter declined to hold such agreements."

ok, again the arab are the bad guys and the zionists are the victims. You steal land, you should return it. Period.

"As a side note to some of your earlier comments, by the later half of the 1800s, only 20 percent of Galilee and 50 percent of Judea was owned by peasants. Absentee landlords and foreigners owned the rest."

what the hell are you talking about??? who mentioned the "latter half of the 19th"??
that is totally irrelivant. That's like saying, I can invade India coz 2000 yrs ago or something, it wasn't owned by anyone!!
I have clearly proven to you, that RIGHT BEFORE the zionists declared thier colony, arabs owned over 94% of the land; I don't care what happned 100 yrs before that.

ok, so what basicly happned is that you claimed Palestine belonged to the Ottmans then to the British, (all of this while claiming to be a leftist ;)) and I proved you wrong.
I claimed Palestinains were ethnicly cleansed and expelled by the zionist, and you started telling me about the history of zionism and its socialism and what happned at the very begning which is totally irrelivant.
The issue remains. Palestine belogns to the Palestinian people. Israel is an Aprtheid settler-colony built on stolen lands. It should be replaced by a secular democracitc Palestien were jew and arab would live equally together.

and yes, obviously, you don't know what the hell you are talking about. :D

chimx

28th April 2007, 00:43

"As a side note to some of your earlier comments, by the later half of the 1800s, only 20 percent of Galilee and 50 percent of Judea was owned by peasants. Absentee landlords and foreigners owned the rest."

what the hell are you talking about??? who mentioned the "latter half of the 19th"??
that is totally irrelivant. That's like saying, I can invade India coz 2000 yrs ago or something, it wasn't owned by anyone!!
I have clearly proven to you, that RIGHT BEFORE the zionists declared thier colony, arabs owned over 94% of the land; I don't care what happned 100 yrs before that.

I just got back from a 60 hour work week out of town, so I'm a little too tired to get into it with you. Let me simply point out that your stumbling block is that your arguments are ethnically reductionist. Arab's didn't own 94% of the land, capitalists did. I was pointing out that the legal holdings of the land were absentee landlords and capitalists. Socialist Zionists were trying to work under a economic model alternative to capitalism. Many within this group openly tried to work with the native Arab population.

Of course, your problem remains that the native population should have control of the land, regardless of the legal standings. Capitalists, landlords, Ottoman Turks, etc. had owned the majority of the land. When in history have the Palestinians ever governed their own country? You are astonished when capitalist wars hand land capital from one set of capitalists to the other? Again you make this into an ethnic issue by ignoring the commonality of this incident to others where ethnicity isn't such an obvious factor. You fault Zionists trying to cope with the fuckin' holocaust, despite the fact that a significant portion were socialist and open to working with the population. Neither Zionism, Jews, Islam, or Arabs are the problem. Capitalism is and always has been.

Revolution Until Victory

28th April 2007, 02:01

"Arab's didn't own 94% of the land, capitalists did"

you serious?? :huh:
that is the stupidist thing I ever heard; how the hell does it matter if the paelstinain arabs who owned the land were capitalist, communist, anarchist, socialist or whatever the hell they want to be??? they are still Palestinain arab, regardless of their political ideaologies.
that's as stupid as saying "the English didn't own the land, capitalists did"

"Socialist Zionists were trying to work under a economic model alternative to capitalism. Many within this group openly tried to work with the native Arab population."

I told you that I recognized Ahad Ha'am. True at first, zionism was just a little bet less brutal, but it was still racist and since the very begning Herzel and other leaders were clearly plannig expulsion of the natives.

"When in history have the Palestinians ever governed their own country"

never.
but the situation is the same with most of the states today. Alegria, Congo, Mexico, Guatemala, Keny etc. all of those never governed their own country before gaining independence. wether they had a government before or not is completley irrelivant. What I clearly meant and demonstrated with evidence is that the inhabitants owned the land: the Palestinain arabs.

"You are astonished when capitalist wars hand land capital from one set of capitalists to the other"

don't twist my words. I'm asstonished how anyone, let alone a leftist, claim that "the land didn't belong to its inhabitants, it belonged to the invading colonizers"

"You fault Zionists trying to cope with the fuckin' holocaust, despite the fact that a significant portion were socialist and open to working with the population"

no, you don't cope with an atrocity by commiting a new one. Zionism began way before the Holocaust, and by the time of the holocaust, the zionist have already made their mind on expelling the Palestinains. I did recognize that at the begning, SOME, FEW, zionists were not really keen on expelling the Palestinains, but by the time of the holocaust it was already changed. Name me a zionist group or individual that was ready to work with the arabs.

"despite the fact that a significant portion were socialist and open to working with the population."

Really??? then tell me a little about those "significant" portion. wonder why the arab were being expelled in masse if the "most significant forces were socialist ready to work with the arabs"??!! no seriously, tell me how did the zionsits expell over 75% of the entire Palestinain population if the most significant forces were socialist and ready to work with the arabs?? how could this possibly be?
all the most important zionists were ready to expell the Palestinains and not even think of wroking with them. I don't think I need to proivde any evidence. it's common knowledge. Again, I recgonize there were "good" socialist forces, but they were very few, isolated, had no political effect whatsoever, and were strongly against the views of the infleuental leaders. Among those were Brit Shalom, Yitzhak Epstein, Hashomer Ha-tzair, some members of the MAPAM party, Abba Khoushi, and Dr. Judah L. Magnes (who was the best of them; only argued for a cultural home for the jews not a colony).

"Neither Zionism, Jews, Islam, or Arabs are the problem. Capitalism is and always has been"

true, jews, Islam, or Arab are not the problem. Capitalism and zionims are. Zionism is a racist colonial, imperialist ideology. Herzel, the founder, was very clear about it from the very begning. to say that the zionsits were "coping" with the holocaust, and that most wanted to work with the arab is standard zionist right-wing propaganda line, and to say the least, it is absurd.

here is your beloved "socialist" Ben-Gurion stating in 1944 while trying to "cope with the holocaust" :D :

"Zionism is a TRANSFER of the Jews. Regarding the TRANSFER of the [Palestinian] Arabs this is much easier than any other TRANSFER. There are Arab states in the vicinity . . . . and it is clear that if the [Palestinian] Arabs are removed [to these states] this will improve their condition and not the contrary." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 159)

On July 12, 1937, Ben-Gurion the "socialist" wrote in his diary explaining the benefits of the compulsory population transfer:

"The compulsory transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the first and second Temples. . . We are given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imaginings. This is MORE than a state, government and sovereignty----this is national consolidation in a free homeland." (Righteous Victims, p. 142)

Similarly on August 7, 1937 he also stated to the Zionist Assembly during their debate of the Peel Commission:

". . . In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transferring the [Palestinian] Arab fellahin. . . it is important that this plan comes from the [British Peel] Commission and not from us. . . . Jewish power, which grows steadily, will also increase our possibilities to carry out the transfer on a large scale. You must remember, that this system embodies an important humane and Zionist idea, to transfer parts of a people to their country and to settle empty lands. We believe that this action will also bring us closer to an agreement with the Arabs." (Righteous Victims, p. 143)

On the same subject, Ben-Gurion wrote in 1937:

"With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] .... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it." (Righteous Victims, p. 144)

And in 1938, he also wrote:

"With compulsory transfer we [would] have vast areas .... I support compulsory [population] transfer. I do not see anything immoral in it. But compulsory transfer could only be carried out by England .... Had its implementation been dependent merely on our proposal I would have proposed; but this would be dangerous to propose when the British government has disassociated itself from compulsory transfer. .... But this question should not be removed from the agenda because it is central question. There are two issues here : 1) sovereignty and 2) the removal of a certain number of Arabs, and we must insist on both of them." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, 117)

On July 30, 1937 Yosef Bankover, a founding member and leader of your favorite "socialist" Kibbutz Hameuhad movement and a member of Haganah's regional command of the coastal and central districts, stated that Ben-Gurion would accept the proposed Peel Commission partition plan under two conditions: 1) unlimited Jewish immigration 2) Compulsory population transfer for Palestinians. He stated that :

"Ben-Gurion said yesterday that he was prepared to accept the [Peel partition] proposal of the Royal commission but on two conditions: [Jewish] sovereignty and compulsory transfer ..... As for the compulsory transfer-- as a member of Kibbutz Ramat Hakovsh [founded in 1932 in central Palestine] I would be very pleased if it would be possible to be rid of the pleasant neighborliness of the people of Miski, Tirah, and Qalqilyah." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 70)

And regarding the Peel Commission, on June 9, 1937 he also stated:

"In my opinion we must insist on the Peel Commission proposal, which sees in the transfer the only solution to this problem. And I have now to say that it is worthwhile that the Jewish people should bear the greatest material sacrifices in order to ensure the success of transfer." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 70)

On December 19, 1947, Ben-Gurion, trying to cope with the nazi genocide, advised the Haganah on the rules of engagement with the Palestinian population. He stated:

"we adopt the system of aggressive defense; with every Arab attack we must respond with a decisive blow: the destruction of the place or the expulsion of the residents along with the seizure of the place." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176-177 and Israel: A History, p. 156)
what a great socialist that Ben-Gurion was. what was it?? a significant portion were socialist? :rolleyes:

after the unjust partionito plan, the "socilaist" Ben-Gurion expressed how much he is ready to work with the arabs. He stated on November 30, 1947:

"In my heart, there was joy mixed with sadness: joy that the nations at last acknowledged that we are a nation with a state, and sadness that we lost half of the country, Judea and Samaria, and , in addition, that we [would] have [in our state] 400,000 [Palestinian] Arabs." (Righteous Victims, p. 190)

Here's another "siginficant socialist force". According to Sefer Toldot Ha-Haganah, the official history of the Haganah, it clearly stated how Palestinian villages and population should be dealt with. It stated:

"[Palestinian Arab] villages inside the Jewish state that resist 'should be destroyed .... and their inhabitants expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state.' Meanwhile, 'Palestinian residents of the urban quarters which dominate access to or egress from towns should be expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state in the event of their resistance.' " (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 178)

Here we see Mr. I want to work with the arabs ("socialist" Ben-Gurion) expressing his delight that Jerusalem's neighboring Palestinian communities had been emptied. He stated to the Mapai Council on February 8, 1948:

"From your entry into Jerusalem, through Lifta, Romema [East Jerusalem Palestinian neighborhood]. . . there are no [Palestinian] Arab. One hundred percent Jews. Since Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, it has not been Jewish as it is now. In many [Palestinian] Arab neighborhoods in the west one sees not a single [Palestinian] Arab. I do not assume that this will change. . . . What had happened in Jerusalem. . . . is likely to happen in many parts of the country. . . in the six, eight, or ten months of the campaign there will certainly be great changes in the composition of the population in the country." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 180-181)

I wonder, do you consider Sharett also among those "significant socialist forces"?Moshe Sharett agreed with Ben-Gurion on rejecting Palestinian refugees return, and stated during a Cabinet meeting:

"Can we imagine a return to the status quo ante?" He asked. It was inconceivable. Rather, the government should now perused the Yishuv (Palestinian Jews before 1948) of "the enormous importance of this [demographic] change in terms of the solidity of the state structure and [of] the solution of crucial social and political problems." Israel should be ready to pay compensation for the abandoned land but "they will not return. [That] is out policy. They are not returning." (Benny Morris, p. 141)

here we see the "socialist" at work again. When Ezra Danin, a Cabinet member, proposed installing a puppet Palestinian Government in the Triangle area (northwest of the occupied West Bank), Ben-Gurion had impatiently declared on October 21, 1948 that Palestinians in Israel were good for one thing, running away. He said:

"The Arabs of the land of Israel [ Palestinians] have only one function left to them -- to run away." (Benny Morris, p. 218)

there is just socres and scores of many other evidence by many othe zionists leader, but I think those are enough. I will probably post more latter to demonstrate for you the "significant socialist forces coping with the holocasut" :D

Revolution Until Victory

28th April 2007, 16:32

-_- here is some more evidence of "significant socialist forces trying to cope with the holocaust".

Herzel, the founder, was very clear about his "socialist" views:
In 1895 he wrote in his diary:

"We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back." (America And The Founding Of Israel, p. 49, Righteous Victims, p. 21-22)

Moshe Sharet, the first zionist forgien minister wrote in 1914:

"We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture ..... Recently there has been appearing in our newspapers the clarification about "the mutual misunderstanding" between us and the Arabs, about "common interests" [and] about "the possibility of unity and peace between two fraternal peoples." ..... we must not allow ourselves to be deluded by such illusive hopes ..... for if we ceases to look upon our land, the Land of Israel, as ours alone and we allow a partner into our estate- all content and meaning will be lost to our enterprise." (Righteous Victims, p. 91)
very socialist indeed ;)

While he was director of the Jewish Agency's Political Department, declared in 1947:

"Transfer could be the crowning achievements, the final stage in the development of [our] policy, but certainly not the point of departure. By [speaking publicly and prematurely] we could mobilizing vast forces against the matter and cause it to fail, in advance." (Righteous Victims, p. 254)

And also he added:

"[W]hen the Jewish state is established--it is very possible that the result will be transfer of [the Palestinian] Arabs." (Righteous Victims, p. 254)

damn, I thought the most siginifcant forces were socialist or something! hmmm

In August 18 1948, Moshe Sharett wrote to Chaim Weizmann, explaining the Israeli government's determination to block the Palestinian Arab refugees' return:

"With regard to the refugees, we are determined to be adamant while the war lasts. Once the return tide starts, it will be impossible to stem it, and it will prove our undoing. As for the future, we are equally determined to explore all possibilities of getting rid, once and for all, of the huge [Palestinian] Arab minority [referring to the Palestinian Israeli citizens of Israel] which originally threatened us. What can be achieved in this period of storm and stress [referring to the 1948 war] will be quite unattainable once conditions get stabilized. A group of people [headed by Yosef Weitz] has already started working on the study of resettlement possibilities [for the Palestinian refugees] in other lands . . . What such permanent resettlement of 'Israeli' Arabs in the neighboring territories will mean in terms of making land available in Israel for settlement of our own people requires no emphasis." (Benny Morris, p. 149-150)

During the armistice negotiation with Jordan, the zionist colony pressured H.M. King Abdullah to concede sovereignty over Wadi 'Ara area (nearby Tulkarm and Jinin), and Moshe Sharett assumed that the Palestinian Arabs inhabiting the land would be expelled, he said:

"I imagine that the INTENTION is to get rid of them. The interests of security demand that we get rid of them." (1949, The First Israelis, p. 28)
Socialism at work again!

In April 28, 1930 Menachem Ussishkin, probably yet another "socialist" of yours, stated in an address to journalists in Jerusalem:

"We must continually raise the demand that our land be returned to our possession .... If there are other inhabitants there, they must be transferred to some other place. We must take over the land. We have a great and NOBLER ideal than preserving several hundred thousands of [Palestinian] Arabs fellahin [peasants]." (Righteous Victims, p. 141)

Menachem Ussishkin wrote in 1937:

"We cannot start the Jewish state with .... half the population being Arab . . . Such a state cannot survive even half an hour. And about transferring sixty thousand Arab families he said: "It is most moral ..... I am ready to come an defend ... it before the Almighty." (Righteous Victims, p. 143-144 and Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 37)

In 1938 Menachem Ussishkin commented on the partition plan proposed by the British Peel Commission in 1937:

"We cannot begin the Jewish state with population of which the Arab living on their lands constitute almost half and the Jews exists on the land in very small numbers and they are all crowded in Tel Aviv and its vicinity .... and the WORST is not only the [Palestinian] Arabs here constitute 50 percent or 45 percent but 75 percent of the land is in the hands of the [Palestinian] Arabs. Such a state cannot survive even for half an hour ..... The question is not whether they will be majority or a minority in Parliament. You know that even a small minority could disrupt the whole order of parliamentary life..... therefore I would say to the [Peel] Commission and the government that we would not accept reduced Land of Israel without you giving us the land, on the one hand, and removing the largest number of [Palestinian] Arabs-particularly the peasants- on the other before we come forward to take the reins of government in our lands even provisionally." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 111-112; see also Righteous Victims, p. 143-144)

Just prior to the British conquest of Palestine, Chaim Weizmann, among the "significant socilaist forces" wrote describing the indigenous Palestinians:

"[the indigenous population was akin to] the rocks of Judea, as obstacles that had to be cleared on a difficult path." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 17)

By war's end in 1949, Chaim Weizmann commented on the exodus of the Palestinian Arabs out of their homes, farms, and businesses:

" a miraculous clearing of the land: the miraculous simplification of Israel's task." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 175)

Ze'ev Jabotinsky stated in a letter to one of his Revisionist colleagues in the United States dated November 1939:

"There is no choice: the Arabs must make room for the Jews of Eretz Israel. If it was possible to transfer the Baltic peoples, it is also possible to move the Palestinian Arabs." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 29)

Israel Zangwill who had visited Palestine in 1897 and came face-to-face with the demographic reality, stated :

"Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two souls to the square mile, and not 25% of them Jews ..... [We] must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan and accustomed for centuries to despise us." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 7- 10, and Righteous Victims, p. 140)

Now here is another person who claimes to be socialist. He was actually the founder of "socialist" zionism. The socialist Zionist Hahman Syrkin, the ideological founder of Socialist Zionism, proposed in pamphlet entitled "The Jewish Question and the Socialist Jewish State" which was published in 1898 that:

"Palestine thinly populated, in which the Jews constituted today 10 percent of the population, must be evacuated for the Jews." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 11)

hmmm, the FOUNDER, the LEADER of the whole "socialist" zionist force was suggesting expelling the arabs, and then you dare come and here and tell me the socalists, no, the majority, wanted to work with the arabs?? what bullshit.

In 1938 Berl Katzneslon, the INFLUENTIAL Mapai leader, stated his opinion of the demographic make up of the Zionist colony upon the implementation of the partition proposed by the Peel Commission:

"There is the question of how the army, the police, and the civil service will function and how a state can be run if part of its population is disloyal .....[and the Palestinian Arabs will get equal rights as Jews] ... only a small minority of [the Palestinian] Arabs will remain in the country." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 115)

Chaim Weizmann wrote in a letter dated April 28, 1939 to the American Zionist leader Solomon Goldman about the possibility of acquisition of a large tract of land belonging to the Palestinian Arab Druze in the Galilee and eastern Carmel:
"The realization of this project would mean the emigration of 10,000 [Palestinian] Arabs [to Jabal al-Druze in Syria], the acquisition of 300,000 dunums. . . . It would also create a significant precedent if 10,000 [Palestinian] Arabs were to emigrate peacefully of their own volition, which no doubt would be followed by others." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 167)

This was seconded by Avraham Katznelson, another influential (I stress on that word, INFLUENTIAL) Mapai leader, who also said:

"more moral, from the viewpoint of universal human ethics, than the emptying of the Jewish state of the [Palestinian] Arabs and their transfer elsewhere .... This requires [the use of] force." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 192)

now read this beautiful discussion between those "socialist" Mapai secretariat regarding demographic make up of the Zionist colony soon after the 1948 war:

Eliyahu Camreli, MK: "I'm not willing to accept a single [Palestinian] Arab, and not only an Arab but any gentile. I want the State of Israel to be entirety Jewish, the descendents of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. . . ."
Yehiel Duvdenvany, MK: "If there was any way of solving the problem way of transfer [the Israeli propaganda term for ethnic cleansing] of the remaining 170,000 [Palestinian] Arabs we would do so. . . ."

Prior to the start of Operation Hiram in northern Palestine in October 1948, the Foreign Ministry advised the Israeli Army to make sure that the Galilee should be as clear as possible of Palestinian Arabs, and Christian Palestinians should be favored upon deciding whether to expel or not to expel Palestinians from the area, the report stated:

"to try during conquest [to make sure] that no [Palestinian] Arabs inhabitants remain in the Galilee and certainly that no refugees from other places remains there. Truth to tell, concerning the attitude to the Christian [Palestinian Arabs] and the problem of whether to discriminate in their favor and to leave them in their villages, clear instructions were not given [by us?] and we did not express an opinion." (Benny Morris, p. 226)

On July 24 the Mapai Center held a full-scale debate regarding the Palestinian Arab question against the background of the ethnic cleansing of Ramla and Lydda. The majority apparently backed Ben-Gurion's (the "socialist" keep that in mind) policies of population transfer or ethnic cleansing. Shlomo Lavi, one of the [b]influential leaders of the Mapai party, said that:

"the ... transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs out of the country in my eyes is one of the moss just, moral and correct that can be done. I have thought of this for many years." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 192)

This was seconded by Avraham Katznelson, another influential Mapai leader, who also said:

"more moral, from the viewpoint of universal human ethics, than the emptying of the Jewish state of the [Palestinian] Arabs and their transfer elsewhere .... This requires [the use of] force." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 192)

chimx

28th April 2007, 19:08

no, you don't cope with an atrocity by commiting a new one. Zionism began way before the Holocaust, and by the time of the holocaust, the zionist have already made their mind on expelling the Palestinains. I did recognize that at the begning, SOME, FEW, zionists were not really keen on expelling the Palestinains, but by the time of the holocaust it was already changed. Name me a zionist group or individual that was ready to work with the arabs.

Okay. How about Noam Chomsky. Here is an excerpt of an interview with Ludwig Watzal:

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

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

You are consistently falling into the logical fallacy of viewing the current racist situation in Israel as the same throughout history. Zionism only thoroughly became a statist and nationalist ideology following the holocaust. Given the reality of the holocaust and the anti-Semitism throughout all of Europe int he 1940s, I'm not at all surprised.

that is the stupidist thing I ever heard; how the hell does it matter if the paelstinain arabs who owned the land were capitalist, communist, anarchist, socialist or whatever the hell they want to be??? they are still Palestinain arab, regardless of their political ideaologies.

Because being Arabic is irrelevant. Race is a biological fiction, and Arab as an ethnicity is ambiguous at best, given that the only common uniting factor of being Arabic is that you speak Arabic. "Palestinians" is the name that colonizers gave the Arabic tribes that lived along what is today the Gaza strip area centuries ago. Again, it is arbitrary and completely irrelevant.

What is relevant is the economic relationship of the peoples living in Palestine. That is to say, production relations. Who the fuck cares what ethnicity people are??! Absentee landlord scumbags owned the land and exploited persons worked the land. Why do you repeatedly keep making this into a race issue, over and over?

here is your beloved "socialist" Ben-Gurion

That is some libelous malarkey. I never said Ben-Gurion was a socialist. I don't know enough about him to make such a statement. I said he was a part of the Jewish Agency which at the time was dominated by Labor Zionists (socialists) prior to WWII.

Revolution Until Victory

28th April 2007, 19:29

chimx, you can't be serious can you???
political zionism was orignialy invented by Herzl. He did so in his book the jewish S T A T E. Since the very very begning, decades before the holocaust, the zionists were aming for a jewish state. What the hell was the Belfour decleration about. Seriously, what the hell are you talking about?

"For me, Zionism meant opposition to a Jewish state. The Zionist movement did not come out officially in favor of a Jewish state until 1942. Before this it was merely the intent of the Zionist leadership. The Zionist movement for a long time stood against the establishment of a Jewish state because such a state would be discriminatory and racist."

you seem to be missing an important point here. If zinism meant an oposition to a jewish state, then heck, I'm a Palestinain zionist ;) If that is what it meant, then I'm a radical zionsits, and all Palestinains would be too. Chomsky said that it was the intent of only the leadership to establish a state before 1942, but that doesn't change anything, since it was the leadership that was chosing the state, not the irrelivant others. if a "zionist" is against the establishment of a jewish state, then he is a great person and got no problem at all with any Palestinain. In fact, he wouldn't be a zionist!! if zionism is the establishment of a jewish state in Palestine, then then those whom "stood against the establishment of a Jewish state because such a state would be discriminatory and racist" are not zionists and are friends of the Palestinain people, as far the the word "zionism" is understood to mean.

chimx

28th April 2007, 19:49

In fact, he wouldn't be a zionist . . . as far the the word "zionism" is understood to mean.

This is exactly what I have been painstakingly trying to explain throughout this entire thread. Prior to WWII, Zionism was a multi-faceted intellectual movement. The political Zionism of Herzl was not the dominant force. From 1905(ish) through the 30s, Labor/Socialist Zionism was. Zionist activists like Noam Chomsky worked to make socialism a reality in Palestine. This is how the Kibbutzim movement began.

After WWII, the political Zionism of Herzl won out (not surprisingly I might add given the reality of the holocaust). Socialist Zionism still tried to work as a progressive force, but its clout tapered off in the following decades that were marked by numerous Arab-Israeli conflicts.

So yes, "Zionism" as it is today is fucked up. What I have been saying though is that it wasn't always like this. It had strong socialist foundations. Unfortunately due to antisemitism and Jewish nationalism, political Zionism became the dominant force in Israel. But I certainly don't think that warrants us to ignore the complex history of the movement, some of which was certainly progressive.

Revolution Until Victory

28th April 2007, 20:04

"Prior to WWII, Zionism was a multi-faceted intellectual movement. The political Zionism of Herzl was not the dominant force. From 1905(ish) through the 30s, Labor/Socialist Zionism was. Zionist activists like Noam Chomsky worked to make socialism a reality in Palestine. This is how the Kibbutzim movement began...So yes, "Zionism" as it is today is fucked up. What I have been saying though is that it wasn't always like this."

What I was trying to say is zionism is the enemy of the Palestinains people, the left, and all human beings since its unjust, imperialist, and colonial if, IF, it meant the establishment of a jewish state. If zionism is as chomsky put it, then it is no more zionist, as far as the Palestinain people are concerned. In other words, those socialist progressive voices can't be considred zionits, the way we understand the word to mean to day. So those "good" socialist things won't be considred a good thing about the movement, since they are not actually considred a part of it if they didn't call for the establishment of a jewish state.

However, I disagree with you on the statement that "The political Zionism of Herzl was not the dominant force. From 1905(ish) through the 30s, Labor/Socialist Zionism was"
the evidence I provided in the earlier posts were clear evidence of how "zionism" (the racist idea of establishing a zionist colony on Palestinain stolen lands) was the absoulte dominant force in the movement. All the leaders were clearly racist, pro-zionist colony, and advocating expulsion of the arabs. In fact, never in its history was progressiveness and socialism dominant in the movement, since those like Chomsky won't even count as "zionists"
the only way a zionist would be truley "socialist" and "progressive" is if he/she doesn't call for the establishment of a zionist colony. There have been such people, but the won't be considered zionists in the first place. So you can't say Zionism had a complex history since all those who would be considred zionists were advocting for a zionist colony. Any one who was socalist, progressive, or not calling for a zionist colony, can't be considred a zionists, so you can't count him as a progressive voice within the movement.

Labor Shall Rule

28th April 2007, 20:15

All forms of nationalism, Palestinian or Jewish, are based on the demands of bourgeois elements that wish to have boundries in order for their capital to flow more freely and safetly; it signifies that productive forces are developed within those borders enough that it permits the exploitation of wage-labor by capital. It seems almost hypocritical that many are quick to condemn Zionism as a 'racist' ideology that wishes to see the 'expulsion of the Arabs' while creating a 'Jewish colony', when this is typically the aspirations of most nationalist movements, no matter what the ethnic, racial, religious, or national origin of such a current might be.

Revolution Until Victory

28th April 2007, 20:17

my point is, justice, TRUE socialism and leftist ideology, coexistance, and working with the arabs was NEVER a dominant force in the zionist movement since the very begnings. Throught out its history, there were isolated voices that had no power whatsoever, that were less brutal than the others. The quotes I provided were very clear of an indication. However, if you understand the word "zionism" in a different manner that it's understood today, then yes, of course, I agree with you that it had a very complex history and strong socialist roots. But that isn't the case since those who oppose the creation of the zionists colony are NOT zionists. it all depends on how you define "zionism"
if you mean by it the establishment of a jewish state, as it is actually defined by most people today and by the zionists themselves, then zionism had absoulotly no TRUE leftist roots and was from the very very begning keen on expelling the arabs and not working with them. It all depends on the defention.

chimx

28th April 2007, 20:34

You can't just make up your own definition of words to suit your purposes. Socialists like Chomsky identified with the Zionist movement. They called themselves Zionists. They wrote and talked about Zionism. This disagreed with people like Herzl, but again, this just shows the dynamism of the movement.

--

Labor Zionism was a pretty ambiguous movement in itself. It had adherents from Ben-Gurion to Albert Einstein. Regardless, it was the dominant force of Zionism prior to WWII. It began in 1904 with the 2nd wave of Jewish immigration to Palestine, seeking to work* with the local population in Kibbutzim and moshavim (cooperative villages, they didn't start until 1921). By the 1930s, labor Zionism dominated the Zionist Organization.

Now, the first wave of Zionist immigrants didn't work and lived off of the donations of foreign Zionists. This is the Baron Rothschild movement that created settlements for Zionists, but where Arabs did all the work. It was an extremely racist system that sought to exploit the labor of the local population. This died down in 1904 when Labor Zionism started. Labor Zionism in itself can be seen as a direct confrontation to this racism by emphasizing working with the local population, but in a socialist manner.

Revolution Until Victory

28th April 2007, 21:10

"Regardless, it was the dominant force of Zionism prior to WWII. It began in 1904 with the 2nd wave of Jewish immigration to Palestine, seeking to work* with the local population in Kibbutzim and moshavim (cooperative villages, they didn't start until 1921). By the 1930s, labor Zionism dominated the Zionist Organization."

what???
I repeat for the last times, forces who were BOTH zionist (advocating the creation of a zionist colony) and wanted to work with the arabs were very few and not influential from the very very begning. I provided more than enough evidence. Were are yours??

chimx

29th April 2007, 04:58

Well I don't know if quotes from a handful of famous Zionists constitutes evidence, but I'll be glad to throw you some information.

You'll notice that Chomsky referenced 1942 above. This is the year that the Biltmore Conference was held in New York City. Due to the war in Europe, the regular Zionist conference wasn't able to be held for a few years running, so leading Zionists called together this conference in its stead. What is important about this conference is that it put forth the Biltmore Program which was later adopted by the Zionist conference which advocated the creation of a Jewish state. This was the first time that Zionism as an organization took a single stance on the issue.

This meant that Zionism as people like Chomsky had envisioned were dead in the water, as were the binational state solution.

What is interesting though is that Zionists did vote against the Biltmore Program. In particular, the Zionist political party The Socialist League of Palestine (SLP) would vote against the Biltmore program. Now, if you are up on your history, you will know that the SLP was the political wing of the Kibbutz Artzi Federation, which was just a federation for left wing Kibbutzim. Kibbutz Artzi itself was founded by the Marxist youth group Hashomer Hatzair. In regards to the popularity of these Marxists, here is a wikipedia quote:

Partly based on German youth movements and the Boy Scouts, Zionist Jewish youth movements flourished in the 1920s in virtually every European nation. Youth movements came in every shade of the political spectrum. There were rightist movements like Betar and religious movements like Bachad, but most of these Zionist youth movements were socialist such as Dror, Brit Haolim, Kadima, Habonim (now Habonim Dror), and Wekleute. Of the leftist youth movements the most significant in kibbutz history was to be the Marxist Hashomer Hatzair. In the 1920s the left-oriented youth movements would become feeders for the kibbutzim.

So no, Zionism didn't become an official advocate a Jewish state until WWII, despite what Herzl and other political Zionists had spoken of before this. There were Marxist Zionists, socialist Zionists, anarchist Zionists, and crazy right-wing nationalist Zionists too.

But it was the socialist Zionists that dominated the pre-WWII Zionist arena as evidenced by the spread and popularity of the Kibbutzim, voting records, and simply general attitudes of many Zionists.

To be honest, I still don't see how anything you have quoted denies this. You have quoted some crazy racist assholes that were also Zionists, but that does nothing to discount the popularity of socialist Zionism. Zionism had no official stance on a Jewish government until 1942. Prior to that many people advocated a binational state, a secular state, or like Chomsky, no state at all.

Revolution Until Victory

29th April 2007, 15:54

"Well I don't know if quotes from a handful of famous Zionists constitutes evidence, but I'll be glad to throw you some information."

well those quotes and parts of their personal diaries that were censored for years express their true thinking and belvies. Those are the best evidence you can find and trust.

"This was the first time that Zionism as an organization took a single stance on the issue."

now this is what I can't comprehend. Herzel was the founder!! he demanded a jewish state in his book the Jewish S T A T E
What about the Belfour decleration that asked for a Jewish S T A T E?
why the hell were the arabs rejecting zionism from the begning and espacially since the Belfour decleration??? were they "anti-semetic"?? no, they just refused jewish dominance by establishing a jewish colony on their lands.
this is the first time I hear that only unitl 1942, zionism was officaly calling for a Jewish state!

"But it was the socialist Zionists that dominated the pre-WWII Zionist arena as evidenced by the spread and popularity of the Kibbutzim, voting records, and simply general attitudes of many Zionists.
To be honest, I still don't see how anything you have quoted denies this. You have quoted some crazy racist assholes that were also Zionists, but that does nothing to discount the popularity of socialist Zionism."

true, I have quoted some "crazy racist assholes that were also zionists" BUT they were the MOST INFLUENTIAL, they were the LEADERS, they were those who DECIDE, they were the ones which vocies matter. So, yes, my evidence prove that zionists wanting to work with the arabs were not the dominant force.

now the problem is,as I said before, the defention. Before begning this debate, we should have defined zionism. See, I completely agree with you, there were socliasts, Marxists, Anachsits, and right-wingers, But I didn't consider them "Zionists" If someone demands a bi-national secular democratic state, he is having the same demand of the Palestinains; For me, he is not a zionists. So I do not disagree with you. If zionism doesn't mean the establishment of a zionist colony, then I agree with you it was very complex, had very very strong socialist roots, wanted to work with the arabs, and actually, wasn't a bad movement at all. In fact, I would have jonined it.
But when I say, "zionists" who wanted to work with the arabs were very few and never dominant, I would be referrring to the zionism of establishing a zionist colony on Palestinain land.
Now, do you think that in the zionist movement (the movement calling for the establishment of a zionist colony on Palestinain land) there were dominant forces wanting to work with the arabs??? I bet you don't.
In other words, there is no debate. I agree, if a zionists doesn't mean establishing a jewish state, then it was a very diverse movemnt that wanted to work with the arabs. But througout this argument, I was referring to zionists who wanted to establish a zionist colony on Palestinain lands. It seems that we were arguing about two different ideaologies without realizing.
so what exactly are you arguing about??
a movement that was called "zionism" but wasn't calling for a zionist colony on Palestinain lands, that got a complex history, and wich got a dominant socialist force that wanted to work with the arabs pre-WWII?? fine, but there is really no need to argue coz I completely agree with you, in fact it was a great and just movement.
Now, do you want to arge about a movement called "zionism" that wanted to establish a zionist colony on Palestinain lands (the kind of zionism I was arguing about all along) that was dominated by leftist who wanted to work with the arabs?
again, fine, but I've cleary proven that it was dominated by forces calling for expulsion of the arabs and had nothing socialist about it.

So what is exactly your argument?

a movemnt called zionism that weren't calling for the establishment of a zionist colony on Palestinian land was dominated by leftists who wanted to work with the arabs until pre-WWII at least?

or

a movement called zionism that was calling for the estableshment of a zionist colony on Palestinian land that was dominated by leftists wanting to work with the arabs?

your argument seems to be the first one, which in fact I agree with.
My argument was to refute the second one.

chimx

29th April 2007, 17:23

why the hell were the arabs rejecting zionism from the begning and espacially since the Belfour decleration??? were they "anti-semetic"?? no, they just refused jewish dominance by establishing a jewish colony on their lands.

Well the Belfour Declaration doesn't constitute the "very beginning" of Zionism. Prior to the creation of the Palestinian Mandate, Arabs and Zionists got along pretty well. The 2nd push for Zionist immigration to Palestine began in 1904, which took an overtly more friendly role with Arabs than the prior immigrations. Arab people in Palestine did not oppose Jewish immigration because it was still a small movement and Zionists allowed Arabs to continue to work the land and worked with them.

This changed after WWI with the creation of the Palestinian Mandate. Jewish immigration increased significantly and it put a strain on the economy of Palestine. This is why Churchill would say in his white paper, which I mentioned earlier, that Jewish immigration should be limited to what the Palestinian economy can handle.

Even the Socialist Zionists, who did not want to create a Jewish state, were opposed to this. They all wanted free and unlimited immigration into Palestine, which the Arabs were adamantly opposed to. Because of this, riots occurred in the 1920s and 1930s as ethnic tensions soared. Free and unlimited immigration was the primary concern, as Zionism at this time still advocated binational governance, as well as other political models.

By the 1940s, given the holocaust and the history of Arab-Jewish rioting in Palestine, Zionists through up their hands and said, "fuck it!" They stopped advocating a binational government (or other models), and came out in favor of a Jewish Commonwealth. Powerful Marxist Zionists opposed this move, but it still came out on top. But despite this change to Zionism, you can ignore the social history of pre-WWII Zionism.

Revolution Until Victory

29th April 2007, 18:03

"But despite this change to Zionism, you can ignore the social history of pre-WWII Zionism."

who said I am???
I refuse to recognize there was a socialist roots, or a complex history for the zionism which advocates a zionist colony on stolen Palestinian lands.
I do, however, copletley recognize and agree with you that if zionism didn't mean the establishment of a zionist colony, then of course, it had a very complex history, very strong socialist roots, and was a great and just movement overall.
it's fine with me if you want to define zionism as both those who called for a colonya and those who didn't. But you should've said so before, so we avoid confusion. If since the begning of this argument you defined zionism as not just those who call for a zionist colony, then I would have agreed with you way before, and defnded this movement more than you do. We just had different defentions for the same movement, which casued all this misunderstnading. In other words, I agree with you zionism had a complex and socialst history, if, you defind it like chomsky did, or a movement that doesn't only call for a zionist colony; other than this "zionists" didn't want to work with the arabs from the very begning.

chimx

29th April 2007, 18:32

cool.

Raj Radical

2nd May 2007, 07:23

A dual-state partition (a tiny jewish state next to a large Arab one) was accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Arabs who claimed to "drive the Jews into the sea" c 1947

Right when the UN partition was established, Israel was attacked by every single Arab state. The only reason the lands are under Israeli control are because of a second all-out assault on Israel by every single Arab state, where in a defensive maneuver the IDF gained control of the areas under control of Egypt and Jordon (gaza strip/ west bank) inside Palestine.

Israel is the ancestral homeland of a nationless people, the Arab Palestinians are the remnants of very recent Muslim Imperialism.

A dual-state is the best option, however, it's hard to engage in diplomatic relations with nations who don't even acknowledge you exist. ( Arab newspapers refer to Israel as the 'jewish entity')

This 'anti-zionism' is just liberal bullshit and reeks of antisemitism. The left should remain on the side of Israel, as it had until 1967.

Revolution Until Victory

2nd May 2007, 18:30

Originally posted by Raj [email protected] 02, 2007 06:23 am
A dual-state partition (a tiny jewish state next to a large Arab one) was accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Arabs who claimed to "drive the Jews into the sea" c 1947

Right when the UN partition was established, Israel was attacked by every single Arab state. The only reason the lands are under Israeli control are because of a second all-out assault on Israel by every single Arab state, where in a defensive maneuver the IDF gained control of the areas under control of Egypt and Jordon (gaza strip/ west bank) inside Palestine.

Israel is the ancestral homeland of a nationless people, the Arab Palestinians are the remnants of very recent Muslim Imperialism.

A dual-state is the best option, however, it's hard to engage in diplomatic relations with nations who don't even acknowledge you exist. ( Arab newspapers refer to Israel as the 'jewish entity')

This 'anti-zionism' is just liberal bullshit and reeks of antisemitism. The left should remain on the side of Israel, as it had until 1967.
Your hilarious my friend really.
according to the unjust partition plan of 1947, the zionists were to get over 55% of the area of Palestine, and the Arabs to get 45%, althought the arab were the majority. hmmm....does that seem as a "a tiny jewish state next to a large Arab one"??

Palestine belogns to the Palestinian people, not according to lunatic version of history and ancient myths and rituals, but according to recognized international law and offical statistics (except for 5.8% legally purchased by the zionists)

here are the evidence which I'm posting for the thousand times:

- The CCP Refugee Office (a UN offical commitee) estimated that although only a little more than a quarter was considered cultivable, more than 80 percent of Israel's total area of 20,850 km.sq. represented land abandoned by the Arab refugees. Three-quarters of the former Arab land was sub-marginal land or semi-desert in the Negeb.
(The Establishment of the State of Israel as a Jewish State from Chapter I in: Israel –An Apartheid State, by Uri Davis, Zed Books, London and New Jersey, 1987)

- According to the Survey of Palestine prepared by the UN prior to the 1947 partition, P.566, over 94% of Palestine's total area belonged to Palestinians, and the zionists own 5.8%

- Subcommittee 2 of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestine Question stated in its report to the United Nations General Assembly the following:

Closely connected with the distribution of population is the factor of land ownership in the proposed Jewish State. The bulk of the land in the Arab State, as well as in the proposed Jewish State, is owned and possessed by Arabs. This is clear from the following statistics furnished to the Sub-Committee by the United Kingdom representative, showing the respective percentages of Arab and Jewish ownership of land in the various sub-districts of Palestine.
(Official Records of the Second Session of the General Assembly Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestine Question, Summary Records of Meetings, 25 September-25 November, 1947, pp. 292-293.)

- Even Ben-Gurion himself, admitted Palestine belongs to the Palestinian people, (what? are you gonna defend the zionists more than they defend themselves? and alos lie for them?) In a UNCCP document dated July 4, 1947, oral evidence were presented at a public meeting were Ben-Gurion was present. Ben-Gurion was discussing the “disparities between Jews and Arabs” in Palestine. He stated:
“I shall mention only a few [referring to the disparities between Arabs and Jews]. There is the disparity in numbers. There are some 600,000 Jews in Palestine and some 1,100,000 Arabs. There are no reliable figures in this respect. There is an even greater disparity than that. The Arabs own 94% of the land, the Jews only 6%. The Arabs have seven States, the Jews none..."
here is the document found on line to check for yourself:

http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/7735b7...71?OpenDocument

there is no such thing as historical rights. In other words, you can't just show up after 2000 yrs and claim "move off your land and house, coz my father lived here 2000 yrs ago"
that's just laughable. If that is your "argument" then those who have the real historical rights are the Cannanites, who were there before the hebrew, and were invaded by the them. It's the Canaanites who have the "historical rights" and the Canaanites, along all other groups that lived in Palestine before, are the ancestors of the modern day Palestinains.

The arab rejected the Partition plan coz it was simply unjust. what fools on the face of earth would accept to give away al least over 55% of their land, to recent immigrants who barly own 5.8% of it?? no people on earth would even think of accepting such a thing. The arab didn't claim they wanted to "drive the jews into the sea"
in fact, it was the arabs of Palestine who were, literly, driven in the thousands, if not more, into the sea in Jaffa, for example. Some were able to get on boats, but others simply drownd.

"Israel was attacked by every single Arab state. The only reason the lands are under Israeli control are because of a second all-out assault on Israel by every single Arab state, where in a defensive maneuver the IDF gained control of the areas under control of Egypt and Jordon (gaza strip/ west bank) inside Palestine."

it was an assault by the zionist settler-colony on the arabs not the other way around. the colony was the one that launched the attack. while it's true that the anti-imperialist socialist leader of Egypt, Nasser, gatherd some troops with the border of Sinai, the Zinoists had latter admited they FACED NO THREAT whatsoever, and had been planning the attack long long ago, in order to grab more land. Besides, Nasser didn't really want to put the soldiers there. there was UN soliders there, and he asked SOME of them to leave, so Egypt would be more Independent. however, according to the UN laws, you eaither keep all the soldiers, or you ask them ALL to leave. But Nasser wanted only a few to leave. So the UN soldiers left, and he had to replace them, and did so with the Egypitan soliders, that posed no threat at all, as the zionists admited.
there is no justification for theft of land and occupation.
Security is the best excuse for murder, theft, and horrible crimes.

"A dual-state is the best option, however, it's hard to engage in diplomatic relations with nations who don't even acknowledge you exist. ( Arab newspapers refer to Israel as the 'jewish entity')"

you are hijacking the term "dual-state". This term might seem very innocent and just, however, the reality is much different. This "dual-state" you are talking about is the almost the same exact proposal demanded of the South African natives by the European colonziers. the Colonizers gave the natives there own "homelands" or as you say "dual-homeland" of less than 20% of their original lands; in other words, the Bantustans.
Why shoud the Palestnains accept the Bantustans, if the South Africans refused, revolted, and won their freedom, rights, and independece??
second of all, the arab states and Palestinain PEOPLE (that what matters, the people not the government) recognize there is something called "Israel" that exists; they recognize there is an Aptheid, terrorist, settler-colony that exists on their lands stolen from them. What Palestinains do NOT recoginize is the RIGHT for this colony to exist, aka, they do not recognize the right of this colony to steal Palestinian lands.
the Native South Africans didn't give Aprtheid South Africa a right to exist either.
no settler-colony on the face of earth got a right to steal the natives land and dominate them (what you call "right to exist")
and btw, no one ever refers to this colony as the "jewish entity" it's refered to as the ZIONIST entity, not Jewish.

"This 'anti-zionism' is just liberal bullshit and reeks of antisemitism. The left should remain on the side of Israel, as it had until 1967."

nothing is more bullshit than claiming being anti-zionist, or in other words, anit-Aprtheid, anti-colonialism, is the same as being anti-Jewish. People who are anti-euro. colonization are anti their colonization not Anti-White.

so what was it??? "The left should remain on the side of Israel"

hmmm...the left should be on the side of right-wing racist imperalist colonizers, a settler-colony built on stolen lands, opressing the true and original owners, operating Aprtheid agaisnt the natives, commiting terrorist attacks and massacres against them, created orginialy by the imperialist and colonial powers to further their own colonial goals ( until this very day). really?? I think there is a confusion here coz I'm SURE that the left are against all those things that the zionist colony stands for.

Raj Radical

3rd May 2007, 04:10

Organize your thinking, just because you can copy and paste articles doesn't make you right.

The Palestinians are the political tools of the Arab states, they don't give a shit about them. Look at the palestinian "refugee camps" in Egypt and Lebanon. They are treated worse than they ever would be under the harshest IDF platoon.

I pretty much quit reading after you said Nasser was a socialist. That's like saying Saddam was a socialist. Christ. Saying the Six-Day War was offensive is just lunacy. 7 kids who hate you and have a history of violence towards you surround you on the playground and you punch them in the face. It's that simple.

The Jews in 1947 represented 33% of the population.

Get your facts straight.

Revolution Until Victory

3rd May 2007, 14:21

lol.
Unlike you, Raj shit, not one word is copy and paste.

"The Palestinians are the political tools of the Arab states, they don't give a shit about them. Look at the palestinian "refugee camps" in Egypt and Lebanon. They are treated worse than they ever would be under the harshest IDF platoon."

were did I ever say other than this??
the arab collaborator states, the slaves of US and Zionist imperialism treat the Palestinains really badly. I didn't deny this.

"I pretty much quit reading after you said Nasser was a socialist"

of course he was. True his socialism wasn't perfect and Egypt started loosing its socialism, but he defenatly was a true socialist. In fact, druing that period, Nasser, along with Lumumba, where probably the most important anti-imperialist leaders of the newly independent nations in Africa.

"Christ. Saying the Six-Day War was offensive is just lunacy"

Nothing do I hate more than people who defend the racist fanatical zionists more than the zionists themselves do. And actually, the worst part about it, is that they do all that crap, while claiming to be "leftist"
not one historian or scholar on the face of earth, not one zionist no matter how racist and fanatical, not one human being would even think of trying to deny the fact that the zionist colony was the one to attack first. That is simply a historical fact that no one ever tryied to deny. The zionist excuse is that "yes, we did attack first, but coz of security coz of Nasser preparign for attack first"
now after a couple of years, declassfied files started showing up, and it clearly proven that the "security" bullshit was...bullshit.
the Zionist colonial leaders admited they faced no threat whatsoever from Nasser's actions, and the only reason they attacked was, as usual, to grab more land.

"7 kids who hate you and have a history of violence towards you surround you on the playground and you punch them in the face. It's that simple.
The Jews in 1947 represented 33% of the population.
Get your facts straight."

ok, first of all, before the colonial Ideology of Zionism, the arabs and jews were living in harmony. In fact, and I'm sure you know this, the Jewish people "Golden Age" was under Arab muslim rule. No one treated the jewish people better than the arabs, at a time, when they were persecuted and discriminated against.
So no, "7 kids who hate you and have a history of violence towards you..."
doesn't hold. you keeep stressing the fact that 7 armies attacked "Israel" as if "Israel" was this ligitamte natural usual state exisitng peacefully with its anti-semetic primiteve neighboors. However, "Israel" is as natural, as legitamtie as Rhodeisa, as Aptheid South Afrian, as French ALgeria, as Portoguese Angola, as Dutch Indonesia, as Belgique Congo and all other settler-colonies.
Get this; "Israel" is NOT a legitamite peaceful natural state that was attacked by aggresive neighboors. It is an ILLEGITAMTIE settler-colony built on stolen Palestinains lands, and like South Africa, Rhodisa, French Algeria, and all other settler-colonies, should be dissolved.

"kids who hate you and have a history of violence towards you surround you on the playground and you punch them in the face. It's that simple."

sorry, I'm afraid the situation is just a tiny little bit more complicated than this.
those "7 kids" didn't show up from no where and just wanted to beat you up coz they hate you...

"The Jews in 1947 represented 33% of the population."

find me in my post where I said anything other than this??
It is true, and I clearly stated at the begning of my post, the arabs were the majority, unless you thin 33% is more than 70%.

Raj Radical

4th May 2007, 00:03

Originally posted by Revolution Until [email protected] 03, 2007 01:21 pm
lol.
Unlike you, Raj shit, not one word is copy and paste.

"The Palestinians are the political tools of the Arab states, they don't give a shit about them. Look at the palestinian "refugee camps" in Egypt and Lebanon. They are treated worse than they ever would be under the harshest IDF platoon."

were did I ever say other than this??
the arab collaborator states, the slaves of US and Zionist imperialism treat the Palestinains really badly. I didn't deny this.

"I pretty much quit reading after you said Nasser was a socialist"

of course he was. True his socialism wasn't perfect and Egypt started loosing its socialism, but he defenatly was a true socialist. In fact, druing that period, Nasser, along with Lumumba, where probably the most important anti-imperialist leaders of the newly independent nations in Africa.

"Christ. Saying the Six-Day War was offensive is just lunacy"

Nothing do I hate more than people who defend the racist fanatical zionists more than the zionists themselves do. And actually, the worst part about it, is that they do all that crap, while claiming to be "leftist"
not one historian or scholar on the face of earth, not one zionist no matter how racist and fanatical, not one human being would even think of trying to deny the fact that the zionist colony was the one to attack first. That is simply a historical fact that no one ever tryied to deny. The zionist excuse is that "yes, we did attack first, but coz of security coz of Nasser preparign for attack first"
now after a couple of years, declassfied files started showing up, and it clearly proven that the "security" bullshit was...bullshit.
the Zionist colonial leaders admited they faced no threat whatsoever from Nasser's actions, and the only reason they attacked was, as usual, to grab more land.

"7 kids who hate you and have a history of violence towards you surround you on the playground and you punch them in the face. It's that simple.
The Jews in 1947 represented 33% of the population.
Get your facts straight."

ok, first of all, before the colonial Ideology of Zionism, the arabs and jews were living in harmony. In fact, and I'm sure you know this, the Jewish people "Golden Age" was under Arab muslim rule. No one treated the jewish people better than the arabs, at a time, when they were persecuted and discriminated against.
So no, "7 kids who hate you and have a history of violence towards you..."
doesn't hold. you keeep stressing the fact that 7 armies attacked "Israel" as if "Israel" was this ligitamte natural usual state exisitng peacefully with its anti-semetic primiteve neighboors. However, "Israel" is as natural, as legitamtie as Rhodeisa, as Aptheid South Afrian, as French ALgeria, as Portoguese Angola, as Dutch Indonesia, as Belgique Congo and all other settler-colonies.
Get this; "Israel" is NOT a legitamite peaceful natural state that was attacked by aggresive neighboors. It is an ILLEGITAMTIE settler-colony built on stolen Palestinains lands, and like South Africa, Rhodisa, French Algeria, and all other settler-colonies, should be dissolved.

"kids who hate you and have a history of violence towards you surround you on the playground and you punch them in the face. It's that simple."

sorry, I'm afraid the situation is just a tiny little bit more complicated than this.
those "7 kids" didn't show up from no where and just wanted to beat you up coz they hate you...

"The Jews in 1947 represented 33% of the population."

find me in my post where I said anything other than this??
It is true, and I clearly stated at the begning of my post, the arabs were the majority, unless you thin 33% is more than 70%.
Ok, rev:

-Syria had been shelling Israeli communities from the golan heights for years
-Egypt ejected all UN peacekeeping forces from the Sinai (just as it had deported all of it's Jews earlier, who's the racist regime?) and massed it's army on the border, all 7 of it's divisions.
- That same time, it closed the Straits of Tiran to all Israeli ships. Which is vital to the Israeli economy
- A month earlier, Jordan and Egypt had signed a mutual defense pact.

So tell me, Syrian military begins shelling civilian communities (kibbutz, actually), Egypt signs a MDP with Jordan and then masses it's entire military near your border, then they close a main economic and trade route to all of Israeli commerce, and Israel is the aggressor?
-

Revolution Until Victory

4th May 2007, 00:50

"So tell me, Syrian military begins shelling civilian communities (kibbutz, actually),"

ok, first of all, inhabitants of a settler-colony are colonizers, like those of Aprtheid South Africa, Rhodeisa, France Algeria etc. an inncoent civlian and a colonizer are too very different thing. now here we get to your typical bullshit again. the poor "innocent' jews being murdered by the evil arabs"
Moshe Dayan admitted many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by the settler-colony, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland. He said:

"‘They didn’t even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn’t possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn’t shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.
And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that’s how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.’” The New York Times, May 11, 1997

anyways, before that, in fact much before, the settler-colony had been staging aggresion against several other arab countries. It's true, Egypt made a mistake and expelled 50,000 jewish Egyptians, but it didn't come out of the Blue. there were a Mossad network in Egypt, recruting Egyptian jews who later bobmed jewish tempels and the like. it's called the Livon affair, and that's why Egypt expelled them.(I'm not saying it was right, but the decision didn't come out of nowhere)

"- That same time, it closed the Straits of Tiran to all Israeli ships. Which is vital to the Israeli economy
- A month earlier, Jordan and Egypt had signed a mutual defense pact."

again, the Zionist colonizers had clearly admited, they faced no threat whatsoever. They admited they attacked to grab more land.

In an interview published in Le Monde of Paris on
February 28, 1968, Yitzhak Rabin said of the 1967 War: "I do not believe that
Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into
Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an
offensive against Israel. He knew it, and we knew it.''

The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, stated that there was "no threat of destruction" but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that colony could "exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies."...Menahem Begin said: "In June 1967, we again had a choice. 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.’“ Noam Chomsky, “The Fateful Triangle.”

chimx

4th May 2007, 01:07

Hindsight is 20/20. It isn't fair to fault them for not knowing for sure Nasser's intentions after the fact, especially after Israel's past experience of Arab hostility.

the poor "innocent' jews being murdered by the evil arabs"

You are accusing others of racism but are again slipping dangerously close towards antisemitism yourself. There were innocent civilians living in Israel. Jewish families had been raised there for decades and decades. Mother's gave birth to children on Israeli soil but you callously denounce them as guilty colonizers? Your take on original sin is stricter than the Vatican! :D

Here is a quick question I would love to hear you answer. Do you think that there were severely racist anti-Jewish sentiments held by some Arab people in Israel, or in the surrounding area?

Revolution Until Victory

4th May 2007, 02:19

"You are accusing others of racism but are again slipping dangerously close towards antisemitism yourself. There were innocent civilians living in Israel. Jewish families had been raised there for decades and decades. Mother's gave birth to children on Israeli soil but you callously denounce them as guilty colonizers? Your take on original sin is stricter than the Vatican!"

my statment of the "poor jews attacked by racist arabs" is 100% true. that kid Raj Radical since the begning have been pictiuring the arabs as racist savages who are teaming up on the innocent "Israel" he even discribed the situation as an innocent child in a playgound where he got surrounded by other kids and started beating him up for no reason.

now what do you mean? those born before the creation of the settler-colony on legally purchased land?? of course, they are innocent and are considered Palestinains and there right to the land and innocence is beyond question. however, if you mean a colonizer gave birth to a child on stolen land, then of course, this child, no matter what he does would still be innocent. I mean that when this child is not a minor any more, when he/she are grown up and are responsible for their colonial actions, then he is a colonizer just like any other one in Algeria, South Africa, Rhodesia and all other colonies.

"Here is a quick question I would love to hear you answer. Do you think that there were severely racist anti-Jewish sentiments held by some Arab people in Israel, or in the surrounding area?"

do I think there is severly racist anti-white sentiments in some formely colonized African people? sure I do. In every single society there is extreme racists. That is a fact. however, I never ever in my life (being a Palestinain my self) met, known, or even heard of of not a "severly racist arab" but an arab of ANY degree of anti-semetism. the Palestiains, since the begning had made the clear distiction between JEW and ZIONIST. there surely is arab people who are anti-jewish like any other society on this earth (although never heard of any) but I don't see the significance of this question.

chimx

4th May 2007, 02:43

my statment of the "poor jews attacked by racist arabs" is 100% true. that kid Raj Radical since the begning have been pictiuring the arabs as racist savages who are teaming up on the innocent "Israel" he even discribed the situation as an innocent child in a playgound where he got surrounded by other kids and started beating him up for no reason.

But both of you are assuming that there is ultimately one right side. Both Arab countries and Zionists have had fucked up agendas that have been geared towards people that are ethnically different. There has been agendas by Arabic governments to wipe out the Jews from Israel, just as Israelis often hold racist sentiments towards Palestinians and other Arabs. Arguing over who is right, who is more right, etc is not productive at all in finding a solution.

BreadBros

4th May 2007, 05:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 01:43 am

my statment of the "poor jews attacked by racist arabs" is 100% true. that kid Raj Radical since the begning have been pictiuring the arabs as racist savages who are teaming up on the innocent "Israel" he even discribed the situation as an innocent child in a playgound where he got surrounded by other kids and started beating him up for no reason.

But both of you are assuming that there is ultimately one right side. Both Arab countries and Zionists have had fucked up agendas that have been geared towards people that are ethnically different. There has been agendas by Arabic governments to wipe out the Jews from Israel, just as Israelis often hold racist sentiments towards Palestinians and other Arabs. Arguing over who is right, who is more right, etc is not productive at all in finding a solution.
Can you provide a source to your statement that Arab governments have called on the Jews to be "wiped out"? I presume you might be referring to the non-recognition of the state of Israel by Arab states. This is a diplomatic measure, akin to the PRC not legally recognizing the ROC for diplomatic purposes, and universally acknowledged as such, including the Israeli and US governments.

BreadBros

4th May 2007, 06:19

You are accusing others of racism but are again slipping dangerously close towards antisemitism yourself. There were innocent civilians living in Israel. Jewish families had been raised there for decades and decades. Mother's gave birth to children on Israeli soil but you callously denounce them as guilty colonizers? Your take on original sin is stricter than the Vatican! biggrin.gif

Oh my, you sure do take idealism to new realms. A significant percentage of the Nazi army were probably innocent German farmboys who had nothing to do with the ideological leanings of the government. Does that mean you would oppose the Red Army killing them? Similarly, if you knew that an extremely wealthy capitalist had been born into the bourgeoisie and did not purposefully earn his way there, would you oppose a violent expropriation of his property? Hate to break it to you but individuals are often born into historical roles that define them far more than their personal will or choice does. The fact that someone exists in a colonizing position is all that matters from a materialist perspective, whether or not they are doing so with good intentions, bad intentions or if they are even unconscious of their position is really irrelevant to all except Kantians and liberals. By your logic the entire process of de-colonization is illegitimate since it was all bloody and often violent against individuals with no bad intentions.

Here is a quick question I would love to hear you answer. Do you think that there were severely racist anti-Jewish sentiments held by some Arab people in Israel, or in the surrounding area?

I can answer that. Anti-semitic? No. Anti-Jewish? Yes. The main manifestation of this would probably be the Arab riots of 1936. The reason I differentiate between anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish sentiment is that the hostility towards the Jews that erupted at that moment was not based in traditional anti-Semitic racial or religious tropes, but rather at the economic nature of Jewish immigration. Most Jewish migrants gave employment preferences towards fellow Jews in order to raise the economic viability of the new settlements and to keep wages high. Its sort of like whites in the South denying Blacks employment, Blacks rioting in retaliation and you trying to create some equivalence between the two. Keep in mind that the Haganah allied itself with the imperialist British forces to put down the Arab revolt and in the end many times over more Arabs died than Jews. So fuck you you colonialist apologist. :angry:

You say this but gloss over the fact that Palestine didn't belong to the Palestinians either. It was Ottoman territory. They didn't even call the area Palestine. And if memory serves... the Ottomans got defeated in WWI, and lost their territory to... now who was it? Oh that's right, the British.

It was called Cisjordan under the Ottomans. Your arguments are pathetic. I suppose the US should invade Iran since after all Iran didn't exist until the 1930s right? Before that it was Persia, omgz, it was like totally a different name, so its like, not a country! :rolleyes: Second of all, heres a question for you: Do you accept the validity of transfer of territory in warfare? In other words: say how the Soviet Union conquered Estonia...does that mean it is ultimately Russian territory from then on and they can do whatever they want with it? Or does the native population have an inherent right to the land and to self-determination? Because bourgeois international law and almost all mainstream Israeli politicians seem to think that the territory is ultimately Palestinian despite conquests of war, especially colonial conquests by WWI-era Britain. So I really want to hear your answer because it seems like you're parroting a line out of the ultra far-right white supremacist Kahanists in Israel or something.

Zionism as an ideology and its engagement of Palestinians is extremely more complex than what you are trying to simplistically paint it as.

No, actually I think his characterization is completely fair. Every movement has a wide spectrum of thinkers within it, there were even socialist-oriented thinkers in the Nazi party. This doesn't overcome the fact that the overwhelming majority of a group or organizaton was oriented in one particular way. In this case the Zionist movement was overwhelmingly in favor of creating a Jewish state and all that entailed. It is also bizarre to hear it argued that the original intention (of a minority fraction, no less) should guide our opinions. Do you think the USSR was a socialist society? I don't and I certainly don't look it as such, but by your logic we should since the intention of the revolutionaries was completely oriented towards creating such a society. I don't really see why it matters what anyone thought, as much what they did and even then what they did that had a significant impact.

What is also interesting is that if you read the State of Israel Declaration of Independence, you will see that Zionists advocate a stance nearly identical to your own. You say, "the Palestinains should reclaim their land and a secular democratic Palestine should replace this colony where Jew and Arab have equal right." The Israeli Declaration says, ". . . we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions--provisional and permanent."

Revolution Until Victory: you are a Zionist and didn't even know it! biggrin.gif

So....some Zionists several decades ago (whos words have been completely overruled by the actions of their successors and contemporary Zionists) also stated that a Arab state should exist (nevermind that their own actions stopped this from happening for several decades)...so...if you also think an Arab state should exist (but nevermind the whole MAIN bit about creating a Jewish state) then you too are a Zionist. I guess by that logic...Hitler was a vegetarian....so if you're a vegetarian (nevermind the whole MAIN part of Nazi ideology) you're automatically a Nazi? :lol: Nice.

The result of this war was that about 700,000 Palestinians left their land because of the war. Many fled to neighboring Arab countries

Uh, "fled" is an interesting way to put it. According to Benny Morris they were evicted and had their homes razed.

Raj Radical

4th May 2007, 10:14

Originally posted by Revolution Until [email protected] 04, 2007 01:19 am
"You are accusing others of racism but are again slipping dangerously close towards antisemitism yourself. There were innocent civilians living in Israel. Jewish families had been raised there for decades and decades. Mother's gave birth to children on Israeli soil but you callously denounce them as guilty colonizers? Your take on original sin is stricter than the Vatican!"

my statment of the "poor jews attacked by racist arabs" is 100% true. that kid Raj Radical since the begning have been pictiuring the arabs as racist savages who are teaming up on the innocent "Israel" he even discribed the situation as an innocent child in a playgound where he got surrounded by other kids and started beating him up for no reason.

now what do you mean? those born before the creation of the settler-colony on legally purchased land?? of course, they are innocent and are considered Palestinains and there right to the land and innocence is beyond question. however, if you mean a colonizer gave birth to a child on stolen land, then of course, this child, no matter what he does would still be innocent. I mean that when this child is not a minor any more, when he/she are grown up and are responsible for their colonial actions, then he is a colonizer just like any other one in Algeria, South Africa, Rhodesia and all other colonies.

"Here is a quick question I would love to hear you answer. Do you think that there were severely racist anti-Jewish sentiments held by some Arab people in Israel, or in the surrounding area?"

do I think there is severly racist anti-white sentiments in some formely colonized African people? sure I do. In every single society there is extreme racists. That is a fact. however, I never ever in my life (being a Palestinain my self) met, known, or even heard of of not a "severly racist arab" but an arab of ANY degree of anti-semetism. the Palestiains, since the begning had made the clear distiction between JEW and ZIONIST. there surely is arab people who are anti-jewish like any other society on this earth (although never heard of any) but I don't see the significance of this question.
Palestine was the name given to Judea by the Romans centuries before Muslim Imperialism. Jews are the original Palestinians. Arab Palestinians are the descendants of very recent religious imperialism.

I find it hard to believe that you would think there is no antisemitism among the Pan-Arab community. The entire ideology of Pan-Arabism is structured around the destruction of Israel. What do you have to say for Arafat, who is considered a hero and a moderate, who promised to destroy Israel and slaughter every Jew in it? The Arab League and Nasser (the socialist, apperantly) who promised to "drive the Jews into the sea" and compared the war to the "Mongol massacres".

In 1929, there was no Jewish state of Jewish military occupation, yet the Palestinians slaughtered untold numbers of Jews across the country in an series of progroms. In one day in Hebron, 70 Jews were killed in riots. Between 1936 and 1939, 600 Jews were killed in riots. When we see riots in Gaza and riots in San Fransisco where "leftist" activists are chanting in "humanistic solidarity", "Idbah al-Yahud" (slaughter the Jew) , are we then supposed to believe that they are making the distinction between "Zionist" and "Jew"?

jaycee

4th May 2007, 12:47

the important point made before was that the palestinians did not own the land any more than the israelies own the land now or the english own the land in England. The capitalists own the land in every country, as marx said 'the workers have no nation.' This is the important point because it shows that there is no solution to the problem on nationalist terms, only the unification of the working class across national boundries can make peace anything other than a pipe dream.

Revolution Until Victory

4th May 2007, 15:26

"Can you provide a source to your statement that Arab governments have called on the Jews to be "wiped out"?"

actually, I had the same question, but didn't want Chimx to accuse me of "anti-semetism" since he was throwing accusations all around.
the only one I heard of was by Ahmed Shukairy, the head of the PLO in 1967. During that time, Shukairy was very enthusiastic that that the arabs will finally win and dissolve the colony, so showed up on the radio and said "we will drive the jews to the sea"
now here is the good part. Every single Palestenian Resistance orgnization at that time severly condemnd and attacked his statment; they went as far as expelling him from his position as head of the PLO, just coz of that statment.

"Palestine was the name given to Judea by the Romans centuries before Muslim Imperialism. Jews are the original Palestinians. Arab Palestinians are the descendants of very recent religious imperialism."

Raj kid, too much bullshit I see.
sure Palestine was the name given by Romans. SO?? what the hell is your point??
Spian was a name not give by the Spaniards but by the Phonecians who colonized the Iberian Peninsula. Korea wasn't a name given by the Koreans but by the Arab murchants who traded with that area.
Jews are NOT the original Palestinains. The Canaanites, along all other groups that lived in that area, are the ancestors of the current day Arab Palestnians. I repeat, before the Hebrews there were Canaanites; the Hebrews were not the original inhabitatns. Even before the Cannanties there were many other people.

"I find it hard to believe that you would think there is no antisemitism among the Pan-Arab community. The entire ideology of Pan-Arabism is structured around the destruction of Israel. What do you have to say for Arafat, who is considered a hero and a moderate, who promised to destroy Israel and slaughter every Jew in it? The Arab League and Nasser (the socialist, apperantly) who promised to "drive the Jews into the sea" and compared the war to the "Mongol massacres"."

Yes anti-jewish sentiment among arabs and Palestinians is almost non-existant. As I said, I'm a Palestinain and never in my life have I heard, or known anyone who is even remotly anti-Jewish.

"The entire ideology of Pan-Arabism is structured around the destruction of Israel."

of course it is and that how it should be. The whole Idea of African Nationalism is based on the distruction of the european colonies in Africa. That is a very healthy and great Idea; the idea of putting an end ot colonialism, racism, and injustice.
the distruciton and dissolving of a settler-colony is a great service to humanity; ain't nothing "anti-semetic" about it.
the African nationalists who wanted to destroy Aptheid South Africa, Rhodesia, French colony in Algeria, Portugese colony in Angola etc. were not anti-white, but anti-colonialism

"What do you have to say for Arafat, who is considered a hero and a moderate, who promised to destroy Israel and slaughter every Jew in it"

well if we ignore his latter actions and position since 1988 and beyond, then he was a great revolutionary and guerilla leader, fighting againts opressive colonialism. He surly promised to destroy "Israel"; in the same since guerilla leader Mugabe wanted to destroy the settler colony Rhodesia; in the same way Mandela wanted to destroy the settler colony Aptheid South Africa, the same way Abdl-kader wanted to destroy the French colony in Algeria. Non of those were doing anything wrong, or were anti-white. nothing anti-white or anti-jewish in wanting to end colonialism and opression.

"and slaughter every Jew in it"

Really??? like in here maybe:

"We were saying 'no' to the Zionist state, but we were saying 'yes' to the Jewish people of Palestine. To them we were saying, 'You are welcome to live in our land, but on one condition - You must be prepared to live among us as equals, not as dominators'. I myself have always said that there is only one guarantee for the safety and security of the Jewish people in Palestine and that is the friendship of the Arabs among whom they live."

hmmm....or perhaps here?

A document submitted by Arafat’s Fatah organization to the Second World Congress on Palestine in September 1970:

"Pre-1948 Palestine - as defined during the British mandate - is the territory to be liberated ... It should be quite obvious at this stage that the new Palestine discussed here is not the occupied West Bank or the Gaza Strip or both. These are areas occupied by the Israelis since June 1967. The homeland of the Palestinians usurped and colonized in 1948 is no less dear or important than the part occupied in 1967. Besides, the very existence of the racist oppressor state of Israel, based on the expulsion and forced exile of part of its citizens, even from one tiny village, is unacceptable to the revolution. Any arrangement accommodating the aggressor settler state is unacceptable and temporary ... All the Jews, Moslems, and Christians living in Palestine or forcibly exiled from it will have the right to Palestinian citizenship ... This means that all Jewish Palestinians - at the present Israelis - have the same rights provided, of course, that they reject Zionist racist chauvinism and fully agree to live as Palestinians in the new Palestine ... It is the belief of the revolution that the majority of the present Israeli Jews will change their attitudes and will subscribe to the new Palestine, especially after the oligarchic state machinery, economy, and military establishment are destroyed"

Raj shit, you colonial scum, your pathetic...

"In 1929, there was no Jewish state of Jewish military occupation, yet the Palestinians slaughtered untold numbers of Jews across the country in an series of progroms. In one day in Hebron, 70 Jews were killed in riots. Between 1936 and 1939, 600 Jews were killed in riots. When we see riots in Gaza and riots in San Fransisco where "leftist" activists are chanting in "humanistic solidarity", "Idbah al-Yahud" (slaughter the Jew) , are we then supposed to believe that they are making the distinction between "Zionist" and "Jew"?"

who ever said the conflict started by the establishing of the zinoist colony??
I clearly said, harmony between arabs and jews was severly disrupted since the colonial ideaology of zionism, not only since the establishment of the zoinist colony.
During those times, there were attacks by both sides on each other.
now when you see people chanting "Idbah al-Yahud" then yes, they are clearly not making the distiction (although using VERY bad arabic, that must be said)
that is the stupidist and most desparate lie I've ever heard.
I myself have seen zinoist settlers chanting "Idbah el-arab"
why do you get me your evidence of anyone chanting "Idbah Al-Yahoo"??
it never happens. I have been to scores and socres of demonstartion in Palestine since I was a little kid, and not one demonstration said anything racist against the jews. that's a common tactic by the zionists, commit a crim and blame it on the victims. works great, and seems to be working beautifly with dipshits like you. The biggest evidence of the stupidity of such a claim, is that this is NOT how an arab would say it if he meant "slaughter the jews"
the statment you made is precicely translated to "you (singular) slaughter the Jews (prular)"
so no, you won't hear any Palestinian saying such a thing.

Raj Radical

4th May 2007, 19:10

Palestinian refers to anyone who lived in Palestine before the establishment of the State of Israel. Jewish settlers in the land before 1947 are Palestinians, and conversely Arabs born after 1948 are Israeli. Arab nationalism is fine, but Palestinian nationalism is just nonsensical, unless you include all the Non-Arabs/Jews/Christians/Semaritans etc. into the fold.

The Canaanites were not Arab. We can find a trace of their genealogy in the Lebanese and even up in the Iberian Peninsula. The Arab Palestinians, however, are the most ethnically pure Arab/semites in the world.

So Rev, The Muslim Imperialism which Arabized the population in 600 ce was not colonization or Imperialism, but the Zionism which brought in a Jewish majority is? Where do we draw the line?

Revolution Until Victory

4th May 2007, 19:14

will first of all, the Cannanites immigrated from the Arabian peninsula. Second of all, I didn't say the the Cannanites were the only ancestors of the arabs of Palestine. I said that the Cannanites, along with all the other groups that inhabited that area, were the ancestors of the Palestinain arabs. no such thing as "Palestinain nationalism is non-sensical"
Palestinain nationalism is same as Nigerian Nationalism same as South African nationalim. Palestinain nationalism does include those jews who lived in Palestine before the zionist invasion, but who didn't come over as colonizers (not a very significant percentage) I don't see anything wrong with this.

chimx

5th May 2007, 16:01

Can you provide a source to your statement that Arab governments have called on the Jews to be "wiped out"? I presume you might be referring to the non-recognition of the state of Israel by Arab states. This is a diplomatic measure, akin to the PRC not legally recognizing the ROC for diplomatic purposes, and universally acknowledged as such, including the Israeli and US governments.

Well it is fairly common knowledge that the battle cry of countless Arabs was to "drive the Jews into the sea". You hear it again and again from the 1940s until the 1960s. In fact, the Palestine National Council (PNC), which was the original covenant for the PLO, only adopted resolutions in 1968 to advocate the creation of a "democratic, secular state." Prior to this, the official PNC line was to "drive the Jews into the sea".

Now, unless Israelis take after Kevin Costner in Water World and have little gills behind their ears, it is pretty obvious what that slogan is meant to imply.

See: Bickerton, Ian and Carla Klausner, A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 4th edition. (Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002), 163.

--

Again, throughout this thread we see borderline antisemitism. You persistently denounce Zionist colonizers but are apologetic to the surrounding Arab nation states. What. The. Fuck?

The only reason Arab states went to war with Israel in 1948 is because they all wanted to dominate Palestine themselves and colonize it. Syria wanted to dominate the Arab areas of Palestine. King Abdullah of Transjordan would NEVER had accepted Palestinian leadership in Palestine, nor Syrian leadership. He entered the war to dominate Palestine, especially Jerusalem.

The only one that was pretty ambivalent to actually going to war was King Farouk of Egypt, who only actually really entered the war in 1948 because he feared the economic and political consequences of Transjordan colonizing Palestine.

Revolution Until Victory

5th May 2007, 18:11

chimx, you are wrong.
it wasn't "common knowlege" that the arabs wanted to "drive the jews to the sea"
there was no PNC before 1964; and in 1964 they met and adopted the democratic Palestine thing, which the PNC covent in 1968 is based on.
so no the offical line of the PNC from the begning in 1964 was a democratic Palestine not "drive the jews to the sea"

chimx

5th May 2007, 18:33

No, you are mistaken, and I have cited a history book already that explains this. The PNC began in 1964 with the agenda of driving the jews into the sea. In 1968 then changed this because they found it to be ineffective propaganda and instead opted for the secular state.

Of course, the 1964 PNC agenda of driving the Jews into the sea was based on a common mantra cheered by some Arab people ever since the 1948 war.

It wasn't until 1969 that left wing Palestinian groups denounced the expression, such as the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP). They had been using it prior to 1969.

Revolution Until Victory

5th May 2007, 18:51

I"t wasn't until 1969 that left wing Palestinian groups denounced the expression, such as the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP). They had been using it prior to 1969."

No. when Shukairy (head of the PLO) said "drive the jews to the sea" he was condemend by ALL of the Palestinain gourps, and even outsed from his position for only saying this statment DURING the 1967 war; BEFORE 1969, as you claim.
although you are right, the "secular-democratic state" was officaly the line of the Palestinian people and the liberatio movement since 1968.

chimx

6th May 2007, 02:53

My point is that this was common vocabulary from 1948 until the 1967 war. It is nearly impossible to read about the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict during this time period and not see reference to this common expression of "driving the Jews into the sea."

No. when Shukairy (head of the PLO) said "drive the jews to the sea" he was condemend by ALL of the Palestinain gourps, and even outsed from his position for only saying this statment DURING the 1967 war;

Which is probably why the PNC passed amendments in 1968 to clarify that the new position of the PLO was for a secular government, and specifically denounced the eradication of Jewish peoples.

BreadBros

6th May 2007, 05:16

Well it is fairly common knowledge that the battle cry of countless Arabs was to "drive the Jews into the sea". You hear it again and again from the 1940s until the 1960s. In fact, the Palestine National Council (PNC), which was the original covenant for the PLO, only adopted resolutions in 1968 to advocate the creation of a "democratic, secular state." Prior to this, the official PNC line was to "drive the Jews into the sea".

Now, unless Israelis take after Kevin Costner in Water World and have little gills behind their ears, it is pretty obvious what that slogan is meant to imply.

Yes, it means to de-establish the state of Israel, likely though combined military and political action, thus causing the colonist population to leave. More specifically, it uses the metaphor of pushing the Jewish population in the directon of the Mediterranean, which is the opposite of the direction Israel had been expanding towards (towards the West Bank/Jordan River). In other words, it boils down to opposing Israeli expansionism and de-establishing the Israeli state. Today, the Palestinian population has become far more conciliatory and has more or less given up the goal of totally de-establishing the Israeli state from the area. Most importantly though, this does not in any way back up what you said. You stated that the Arabs wanted to "wipe out" the Jews, implying some sort of genocidal campaign or policy of mass murder. This is not true, just like the Algerians seeking to totally de-establish any French settlement in their territory does not mean they support a genocidal campaign against French people.

Again, throughout this thread we see borderline antisemitism.

Umm, care to point on this perceived anti-semitism? Thats a pretty grave accusation and one you should back up more concretely.

You persistently denounce Zionist colonizers but are apologetic to the surrounding Arab nation states. What. The. Fuck?

I don't recall supporting the surrounding Arab nation states in this thread. The fact that I disagreed with your accusation against the Arabs doesn't mean I'm "apologetic" towards the other states, its merely the truth. I'm not a big fan of say, Enver Hoxha's Albania, but that doesn't mean I would support spreading false views towards it. My own views towards the Arab nations are mixed. I'm very opposed to the current regimes in nearly every Arab state. However, I would say I am a supporter of the Arab states during certain periods, Nasserite Egypt in particular. The fact that the surrounding Arab states are undemocratic and conservative only makes Palestinian nationhood that much more important. As the only regional populace that has experience massacres at the hands of both the IDF and Arab armies (in particular the Jordanian army) Palestine offers one of the few opportunities for a leftist democratic government in the regime.

The only reason Arab states went to war with Israel in 1948 is because they all wanted to dominate Palestine themselves and colonize it. Syria wanted to dominate the Arab areas of Palestine. King Abdullah of Transjordan would NEVER had accepted Palestinian leadership in Palestine, nor Syrian leadership. He entered the war to dominate Palestine, especially Jerusalem.

The only one that was pretty ambivalent to actually going to war was King Farouk of Egypt, who only actually really entered the war in 1948 because he feared the economic and political consequences of Transjordan colonizing Palestine.

This can be disputed and it seems to me that the reasons for these states entering the war are far more complex. Not to mention that most of those states had a transfer of power during the Officer Coups of the 50s, meaning that your postulation about the motives of the Arab states is only valid for a few years. Ultimately, I don't really see what it matters though. The neighboring Arab states could have been the absolute worst totalitarian states on earth...it wouldn't change the fact(s) that the Palestinians have the right to self-determination, the right to their own state, that the Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories are thoroughly illegal and that the state of Israel was itself founded on a policy of ethnic cleansing.

There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing.

That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.--Benny Morris

Apparently, various officers who took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order they received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage the population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was punished for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He covered up for the officers who did the massacers.--Benny Morris

Israel is probably the most egregious historical example of a European colony being created in the Third World and enforcing a stated policy of population transfer and ethnic cleansing, backed up with a conscious strategy of using terroristic means to coerce the indigenous population to flee. In pursuing this strategy the Israeli colonizers fully collaborated and were supported by the empire of Britain, one of the most notorious imperialist powers in history. The state that was created is one of the few modern day regimes that is exclusively based on a shared religion and ethnicity and is thus one of the worst examples of nationalism ever. There are a few differences from past similar regimes however. #1: This history of terror and ethnic cleansing has been acknowledged and accepted by Israeli historians since at least the 1990s. #2. A wide spectrum of so-called "leftists" still maintain support for Jewish state to exist.

chimx

6th May 2007, 05:55

it wouldn't change the fact(s) that the Palestinians have the right to self-determination, the right to their own state, that the Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories are thoroughly illegal and that the state of Israel was itself founded on a policy of ethnic cleansing.

Why should a particular ethnic group have a right to their "own state"? Ethnic nationalism should never act as rationality for nation building. Such a cultural value builds artificial barriers between working peoples that are otherwise in the same economic predicament. Some early socialist Zionists realized this (see the discussion earlier in this thread), why are you caught up on ethnically defined nationalism?

As I have said countless times in this thread, ethnicity keeps being needlessly brought up over and over again. Prior to the Palestinian Mandate, Arab people were exploited by absentee landlord capitalists. Thought early Zionists tried to build social institutions contrary to capitalism, it has since degenerated toward further capitalist exploitation. Capitalism will exploit you if you are Jewish or Arabic and it remains the enemy. But instead we are left pointing fingers at Arabs or Jews as to who is more at fault. Any worth wild leftist critique of the situation should leave ethnicity out and focus on the common exploitation that both Jews and Arabs face.

In pursuing this strategy the Israeli colonizers fully collaborated and were supported by the empire of Britain, one of the most notorious imperialist powers in history

Antisemitism fueled British support for the creation of Israel, not colonizing Palestine. That is a manipulative statement that isn't backed up by anything.

You stated that the Arabs wanted to "wipe out" the Jews, implying some sort of genocidal campaign or policy of mass murder. This is not true, just like the Algerians seeking to totally de-establish any French settlement in their territory does not mean they support a genocidal campaign against French people.

For someone that throws the term "ethnic cleansing" around, I would think you are familiar with what it means. Ethnic cleansing can mean the mass murder of ethnic groups or the forced movement of ethnic groups. Driving Jews out of Israel and into the sea (even if boats are waiting!) is a battle cry to ethnically cleanse the region of Jewish people

BreadBros

6th May 2007, 08:36

Why should a particular ethnic group have a right to their "own state"? Ethnic nationalism should never act as rationality for nation building. Such a cultural value builds artificial barriers between working peoples that are otherwise in the same economic predicament. Some early socialist Zionists realized this (see the discussion earlier in this thread), why are you caught up on ethnically defined nationalism?

I don't think I ever advocated "ethnically defined nationalism". I stated support for Palestinian nationalism. As you yourself have pointed out, the Palestinians do not form (under most definitions) a unique ethnic body, being grouped with all Arabs in most cases. If you followed graffic's previous thread on Israel (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65103&hl=) you would see that I repeatedly OPPOSE ethnic nationalism and argue for a leftist viewpoint on nationalism that recognizes people's right to self-determination regardless of ethnic, racial, religious, whatever breakdowns.

Originally posted by Me+--> (Me)The right to self-determination has never been based on ethnic boundaries.[/b]

In fact, it seems to me that by supporting Israel you would be the one who has supported ethnic nationalism in this thread since the identity of a Jewish state is predicated upon its populace being of an exclusive ethnicity/religion.

I agree with Avi Shlaim when he states:

Avi Shlaim
There definitely is a Palestinian nation. It emerged in the aftermath of the First World War and it was forged in the crucible of the conflict with the Zionists. The Zionist movement in Palestine posed a challenge and led to the emergence of the Palestinian sense of nationhood. The Palestinians are clearly a nation, because that is how they define themselves. They had a land called Palestine, and they were displaced from it. The end result is that the Palestinians have never exercised sovereignty over the land in which they lived: First they were under the Ottoman Empire; then they were under the British Mandate. The Israelis use this fact against them. They say, "you never had sovereignty over this land, and therefore you have no rights." But during the struggle for Palestine, the Palestinians had a strong national movement under the leadership of the Grand Mufti, Hajj Amin al-Husseini. In 1948 they felt they had at least as much of a right to independence as the Iraqis or the Syrians or the Lebanese. The fact that some Israelis, like Golda Meir, have denied the existence of a Palestinian nation is neither here nor there.--http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040628/attapatu

As I have said countless times in this thread, ethnicity keeps being needlessly brought up over and over again. Prior to the Palestinian Mandate, Arab people were exploited by absentee landlord capitalists. Thought early Zionists tried to build social institutions contrary to capitalism, it has since degenerated toward further capitalist exploitation.

Yeah but that was a minority of people acting for a very short time period. The fact is that as Zionism matured and came into its own it completely and quickly lost any anti-capitalist element it had to itself. I don't see why it matters that a minority fraction of Zionists in the 1940s thought about building a multi-ethnic socialist state since it didnt happen. Even during those formative years before the creation of Israel most Jewish settlers practiced economic discrimination in terms of wages and employment geared towards promoting immigration and economic growth. This served to effectively disenfranchise Palestinians from the economy and was the cause of much anger.

Capitalism will exploit you if you are Jewish or Arabic and it remains the enemy. But instead we are left pointing fingers at Arabs or Jews as to who is more at fault. Any worth wild leftist critique of the situation should leave ethnicity out and focus on the common exploitation that both Jews and Arabs face.

Actually, I completely disagree. Of course class tensions exist within ALL capitalist societies but that does not mean that other present conflicts are invalid or inauthentic. In fact these issues are often integrally related to class conflict. In the case of Israel and the Arab world we have two very divergently developed economic spheres. Israel has reached the advanced state of capitalist production it has due to massive infusions of capital from the United States and Europe. It has also benefited quite a bit from the imperialistic endeavors of Western states, including the control of the Suez Canal and the US's manipulation and support of certain regimes in the region. That means these international tensions relate to class tensions within Israel - the idea of the Israeli populace launching a class war and overthrowing capitalism is ridiculous considering that their elevated economic status depends on the survival of the Israeli bourgeoisie and it's client relationship with the Western imperialist states.

In pursuing this strategy the Israeli colonizers fully collaborated and were supported by the empire of Britain, one of the most notorious imperialist powers in history

Antisemitism fueled British support for the creation of Israel, not colonizing Palestine. That is a manipulative statement that isn't backed up by anything.

I wasn't referring to the ideological realm but to the material. The British actively supported efforst to establish a Jewish state and suppressed efforts to establish a Palestinian one, this is one of the critical foundations/re-evaluations by the Israeli New Historians.

For someone that throws the term "ethnic cleansing" around, I would think you are familiar with what it means. Ethnic cleansing can mean the mass murder of ethnic groups or the forced movement of ethnic groups. Driving Jews out of Israel and into the sea (even if boats are waiting!) is a battle cry to ethnically cleanse the region of Jewish people

Would you consider the expulsion of the French from Algeria, the British from India, or the British from Rhodesia constitutes "ethnic cleansing"?