The Israel-Palestine conflict -- split from Discrimination

[ships-cat]

Ummm... I'm not sure I'd agree with you on some of those points Dean... though I admit I havn't studied it at length: perhaps you could fill me in ?


Don't forget that Palestinian Arabs were also descendents of Abraham. They have just as much right to the land (well more, since they lived there for the past 1500 years).

Surely not ? The Palestinain Arabs where descendants of Abraham ? I was under the impression that historians couldn't easily pinpoint the original "Palestinian" tribe, but suspected it was a nomadic group originaly from the southern Saudi peninsula ? Mind you - I'm probably quibbling there, as the modern day Palestinian Arabs probably don't have that much of a seperate ethnic identity from, say, northen Saudi tribes, Jordanians, and so forth. It's also worth noting that the Jews had a Kingdom there going back around 3000 years (as did other Arabic groups, though probably not 'palestinians'), so the issue of "who was there first, and who has a 'right' to the land" is a turbulant one at best.



Complete bullshit. It was created on land that was already inhabited, and it only thrives because of the hundreds of billions of aid pumped into it every year.

Can you name me a single "nation" that was created on uninhabited land, and didn't involve one group becoming more powerful, and creating the nation over the wishes of the minority groups ? As for Aid; that is true, but it's not hundreds of billions every year. Indeed, according to this (http://www.wrmea.com/archives/July_2006/0607016.html) website, the total aid from 1966 to 2006 is around $110 billion FROM THE USA. Now, this is JUST from the USA, but I would imagine it is by FAR the largest contributor, so the TOTAL aid figure is going to be something close to this $110 billion mark. This is a LOT of money, but that is over a period of 40 years.... a fraction of what you stated Dean.

It's also worth noting that a lot of that money was for military equipment, which in turn the US supplied because it feared the expansion of Soviet influence in the region: The US military aid figures throughout the 70's was pretty much comparable to that given to Syria by the Soviet Union during the same period, though few people every say "hah - Syria only exists because of Soviet Aid. "

Currently, I believe total world aid to Israel amounts to around 0.17% of it's GDP (http://www.prosperity.org/profile.aspx?id=IS), and is declining.

During a similar period, the PLO received many tens of billions of dollars (figures vary wildly, with one being at around $80 billion) from various sources. One might well ask what the HECK they did with it ?



Really? Egypt isn't allowed to let the Palestinians in: when the border was opened and Palestinians poured in recently, Egypt was threated with losing USAID because Israel was agitated that the Palestinians were freed from their prison in Gaza.

Surely not Dean ? If so, then that is terrible. Do you have any links on this ?

I was aware that - following HAMAS's destruction of a section of the border by explosives - there where concerns that the purpose of the entire project was to allow HAMAS access to Egypt's mediteranian coast, where they where expecting to rendevouz with a freighter(s) smuggling weapons. Whether that was just media frenzy or fact, I have no idea.

It's interesting to note, however, that non of the surrounding nations (Egypt, Saudi, Jordon, Lebannon) have permitted the palestinian arabs rights of citizenship (or even asylum), and insist that they are restricted to "refugee camps". This hardly smacks of brotherly solidarity. It seems that the ONLY nation in the region that grants citizenship to Arab Palestinians is.... Israel.

And, of course, I presume you are aware that there has never - in recorded history - been any such entity as a Palestinian Nation ? Untill very recently, that is. And guess who has helped to create it ? Yup... Israel. (mind you, it also tends to bulldoze bits of it from time to time, so that story cuts two ways.... ).


Israel as a Nation has not always behaved impecably.. but I would be carefull of falling into the usual trap of lambasting it as the source of all evil.

Meow Purr.

[ships-cat]

Lightening, I would suggest that - in one way at least - your mum IS correct. I certainly perceive an anti-Israeli bias in UK television (and - to a slightly lesser extent - print media) news reporting from the region. There is a tendency to accept Arab Palestinian or HAMAS testimony unchallanged, whillst minimising any Israeli government response. (next time there is a TV or Newspaper article, try comparing the amount of time - or column inches - spent quoting arab palestinian spokespeople, compared with that for jewish palestinians). There is also a tendency to present pictures and video such as to maximise the drama of any alledged Israeli attrocities, whillst minimising HAMAS/HEZBOLLAH attrocities.

As for the palestinian arabs not having "the means to raise themselves up"... the PLO received HUGE sums of money. Not as much as the palestinian Jews of Israel perhaps, but not small change either. (I've seen figures of between $10 billion and $80 billion, as I mentioned in my earlier post). The Israeli government used their aid money to build - and defend - a nascent nation. What did the arab palestinian leadership do with THEIR money ? Again, your mum raises a valid question here.

Lightening, you state that "I really don't care anymore", presumably in the sense of your feeling frustrated at your relatives seeming lack of sympathy towards your position, and the evidence you present to support it. But have you considered that your evidence is simply not compelling ?

Don't get mad at your grandmother.. get convincing :D

Meow Purr :)

[Bud Struggle]

During a similar period, the PLO received many tens of billions of dollars (figures vary wildly, with one being at around $80 billion) from various sources. One might well ask what the HECK they did with it ?

Anyway, an interesting article about what the Palestinians did with their money. Arafat himself had a personal fortune of 1-3 Billion dollars.

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Understanding_Palestinian_Poverty.asp

Since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, the international community has shown unprecedented generosity toward Palestinians, donating approximately $5 billion (http://www.ujc.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=71972) to the Palestinian Authority. The World Bank (http://tinyurl.com/6gnof) noted recently that 'donor disbursements to the Palestinians currently amount to approximately $1 billion per year or $310 per person ― one of the highest per capita rates in the history of foreign assistance.' (By comparison, the Marshall Plan (http://www.marshallfoundation.org/about_gcm/marshall_plan.htm#expenditures) to rebuild Europe after World War II provided $68 per year, in today's dollars, to Europeans.)

[Dean]

Surely not ? The Palestinain Arabs where descendants of Abraham ? I was under the impression that historians couldn't easily pinpoint the original "Palestinian" tribe, but suspected it was a nomadic group originaly from the southern Saudi peninsula ? Mind you - I'm probably quibbling there, as the modern day Palestinian Arabs probably don't have that much of a seperate ethnic identity from, say, northen Saudi tribes, Jordanians, and so forth. It's also worth noting that the Jews had a Kingdom there going back around 3000 years (as did other Arabic groups, though probably not 'palestinians'), so the issue of "who was there first, and who has a 'right' to the land" is a turbulant one at best.
According to a theological professor I have known for years, they are indeed descendants of Abraham. While some might say that this view is marred by the fact that biblical evidence supports it, I have good reason to believe that Steve is more inclined to be objective when it comes to these types of issues. There is a reason that "Arabic" is considered a Semitic language.



Can you name me a single "nation" that was created on uninhabited land, and didn't involve one group becoming more powerful, and creating the nation over the wishes of the minority groups ? As for Aid; that is true, but it's not hundreds of billions every year. Indeed, according to this (http://www.wrmea.com/archives/July_2006/0607016.html) website, the total aid from 1966 to 2006 is around $110 billion FROM THE USA. Now, this is JUST from the USA, but I would imagine it is by FAR the largest contributor, so the TOTAL aid figure is going to be something close to this $110 billion mark. This is a LOT of money, but that is over a period of 40 years.... a fraction of what you stated Dean.
That figure may be incorrect in literal terms, but insofar as military aid is concerned, it seems very close. Note that the site you linked to was only listing the most verifiable and specific aid, it also points out that many dollars of military aid are left out, due to the ambiguity of those specific figures.

Much of this is independently verified:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

As far as "uninhabited land" goes, I suggest you look up the term "Nakba." Palestine had a large population before Zionists started their campaign of ethnic cleansing there (which was also long before 1948).


It's also worth noting that a lot of that money was for military equipment, which in turn the US supplied because it feared the expansion of Soviet influence in the region: The US military aid figures throughout the 70's was pretty much comparable to that given to Syria by the Soviet Union during the same period, though few people every say "hah - Syria only exists because of Soviet Aid. "
But very little of the Syrian aid was actually used to fight Israel. Contrarily, the military aid to Israel is specifically designed to target Palestinians and their interests. Also, the aid given to Palestinians is earmarked not to be useful for military endeavors - the best they can do is to make a police force, which in turn is meant to route and eliminate forces in Palestine which oppose the Fatah - dominated status quo - who of course have it in their interests not to fight Israel militarily.

Also, economic concerns are paramount. Israel not only has a massive influx of aid, technology and military goods, but very strong academic and industrial development.

The Palestinians? Well, the West Bank is suffering from an acute shortage - of water. When Israel cut electricity that the EU had bought for Palestinains, many people in hospital died or had severe complications. One town was flooded with raw sewage - literally feces, urine and any other waste - because a Waste Treatment project by (I think it was Japan), which was meant to improve living standards, became flooded due to lack of electricity.

The economic blockade has effectively ruined the Palestinian way of life. And you're right that nations like Egypt need to take a large part of the blame, but not as perpetrators, but perpetuaters of a terrible crime commited against the Palestinian people.


Currently, I believe total world aid to Israel amounts to around 0.17% of it's GDP (http://www.prosperity.org/profile.aspx?id=IS), and is declining.
Well, of course. Military and technological aid does not factor into this, and all of the former and most of the latter is fairly irrelevant to economic growth.


During a similar period, the PLO received many tens of billions of dollars (figures vary wildly, with one being at around $80 billion) from various sources. One might well ask what the HECK they did with it ?
Much of the "aid" given to the PLO actually goes to Israel and is earmarked for use by the PLO. When the service industry was striking in Palestine, the PLO couldn't do anything - after months of this, Israel had to step in and give the back taxes they had "collected on behalf of the PLO" and held for months to the PLO. Of course, even when you have money in Palestine, it's hard to use it with either a blockade or heavy sanctions against your "nation."



Surely not Dean ? If so, then that is terrible. Do you have any links on this ?

I was aware that - following HAMAS's destruction of a section of the border by explosives - there where concerns that the purpose of the entire project was to allow HAMAS access to Egypt's mediteranian coast, where they where expecting to rendevouz with a freighter(s) smuggling weapons. Whether that was just media frenzy or fact, I have no idea.

It's interesting to note, however, that non of the surrounding nations (Egypt, Saudi, Jordon, Lebannon) have permitted the palestinian arabs rights of citizenship (or even asylum), and insist that they are restricted to "refugee camps". This hardly smacks of brotherly solidarity. It seems that the ONLY nation in the region that grants citizenship to Arab Palestinians is.... Israel.
It is important not to look at the failure of so called "ethnic brothers" to alleviate the stress created by Israeli occupation as a divergence of blame for the state of affairs of the Palestinian people

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/01/2008525135833188974.html

Also, it has been argued that the disproportionate number of Israeli military bases and outposts in predominantly Arab regions in Israel is cause for concern, specifically that Israel is using these citizens as human shields.


And, of course, I presume you are aware that there has never - in recorded history - been any such entity as a Palestinian Nation ? Untill very recently, that is. And guess who has helped to create it ? Yup... Israel. (mind you, it also tends to bulldoze bits of it from time to time, so that story cuts two ways.... ).
I am guessing that the absence of a clear state in the native American communities justifies the parallel colonization and ethnic cleansing of the Natives here, as well? Also, it is important to understand that the Palestinian people had little need for clearly defined and regimented local government before they were invaded and driven from their homes. Under the Ottoman Empire, Palestinians enjoyed a relatively peaceful existence with a wide array of ethnic and cultural groups living closely together.

Consider Israel's attack on the political leaders of the fledgling Palestinian state in 2006. What does that say about Israel's role in its government?



Israel as a Nation has not always behaved impecably.. but I would be carefull of falling into the usual trap of lambasting it as the source of all evil.

I think you'll find that I am pretty willing to criticize filth wherever I see it. When the problems of a colonial, apartheid state are concerned though, it is really hard to blame the occupied population as creative of the destructive forces which didn't exist in any comparable character before the invasion.

[ships-cat]

Yaaaaaay - a big thank-you to whoever split this off from the original topic back in the "bubble".

Now.... where do we start ? Any particular suggestions ? ('cos the above posts where - originally - part of a larger discussion, and don't make much narrative sense at the moment.).

Meow Purr :)

[ships-cat]

OK, well I'll kick off as I started with my first post on the topic: the idea that the "Palestinian Arabs" where descendants of Abraham. Straight away we run onto the rocks, because we have to ask ourselves "what do we mean by Palestinian Arabs" ? The problem here is the word "Palestine"... this was a linguistic derivition of the Greek word "Palestina", itself a reference to the tribe of Phillistines.

What have the Greeks got to do with this, you might ask ? Well, it seems likely that the Phillistines where part of the dread "Sea People", who originated from the region of Greece, and proceeded to cause problems all over the Mediteranian. They landed - and colonised - a stretch of Canaan (around modern day Gaza, as it happens) and proceeded to kick butt and take names all across Judah, Phonecia (modern day Lebannon/Syria.. ish) AND ... and here's the key point... The existing Kingdom of Israel.

Fast-forwarding, the Romans arrived and kicked EVERYONE's butt. They where particularly peeved at the Israeli's for revolting, so they renamed the region "Palestine", based on the Phillistines, in order to eliminate any cultural refference to Judea, Judah, and the Kingdom of Israel.

So where does this leave us ? A newly created "Nation", combining several kingdoms previously a part of northern Canaan, settled by a hotchpotch of Italians, Phillistines, Greeks, Egyptians, Assyrians (northern Syria + Turkey), Hebrews (the Israeli's) and... yes... along with the Hebrews, some other migratory semitic tribes from the Saudi peninsula, who may INDEED have connections with the orginal Hebrew Tribe of Abraham, though nonesuch has been definitively demonstrated.

So, to state that modern-day Palestinian Arabs (or should they be greeks ? or Italians ? Or Turks ? or Egyptians ? ) have a descendancy link to the Tribe of Abraham is pushing things to the limits, and I would suggest is highly fanciful.

Meow Purr :)

[Dean]

So, to state that modern-day Palestinian Arabs (or should they be greeks ? or Italians ? Or Turks ? or Egyptians ? ) have a descendancy link to the Tribe of Abraham is pushing things to the limits, and I would suggest is highly fanciful.

Well that was really just an academic point. I am a bit rusty on my biblical history, but it would seem that one of Abraham's sons was responsible for the Israeli tribe, and the other for an Arab tribe which also lived in the region.

In any case, Jewish and non-Jewish Semites (Arabs &c.) have lived in the land known as Palestine, been kicked out and returned for ages. It's important to recognize that the presence or absence of a historical ethnic link to the region has nothing to do with their rights today.

Also, the last post of mine was new, as well.

[Dean]

Anyway, an interesting article about what the Palestinians did with their money. Arafat himself had a personal fortune of 1-3 Billion dollars.

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Understanding_Palestinian_Poverty.asp

Since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, the international community has shown unprecedented generosity toward Palestinians, donating approximately $5 billion (http://www.ujc.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=71972) to the Palestinian Authority. The World Bank (http://tinyurl.com/6gnof) noted recently that 'donor disbursements to the Palestinians currently amount to approximately $1 billion per year or $310 per person ― one of the highest per capita rates in the history of foreign assistance.' (By comparison, the Marshall Plan (http://www.marshallfoundation.org/about_gcm/marshall_plan.htm#expenditures) to rebuild Europe after World War II provided $68 per year, in today's dollars, to Europeans.)

When a foreign nation is destroying your economy, suddenly any aid you are receiving becomes the primary capital for the nation.

[ships-cat]

In any case, Jewish and non-Jewish Semites (Arabs &c.) have lived in the land known as Palestine, been kicked out and returned for ages. It's important to recognize that the presence or absence of a historical ethnic link to the region has nothing to do with their rights today.

Truly ? Are you sure ? It may not be an absolute determinator of land rights, but surely it's a strong factor ?

But if you're ADAMANT about that statement, then.. well .. gosh....

I've got a Mr Nakota, the current Chief of the Souix Nation on the line...


http://www.meow-purr.org.uk/ukdebate/sioux2.jpg

He doesn't sound happy Dean... and there seems to be some sort of disturbance in the background.... Would you like to take the call and explain your idea to him ? :D

Meow Purr.

[Dean]

He doesn't sound happy Dean... and there seems to be some sort of disturbance in the background.... Would you like to take the call and explain your idea to him ? :D

Meow Purr.

The native Americans never deserved or asked for exclusory rights to the land. Even if they did, it doesn't matter. If you remember your history, the Natives were very open to sharing the land - it was only when they were pushed off their own land did it become a problem. The same is true for the Palestinian Israeli conflict. Jews and Zionists have every right to live in the region. But they have no right to tell another group of people, especially when they were already there, that they don't have such rights.

[ships-cat]

Ahhh... so we're focussing a bit more on "rights" to live in a region. Fair enough. But surely these rights are illusionary and artificial ? After all, whenever a new nation is created, has it not ALWAYS been the result of one group of 'residents' excercising supremecy over other groups of 'residents', against the latters wishes ?

I would have thought this describes the situation with the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. But isn't it universaly true ? People on this forum seem to adopt a universal approbrium to Israel for the fact of its creation. But the same objections are never raised in any discussion of - say - Pakistan ? Why the dichotomy ?

Meow Purr :)

[Dean]

Ahhh... so we're focussing a bit more on "rights" to live in a region. Fair enough. But surely these rights are illusionary and artificial ? After all, whenever a new nation is created, has it not ALWAYS been the result of one group of 'residents' excercising supremecy over other groups of 'residents', against the latters wishes ?

I would have thought this describes the situation with the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. But isn't it universaly true ? People on this forum seem to adopt a universal approbrium to Israel for the fact of its creation. But the same objections are never raised in any discussion of - say - Pakistan ? Why the dichotomy ?

Meow Purr :)

I'm not very familiar with Pakistan's creation. But as I said, this is about the rights of human beings - not of ethnicities or of people. As is exemplified in my post from yesterday, there are a plethora of instances where Israel has acted against the rights of the Palestinians simply because they lived or live where Israel was created or in the territories currently occupied by Israel.

[ships-cat]

Hokey dokey Dean. I guess it seems like I'm being nit-picking. My purpose, however, was to take things slowly, and try and develop common ground on some of the background issues. I do this because I've been frustrated in other "debates" on this issue whereby other posters start from the basis of fixed assumptions that need deconstructing first.

Can we agree , then, that you see nothing wrong with the creation of the state of Israel per se , as occured in 1948 ? (I think this would be a useful baseline to establish, as it has a strong influence on the shape of subsequent events).

Meow Purr :)

[Dean]

Hokey dokey Dean. I guess it seems like I'm being nit-picking. My purpose, however, was to take things slowly, and try and develop common ground on some of the background issues. I do this because I've been frustrated in other "debates" on this issue whereby other posters start from the basis of fixed assumptions that need deconstructing first.
That's fine. I think you'll see that my main concern is about how humans are treated, though.


Can we agree , then, that you see nothing wrong with the creation of the state of Israel per se , as occured in 1948 ? (I think this would be a useful baseline to establish, as it has a strong influence on the shape of subsequent events).
There are a few different ways to take this.

First off, as it might exist in a vacuum: In and of itself, I oppose the State of Israel because I oppose states.

As it existed in 1948 Israel was a collection of Zionist colonies that had displaced and warred with the local populace. As early as the 1910s, the Zionist colonies were known to be violent and exclusory towards the local population. So, no, I don't support racist or violent colonial power structures.

As a vessel for Jewish self-determinism. Again, as a communist I oppose this on the grounds that race does not determine rights to statehood, especially when the ethnic population exists on land that was recently taken from others.

[ships-cat]

Ah.. right.. gotcha... interesting points.

It might be useful for me to explain my motives/perspectives for getting involved in the original debate out in the Dreamtime. (I didn't do this at the time, as it was irrelevant to the specific discussion, intrusive, and would have been trolling).

I'm approaching this from the perspective of Israel in the Western media, and in liberal or "left" circles. (as I perceive it/them). In my opinion, Israel is held up as a cause celebre and unfairly demonised. I suggest that its actions - both before and after 1948 - where no worse (and in most cases a lot better) than pretty much ANY nation "coming into being".

I used Pakistan as an example earlier on: there are many parallels between the creation of the two nations. However, whereas Israel is (it seems) berated on a daily basis, and the cause of the Arab Palestinians championed so vigorously, nobody uses the same terms on Pakistan, and nobody stands up for the Hindu's forced out of their land. Indeed, the phrase "deafening silence" springs to mind.

So why ? Why is Israel singled out for this treatment ? And in particular, why do "the left" ( very broad brush) subscribe to this seeming hypocrisy ?


(Lest ye think I'm focusing on Pakistan for any particular reason: I just happened to read a bit about it recently, and was struck by the parallels. I shall endeavour to find some other examples of recent emergent Nations over the next few days).

So perhaps really we are discussing completely different aspects of the situation.

Do you think I should start the above question as a separate thread ?

Meow Purr.

[Plagueround]

Truly ? Are you sure ? It may not be an absolute determinator of land rights, but surely it's a strong factor ?

But if you're ADAMANT about that statement, then.. well .. gosh....

I've got a Mr Nakota, the current Chief of the Souix Nation on the line...


http://www.meow-purr.org.uk/ukdebate/sioux2.jpg

He doesn't sound happy Dean... and there seems to be some sort of disturbance in the background.... Would you like to take the call and explain your idea to him ? :D

Meow Purr.

Interestingly enough, you picked the ONE tribe in the US that actually has a secession movement going on right now. The Chief isn't a part of it, nor does he support it, but even so. :)

[ships-cat]

Truly Plagueround ? :scared:

Good heavens. I must admit to a total ignorance of Native American affairs... I just picked the tribe 'cos they sounded a bit.. well... militant, and they happened to have a picture of one of their Chiefs on Google.

Talk about serendipity !

Meow Purr :)

[Dean]

Interestingly enough, you picked the ONE tribe in the US that actually has a secession movement going on right now. The Chief isn't a part of it, nor does he support it, but even so. :)

It's the Lakota

[Dean]

I'm approaching this from the perspective of Israel in the Western media, and in liberal or "left" circles. (as I perceive it/them). In my opinion, Israel is held up as a cause celebre and unfairly demonised. I suggest that its actions - both before and after 1948 - where no worse (and in most cases a lot better) than pretty much ANY nation "coming into being".
Well, that's completely untrue. You could talk about leftists, maybe, but the liberals and the Democrats are dominated, quite firmly, by pro-Israeli rhetoric.


I used Pakistan as an example earlier on: there are many parallels between the creation of the two nations. However, whereas Israel is (it seems) berated on a daily basis, and the cause of the Arab Palestinians championed so vigorously, nobody uses the same terms on Pakistan, and nobody stands up for the Hindu's forced out of their land. Indeed, the phrase "deafening silence" springs to mind.
Well, it's a totally different issue, for one. I'm not familiar with Pakistan's creation, but it does not exist today as an oppressive, apartheid regime with a large occupied population. That's at least part of the reason that people don't talk about them as much.

Another reason is that pro-Zionist rhetoric dominates the U.S. media and politics. It seems much more important to talk about a nation which is considered untouchable, than one that is regularly demonized in our media and politics.

Even if Pakistan was an occupational, colonial state, this wouldn't vindicate Israel. I don't base any of my opinion on Israeli activity on what Pakistan does.

[Plagueround]

It's the Lakota

The Lakota are members of the Sioux nation. There are many separate tribes that are confederated into one "nation" commonly recognized as the Lakota Sioux or simply Sioux (although there are other major branches such as the Nakota that are not Lakota). The seperation movement is primarily headed by a "rogue" group of Lakota Sioux, particularly members of the Ogala Sioux, a band that is one of several smaller tribes that make up the Lakota, but they include any and all members of the Sioux nation that wish to join as part of their seperatist movement, a movement which the chiefs of the Nakota, Lakota, or Dakota do not support (or at least not openly).

It all gets a bit confusing...I wish my grandfather was still around as he could explain it much better than I could; he was the head of a BIA organization dedicated to working with tribal councils and governments and had many meetings with Russell Means around and during the Wounded Knee incident.

[Dean]

The Lakota are members of the Sioux nation.
Somehow I thought this might be the case, but I said it anyway because I thought ships-cat was confused by "Nakota."

Thanks for the info in any case.

[ships-cat]

EEEK - I've just realised that both Dean and Plagueround are Americans. Perhaps I should have chosen the Aborigines rather than the Sioux to make that point ? :lol:

It's interesting what you say Dean; that the US media tends to lionize Israel. The opposite is true in the UK, which kinda makes my original debating point somewhat irrelevant :crying:

Is this tendency universal ? Flagrant or subtle ? What would you say the "average American's" perception of Israel is ?

woof woof:(

[Bud Struggle]

EEEK - I've just realised that both Dean and Plagueround are Americans. Perhaps I should have chosen the Aborigines rather than the Sioux to make that point ? :lol:

It's interesting what you say Dean; that the US media tends to lionize Israel. The opposite is true in the UK, which kinda makes my original debating point somewhat irrelevant :crying:

Is this tendency universal ? Flagrant or subtle ? What would you say the "average American's" perception of Israel is ?

woof woof:(

The general populace in America is pro-Israel and the media is largely pro-Israel. The Palestinians are generally portrayed as either evil or stupid, but not much else. There is a very large and well funded Israel lobby working on Congress and there are even pro-Israel "commercials" that are heard on the radio.

For the most part the Conservatives are pro-Israel and the Liberals are somewhat mixed, being that many Liberals are also Jewish.

[Dean]

The general populace in America is pro-Israel and the media is largely pro-Israel. The Palestinians are generally portrayed as either evil or stupid, but not much else. There is a very large and well funded Israel lobby working on Congress and there are even pro-Israel "commercials" that are heard on the radio.
TomK, you're pretty much right on target here.


For the most part the Conservatives are pro-Israel and the Liberals are somewhat mixed, being that many Liberals are also Jewish.
It seems to me like you're implying that the Jewish influence on liberal thought compels it to be more pro-Israeli. I have found, contrarily, that Jews in congress tend to be much more willing to and interested in speaking out about the issue. I expect that this is due to some AIPAC politics where Jews feel wrongly compelled to support Israel due to ethnic or religious identity. But I can't be sure. In any case, the only real opposition to Israel seems to come from human rights organizations, the far left and Neo-Nazi groups, sadly. I have not seen any real criticism that made it into the popular discourse.



EEEK - I've just realised that both Dean and Plagueround are Americans. Perhaps I should have chosen the Aborigines rather than the Sioux to make that point ? :lol:
I still don't understand? It seems like the native Palestinians are more comparable to those examples. The Jewish Diaspora is only relevant here when we talk of more historical situations; the early Zionists who refused to fight the local population did so because Jews were already living peacefully in the region. In fact, the native Jewish population at the time was known to be very vociferous in fighting Jewish Nationalism.


It's interesting what you say Dean; that the US media tends to lionize Israel. The opposite is true in the UK, which kinda makes my original debating point somewhat irrelevant :crying:

Is this tendency universal ? Flagrant or subtle ? What would you say the "average American's" perception of Israel is ?
It is flagrant, but Israel is a no-contest issue here. To be anti-Israel in the U.S. is to be considered anti-semitic.

I actually haven't seen the tendency you reference in the BBC. It seems to be comparably pro-Israel, but not as bad. An important thing to look at is what is discussed, not how they say it. You'll notice that U.S. media coverage of the Georgian crisis was in some cases rhetorically neutral, but it was unbalanced to the point that it seemed like Ossetia was actively breaking away from Georgia, rather than the fact that it is an historical conflict where Ossetia has long fought against Georgian control.

[Bud Struggle]

It seems to me like you're implying that the Jewish influence on liberal thought compels it to be more pro-Israeli. I have found, contrarily, that Jews in congress tend to be much more willing to and interested in speaking out about the issue. I expect that this is due to some AIPAC politics where Jews feel wrongly compelled to support Israel due to ethnic or religious identity. But I can't be sure. In any case, the only real opposition to Israel seems to come from human rights organizations, the far left and Neo-Nazi groups, sadly. I have not seen any real criticism that made it into the popular discourse.

I wasn't speaking of Congress in particular--I just happen to have a bunch of Very Liberal (though not Commie) New York Jewish friends and they give and raise huge amounts of money for Israel. Liberal in everything else, but Israel.

Also, there is an interesting religions note to support for Israel--through some convoluted theology Fundamentalist Christians believe that the foundation of the state of Israel is the beginning of some Prophetic Biblical end times, so they wholeheartedly support Israel.

[Yehuda Stern]

You're looking at just one side here: I know many, many Jews who are radically anti-Zionist (including yours truly).

[Bud Struggle]

You're looking at just one side here: I know many, many Jews who are radically anti-Zionist (including yours truly).

You don't live in NYC, do you? :(

[Phalanx]

It says Israel, so I'm guessing that's where he's at. We had another member from Israel a few years ago, Omri Evron, who was active in protests at the apartheid wall among others.

Personally I can fully understand why many Israelis regard the conflict as a domestic issue. If a foreigner in the US were to openly criticize the way we treat African American communities in inner cities, many Americans would be up in arms. I think leftists in this nation should focus on domestic injustices before they seriously consider internationalism, especially when leftists most intrigued by internationalism end up being armchair socialists.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Seriously speaking, are the Palestinians not the most well-funded flop as far as 'revolutionary' movements go?

Maybe they'd start fighting if we cut all funding.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

It says Israel, so I'm guessing that's where he's at. We had another member from Israel a few years ago, Omri Evron, who was active in protests at the apartheid wall among others.

Personally I can fully understand why many Israelis regard the conflict as a domestic issue. If a foreigner in the US were to openly criticize the way we treat African American communities in inner cities, many Americans would be up in arms. I think leftists in this nation should focus on domestic injustices before they seriously consider internationalism, especially when leftists most intrigued by internationalism end up being armchair socialists.
That's because people "leftists" who aren't intrigued by internationalism aren't leftists but nationalists, and nationalism is a stronger political force than leftism.

[ships-cat]

I get the feeling that the "arab palestinians" have never had much say in their own destiny. They fled their homes - many at the bidding of the advancing Arab armies who wanted a 'clear field of fire' at the Israeli palestinians - only to find themselves in exile. Israel didn't want them back (they probably regarded them as traitors or something), and suddenly, their Arab brothers didn't want anything to do with them (in terms of allowing them asylum), forcing them into refugee camps.

And THEN the militant Islamists started using the arab palestinians (through the PLO) as proxy troops in their war to create an Islamic state throughout the region.

What with disenfranchisement followed by betrayal followed by brainwashing, the arab palestinians have never really had a chance to say what they REALLY want. If everyone had left them alone, they'd probably have their own state LONG ago, and be living in peace with Israel.

Oh well.

Meow Purr :)

[Phalanx]

That's because people "leftists" who aren't intrigued by internationalism aren't leftists but nationalists, and nationalism is a stronger political force than leftism.

I think many would agree that the Black Panther Party was a leftist movement. Taking another's struggle and making it your own isn't always the best route to progress, either.

[Flash]

It is silly for people to have this Anglo-American attitude that somehow these Turkic/Ashkenazi Jews have any right to a land that was traditionally Semitic? Palestine while never an official state has always been inhabited by Semites. The Sephardic Jews are a people who do have a historical and ethnical claim to the land. However these Ashkenazis are said to have Indo-European, Turkic, and Caucus blood in them. Some semitic blood? Probably but very few. It would be as if the Bulgarians would lay claim to Iran for their (small) iranic ancestry.

My major concern with Israel is the billions of dollars from America that go to out. And the total monopoly they have on the American media and government. Any candidate that dares says cutting aid to Israel would benefit America is called a loon by MSM. Ever hear of Mike Gravel, Kucinich, or Ron Paul? Obama grovelled before AIPAC, promising to attack Iran if necessary for Israel's own security.

The Jews love to romanticize the Israeli struggle by saying they (Ashkenazi Jews) are surrounded by people that hate them, and they are struggling against all odds to defeat their foe. But the truth is they are funded by America and Britain in every little struggle. Ever watch an American democrat or Republcian debate? Mccain and Obama are the first to defend Israel's 'right of existence'. I guess it is funny that South Ossetia has no right to exist but Ashkenazi Jewish non-Semitic Israel is justified.

I get the feeling from most politicians when they risk a war with Iran for Israel's sake have another interest other than America.



Surely not ? The Palestinain Arabs where descendants of Abraham ? I was under the impression that historians couldn't easily pinpoint the original "Palestinian" tribe, but suspected it was a nomadic group originaly from the southern Saudi peninsula ? Mind you - I'm probably quibbling there, as the modern day Palestinian Arabs probably don't have that much of a seperate ethnic identity from, say, northen Saudi tribes, Jordanians, and so forth. It's also worth noting that the Jews had a Kingdom there going back around 3000 years (as did other Arabic groups, though probably not 'palestinians'), so the issue of "who was there first, and who has a 'right' to the land" is a turbulant one at best.


Southern Arabian peninsula? No. The Palestinians most likely were the indigineous Semitic-speaking population before Arabic expansion. Being 'Arab' is merely a linguistic term. As 90% of North africans could be considered Arab, even though they can trace no or little ancestry back to Arabian Peninsula. They are Berber people that were arabized through Islam. And even if waves of Arabs migrated to the region, does that call for their whole race to be uprooted due to Zionism? Why don't we take a chunk out of England or Iberia, as they were invaded by Celts, Latins (Romans), Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vikings, etc...
Thats ridiculous thinking. And something that the Kahanists use as their prime reasoning for an Israeli state.


Indo-Europeans were in large parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan before most Dravidians moved in and mixed with them. Does this mean Europeans should go and conquer these nations to set up an all-white state?



The general populace in America is pro-Israel and the media is largely pro-Israel.
let me tell a reason conversation with a Republican evangelical:

Christian: God Bless Israel
Me: You realize they are provoking the conflict with Iran? And we could lose thousands of American lives for Israeli's interests?
Christian: No, Israelis just want to live in peace
Me: Most Jews in Israel can't even trace their ancestry back to the region you know. They are Ashkenazis
Christian: Where does it say that in the bible? God promised all the Jews that land.



To be anti-Israel in the U.S. is to be considered anti-semitic.

The purpose of ADL is infact to bully around any Anti-Zionist views and to deem them as anit-semitic. When really the ADL denies the Armenian Holocaust. I guess if Indo-Europeans are killed by another race then its no big deal. But if Indo-Europeans kill the Jews, then you must stuff it down the throat of every American student.


What with disenfranchisement followed by betrayal followed by brainwashing, the arab palestinians have never really had a chance to say what they REALLY want. If everyone had left them alone, they'd probably have their own state LONG ago, and be living in peace with Israel.

I believe that Sephardic Jews and Palestinians could live in peace. As Sephardics get along well with fellow true Semites in other countrys in the Middle East. Although it should be up to the Palestinians ultimately to decide what they want.

[Frost]

The purpose of ADL is infact to bully around any Anti-Zionist views and to deem them as anit-semitic. When really the ADL denies the Armenian Holocaust.

Abe Foxman recently fired Regional Director Andrew Tarsy for saying that this organization which supposedly defends human rights should recognize the Armenian Genocide.


I guess if Indo-Europeans are killed by another race then its no big deal. But if Indo-Europeans kill the Jews, then you must stuff it down the throat of every American student.

It's all a tool for Zionists to guilt you into supporting them.


I believe that Sephardic Jews and Palestinians could live in peace. As Sephardics get along well with fellow true Semites in other countrys in the Middle East. Although it should be up to the Palestinians ultimately to decide what they want.

I totally agree. They have lived in peace until 1948. Unfortunately most don't know that and buy into the twisted Askenazim Zionist version of things. It's a shame that Jews who are against Zionism are largely regarded as "self-hating" and ostracized by the Jewish community.

[turquino]

It is silly for people to have this Anglo-American attitude that somehow these Turkic/Ashkenazi Jews have any right to a land that was traditionally Semitic? Palestine while never an official state has always been inhabited by Semites. The Sephardic Jews are a people who do have a historical and ethnical claim to the land. However these Ashkenazis are said to have Indo-European, Turkic, and Caucus blood in them. Some semitic blood? Probably but very few. It would be as if the Bulgarians would lay claim to Iran for their (small) iranic ancestry.

Why should historical or ethnical claim to land be any criteria for its domain? No people have a natural homeland based on descent. The nazis invented the arbitrary blood and soil ideology to support their delusions of their racial supremacy and justify the expulsion of the Jews. We want a world with no borders where people are free to move wherever they want. The presence of Ashkenazi in Palestine is no less justified than Sephardim, Arabs, Greeks, Armenians, Druze, etc.

My major concern with Israel is the billions of dollars from America that go to out. And the total monopoly they have on the American media and government. Any candidate that dares says cutting aid to Israel would benefit America is called a loon by MSM. Ever hear of Mike Gravel, Kucinich, or Ron Paul? Obama grovelled before AIPAC, promising to attack Iran if necessary for Israel's own security.
...
I get the feeling from most politicians when they risk a war with Iran for Israel's sake have another interest other than America.

I’m getting some disturbing vibes from this, but a few points:
Why is giving money to Israel to spend on weapons any worse than America using the money on weapons itself?
Jews don’t have a total monopoly on the America media and government, this is plainly anti-Semitic nonsense perpetrated by neo-nazis and Muslim fundamentalists.
Obama didn’t ‘grovel’ before AIPAC anymore than he panders to business, union, and religious organizations. Furthermore, America is far and above the biggest imperialist power on the planet and the idea that it’s beholden to a tiny country is simply absurd. :laugh:

[turquino]

Flash and Frost you have some mixed-up ideas. Pleaseread 10 tips against anti-Semitism: http://www.revleft.com/vb/ten-tips-against-t88016/index.html

[Frost]

I’m getting some disturbing vibes from this, but a few points:
Why is giving money to Israel to spend on weapons any worse than America using the money on weapons itself?

That's not the point. America could be spending their foreign aid on starving children/disaster relief/AIDS prevention, etc. instead of pumping billions of dollars into Israeli military and expansion projects.


Jews don’t have a total monopoly on the America media and government, this is plainly anti-Semitic nonsense perpetrated by neo-nazis and Muslim fundamentalists.

The Christian right and Zionist Jews must have an enormous amount of influence on the media for Israel to literally get away with murder. Total monopoly? I wouldn't necessarily say they have a total monopoly on media, but its influence is clear.


Obama didn’t ‘grovel’ before AIPAC anymore than he panders to business, union, and religious organizations. Furthermore, America is far and above the biggest imperialist power on the planet and the idea that it’s beholden to a tiny country is simply absurd. :laugh:

Obama definately sung a different tune when AIPAC openly favoured McCain's foreign policy prior to Obama's meeting with the organization. As for your second point I'll ask you: the working class by far is the largest class by number, yet is beholden to the very elite bourgeoisie. Couldn't the same elitist structure work in international politics as it does in class politics?

[Frost]

It seems you're the one with mixed up ideas considering that senior members of the forum tore apart and openly mocked your post. Linking us to a thread you made? Come on, that's a little arrogant.

[Dean]

I get the feeling that the "arab palestinians" have never had much say in their own destiny. They fled their homes - many at the bidding of the advancing Arab armies who wanted a 'clear field of fire' at the Israeli palestinians - only to find themselves in exile. Israel didn't want them back (they probably regarded them as traitors or something), and suddenly, their Arab brothers didn't want anything to do with them (in terms of allowing them asylum), forcing them into refugee camps.
I have never heard of this. It is a fact that the Israelis encouraged the Arabs to leave by reating unfavorable conditions, and some towns were forcefully evacuated.


And THEN the militant Islamists started using the arab palestinians (through the PLO) as proxy troops in their war to create an Islamic state throughout the region.
Really? Why can't there be Islamists - and secularists - at home in Palestine, as is the case? Why do you have to frame the conflict as if it were the foreign Arabs and Muslims "compelling" the Palestinians? And when they actually don't help, people ***** about how they "don't help their ethnic brothers". So which is it?


What with disenfranchisement followed by betrayal followed by brainwashing, the arab palestinians have never really had a chance to say what they REALLY want. If everyone had left them alone, they'd probably have their own state LONG ago, and be living in peace with Israel.
So when an occupied population fights the encroachers, they are being "brainwashed"? What part of liberating your own land is "brainwashing"?

Its funny, though. The one major obstacle to Palestinian statehood has been Israel, who imprisoned and killed their senior state officials. And here you have some vague "foreign Arabs / Islamists" to blame for "brainwashing" a people to believe that Apartheid isn't in their best interests. Unbelievable.

[Dean]

Flash and Frost you have some mixed-up ideas. Pleaseread 10 tips against anti-Semitism: http://www.revleft.com/vb/ten-tips-against-t88016/index.html

That article is distinctly racist, notably becasue it conflates criticism of Israel or anti-Israeli rhetoric with anti-semitism. Effectively, it is saying that we can and should consider judgement of Israeli as judgement of Jews; a few pretty bad conclusions follow, not the least of which is that would mean that it would be okay to say that a rational response to Israel also applies as a rational response to Jews or to Judaism. The author is severely confused, as are you apparently.

For instance, if I said that I don't support Shar'ia law and you said that was Islamophobic, I would conclude that you have a very prejudiced view of Muslims. The same applies to people who try to frame debate about Israel as debate about Jews, Judaism or whatever: it is a disgusting attempt to conflate a religious tendency or people with the violent tactics of a regime.

[Flash]

We want a world with no borders where people are free to move wherever they want. The presence of Ashkenazi in Palestine is no less justified than Sephardim, Arabs, Greeks, Armenians, Druze, etc.

I agree with open borders to a certain degree with America. I don't know about the rest of the world, it would be up to them to decide.


I’m getting some disturbing vibes from this, but a few points:
Why is giving money to Israel to spend on weapons any worse than America using the money on weapons itself?

Usually when America sends weapons or money to nations, they're used to attack another nation. While America spending large amounts on our own military can be justifiable.

Look at this Georgian situation. We give money to Georgia along with weapons, and they eventually used them to attack Russian citizens/peacekeepers in South Ossetia.


I have a feeling that all the billions going to 'protect' Israel will be used in a war against Iran. Plus all of our money should be spent on America first, IMO.


Jews don’t have a total monopoly on the America media and government, this is plainly anti-Semitic nonsense perpetrated by neo-nazis and Muslim fundamentalists.

People with a Zionist ideology and support the military industrial complex run the Main-stream media known as CNN, FOX, and argueably MSNBC (somewhat, no one really watches that network). May I bring up the recent Georgian-Russian conflict again. Georgia attacked the legally seperated South Ossetia and along with the attack killed Russian citizens and peacekeepers. In response the Russians attacked back, and perhaps prevented an ethnic genocide and slaughter of the South Ossetian people. The headlines on FOX News were, "RUSSIA INVADES GEORGIA!" in between the headline story about John Edwards sex scandal, and the average American sheep gulped it up.

EDIT: Someone earlier in this thread already brought up the Georgia situtation as a point of media biasness.

What I personally found amusing about this situation is how the Neo-Conservatives talked such a tough-game bullying around third world nations such as Iran and Syria, then to just see them throw absolute hissy-fits about Russia made me laugh.


Obama didn’t ‘grovel’ before AIPAC anymore than he panders to business, union, and religious organizations.

Thats true. Perhaps it isn't zionist that own things, more like the Military industrial complex. Whatever the case, they both support Israel's 'right' of existence.

Please look at Palin's recent speech before AIPAC. How long has she been Mccain's running mate? 3 days?


Furthermore, America is far and above the biggest imperialist power on the planet and the idea that it’s beholden to a tiny country is simply absurd. :laugh:

I agree with you 100%. I think the average Israeli just like the average American doesn't fully comperhend they are being used as pawns for their Imperialist governments. We installed the Shah dictatorship, hold puppet governments like Pakistan (Apparently Mr. Bush believes you can be a freedom-fighting dictator), support Israeli's over Palestinians, and then wonder why things like 9/11 happen. Then people react emotionally not logically to these sort of things.

Heres a quick over view of America's long history of freedom-fighting:

(theres a rule about posting links so I'll break the URL)
youtube (DOT) com {slash} watch?v=hDqhV52ww9A

[Dean]

I agree with open borders to a certain degree with America. I don't know about the rest of the world, it would be up to them to decide.
Open borders are anathema to the Israeli state, which has been built upon expulsion and exclusion. Israel is defined by a divisive mentality which has consistently refused calls for peace, cease-fires or mutual recognition.

I know you're not defending Israel here, but I thought it was important to make that clear to turquino.

This interview with Chomsky on the issue is very good:
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/17866

[theraven]

Open borders are anathema to the Israeli state, which has been built upon expulsion and exclusion. Israel is defined by a divisive mentality which has consistently refused calls for peace, cease-fires or mutual recognition.

I know you're not defending Israel here, but I thought it was important to make that clear to turquino.

This interview with Chomsky on the issue is very good:
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/17866

Israel has tried again and again and again to have peace with the Arabs. The Arabs play games, only take peace when they are down and use it to rebuild their armies and then they attack again. So no the conflict isn't Israel's fault.

[Dean]

Israel has tried again and again and again to have peace with the Arabs. The Arabs play games, only take peace when they are down and use it to rebuild their armies and then they attack again. So no the conflict isn't Israel's fault.
Bullshit. Israel has applied irrational conditions to every peace accord or treaty with the Palestinians. There is no nation in the world that would sign a treaty which does not guarantee that an aggressive foreign power will not attack them. It's ridiculous, and its perhaps more disgusting that the media succeeds in misleading people into thinking that Israel is granting concessions. They never have, Hamas has been the most forward in trying to make peace.

Please follow the link in my last post.

[theraven]

Bullshit. Israel has applied irrational conditions to every peace accord or treaty with the Palestinians. There is no nation in the world that would sign a treaty which does not guarantee that an aggressive foreign power will not attack them. It's ridiculous, and its perhaps more disgusting that the media succeeds in misleading people into thinking that Israel is granting concessions. They never have, Hamas has been the most forward in trying to make peace.

Please follow the link in my last post.

What aspects of the treaty are you refering to? Please cite the actual language.

[Dean]

What aspects of the treaty are you refering to? Please cite the actual language.

The last discussions - in annapolis - involved Israeli refusal to declare borders, halt settlement expansion (together this is a clear declaration of aggression) or to stop incursions into the West Bank or Gaza. The 1967 borders are simply out of the question.

I find it amazing that Israel is constantly advancing its territory by settlement and wall construction, and yet "Palestinians are to blame" for the failure of the peace process. Truly disgusting.

[graffic]

You find a nation of people advancing their country onto land which they should rightfully have more disgusting than kids and Women being blown up on buses?

Everyone knows that the biggest obstacle to peace is religously motivated facist terror organisations who deny the existance of a Jewish state on racist grounds.

Leftists should support progressive Palestinians who support a two-state solution and accept Israel..

Siding with one side and ignoring a groups right to self-determination is racist.

[Dean]

You find a nation of people advancing their country onto land which they should rightfully have more disgusting than kids and Women being blown up on buses?
Firstly, the attacks - primarily executed by Al-Aqsa martyrs brigade, loyalists of Fatah, have nothing to do with the specific policy and diplomatic proceedings between Hamas and Israel.

Secondly, the land seized by Israel up to 1967 was primarily taken from other soverign nations and the local population, which was driven out forcibly, by sanction and due to racist economic policies, specifically policies enforced by Israeli 'labor' groups. The Jewish people who immigrated to Palestine had no more of a right to the unoccupied land than the Palestinians, and they had a decidedly lesser claim to all occupied land.


Everyone knows that the biggest obstacle to peace is religously motivated facist terror organisations who deny the existance of a Jewish state on racist grounds.
I'm assuming that your proof here is simply that "everyone knows."

You're clearly ignorant about the region. Politicized religion in the Middle East is a point of reference used by social groups. The political reasons for Hamas action are real and have little to do with religion. The groups are not fascist, and to speak of terror is ironic considering that Israeli forces kill and kidnap Palestinians, primarily civilians, at astoundingly high levels compared to the Palestinian action.

The grounds for denying Israel's right to exist are not racist, and never have been. Contrarily, leaders like Hitler and Churchill supported the Zionist exodus from Europe because they wanted the Jewish population separated from the Europeans. Wanting the right of return and equal rights for your own people is not racist in any case.


Leftists should support progressive Palestinians who support a two-state solution and accept Israel..

Siding with one side and ignoring a groups right to self-determination is racist.

I fully support the right of Jews and Israelis to self-determination, but not at the cost of the self-determination of any other group. To do so would be one of the most disgusting, racist inconsistencies you can hold on to. I do indeed support a two-state solution as an initial goal, but the concession s have to be made primarily on the Israeli side, because it is the Israelis who break the cease-fires. It is Israel who refuses to cease its expansion into Palestinian territory and demolition of homes. It is Israel who has thousands of Palestinians, tortured and detained illegally. And it is Israel who has ultimately refused to offer even measly concessions, like the cessation of expansion into Palestinian territory during peace talks.

[graffic]

Secondly, the land seized by Israel up to 1967 was primarily taken from other soverign nations and the local population, which was driven out forcibly, by sanction and due to racist economic policies, specifically policies enforced by Israeli 'labor' groups. The Jewish people who immigrated to Palestine had no more of a right to the unoccupied land than the Palestinians, and they had a decidedly lesser claim to all occupied land.

What your saying is true, however my point was that none of that justifys terror. "Seizing" land is no way near as disgusting as the terror Palestinians use against innocent Israelis.. That was what you said.


The political reasons for Hamas action are real and have little to do with religion.

Yes, they are real Dean and they have alot to do with religion.

Why don't you read the Hamas charter, look at their wiki page, just actually study who they are before assuming things.


The groups are not fascist

What the fuck is it with you and defending religous nuts? Hamas is facist, Islamic Jihad is facist, Hizbullah is facist. They are racist to the bone and shouldnt be supported.


Israeli forces kill and kidnap Palestinians, primarily civilians, at astoundingly high levels compared to the Palestinian action.

Yes the IDF targets civilians, the Jews are slimy murderers who enjoy beating up innocent Palestinians. You read too much Arab propaganda my friend.



And it is Israel who has ultimately refused to offer even measly concessions, like the cessation of expansion into Palestinian territory during peace talks.

Thats not true and you know it. The Palestinians have refused every offer on the table (I say Palestinians, the reality is whoever "leads" the Palestinians is bribed and corrupted into making reactionary decisons by other Arab leaders, who couldnt give a fuck about the Palestinians plight).

The whole problem roots back to the Jews accepting partition and the Arabs rejecting it.

[Dean]

What your saying is true, however my point was that none of that justifys terror. "Seizing" land is no way near as disgusting as the terror Palestinians use against innocent Israelis.. That was what you said.
What you say is true, but I never once brought up the issue of civilian casualties. I don't see how that relates to the issue, because I never once said that one or the other (land grabbing or terror) was more disgusting. I said that blaming the Palestinians for the failure of a peace process that the Israeli's undermined is disgusting.


Yes, they are real Dean and they have alot to do with religion.

Why don't you read the Hamas charter, look at their wiki page, just actually study who they are before assuming things.I'm actually quite familiar with the issue at hand, having spoken to people with first hand knowledge of the movement. Their reasons are directly related to the ethnically and religiously motivated oppression of the exclusory Zionist agenda. Religious rhetoric is neither a defining factor nor a primary motive for their action.




What the fuck is it with you and defending religous nuts? Hamas is facist, Islamic Jihad is facist, Hizbullah is facist. They are racist to the bone and shouldnt be supported.Unfortunately for you, the evidence for racism among those organizations can only be traced to individual statements. However, Israeli racism is clearly defined and documented in the entire Zionist program as it has existed since the 1920s. Jewish individuals and groups in Lebanon and Palestine are known to work side by side with the organizations.

As for the charge of fascism, that is laughable. The organizations have progressive policies and ideals insofar as they are judged in their current context, but they are not revolutionary. However, their failure to fully relate to working class interests makes them bourgeois at worst and liberal at best. They are far from Fascist in any measure.




Yes the IDF targets civilians, the Jews are slimy murderers who enjoy beating up innocent Palestinians. You read too much Arab propaganda my friend.It is wholly disgusting that you disrespect the Jewish and Arab people by defining Anti-Israeli rhetoric as referencial to Judaism and characteristic of Arabs. There is no reason to link the reasons for or against the actions of either side with their predominant ethnic background. That is racism, pure and simple.


Thats not true and you know it. The Palestinians have refused every offer on the table (I say Palestinians, the reality is whoever "leads" the Palestinians is bribed and corrupted into making reactionary decisons by other Arab leaders, who couldnt give a fuck about the Palestinians plight).

The whole problem roots back to the Jews accepting partition and the Arabs rejecting it.Are you telling me that you would unconditionally accept a peace treaty offered by a neighboring nation who is, while you are discussing the terms, annexing more of your land and demolishing houses in your territory?

The fact is, and it is sad, that the Palestinians have accepted such treaties. The Oslo Accords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_accords) recognized Israel's right to exist, but had no stipulation calling for an end to any Israeli aggression. Since then, Hamas has repeatedly offered long-term ceasefires. The most recent one was actually pretty sad, because Hamas was continuing to offer a truce while Israel was executing daily incursions into Gaza.

And in 2006, Israel killed top officials of the newly elected Palestinian regime. Israel completely and directly destroyed the fledgling state, and still, shitheads like you want to blame the Palestinians. This amounts to blaming the victim, which is ironically a typically fascist position. Wonderful, graffic.

Also, and I know I mentioned this a couple months ago last time you popped in, you are completely ignorant of the facts surrounding this conflict. You have refused to offer any specific reference points in the conflict, instead choosing to use vague points. And you have the nerve to call me ignorant about this! Some people here would have that right, people who live there or have more background. But you have exemplified ignorance of even the most rudimentary facts about the conflict. At the very least, read some news reports before spouting this shit.

[theraven]

The last discussions - in annapolis - involved Israeli refusal to declare borders, halt settlement expansion (together this is a clear declaration of aggression) or to stop incursions into the West Bank or Gaza. The 1967 borders are simply out of the question.

I find it amazing that Israel is constantly advancing its territory by settlement and wall construction, and yet "Palestinians are to blame" for the failure of the peace process. Truly disgusting.

Israel refuses to do those things because it cannot negotaite while it is under attack by the Arab terrorist scum.


What you say is true, but I never once brought up the issue of civilian casualties. I don't see how that relates to the issue, because I never once said that one or the other (land grabbing or terror) was more disgusting. I said that blaming the Palestinians for the failure of a peace process that the Israeli's undermined is disgusting.


So Israel refsues to concede while it's still being attacked and ISRAEL is the bad guy. Yea right.

[Flash]

defending religous nuts? Hamas is facist, Islamic Jihad is facist, Hizbullah is facist. They are racist to the bone and shouldnt be supported.


When the Germanic tribes were being constantly attacked by the invading Roman army, they bound together and teamed up to remove the threat to their homeland. When the Romans took over Gaul, Vercingetorix united the Gallic tribes under one force.

Simply teaming up with those of your own tribe is not racist, more like a means of survival. The Palestinians are nationalists willing to fight to take back their ancestral (yes ancestral) land. Did Jews live there once? Yeah but they were Sephardim and more closely related to Palestinians than the Turkic/Indo-European/Caucasian mixed Ashkenazi race. Even though they have no racial/ancestral claim they still think they have a religious claim.

Not only are the Pro-Zionists racist for their anti-Palestinian views, they are racist for the fact that if a Zionist Jewish-only state was in Europe they would've protested it. I wonder if all these etlitists Indo-European (white) people would say if Israel was in the middle of the Czech Republic or Spain. They would whistle a different tune. But if it happens to those worthless Middle Eastern people then no harm, right?

And speaking of Religous fundamentalism, you wouldn't believe how pro-Israel the Christians are in the south. John Hagee and all of their religious leaders lead them to believe Israel is created out of God's will and we need to kill, go to wars with iran/Iraq, or anything else to protect its safety.
And these are people who claim to be "christians", what ever happened to:
"If thine enemy is thirsty, give him water to drink"
or
"Thou shalt not murder".

These people are so fundamental Zionists that they blissfully ignore the aspects of Christianity that go against their doctrine. So its not fair to judge the Middle Eastern people for being religious fundamentalists when America is just as guilty.

[Dean]

Israel refuses to do those things because it cannot negotaite while it is under attack by the Arab terrorist scum.


So Israel refsues to concede while it's still being attacked and ISRAEL is the bad guy. Yea right.
The question was not whether Palestinians continued attacks during negotians and cease-fires. The question was whether suicide bombings or theft of land was worse, which was actually irrelevant to the debate.

However, militant Palestinian groups have been very consistent with the prevailing policies of Fatah or Hamas during talks, respectively. This is quite a feat, considering that suicide bombings are almost universally committed bereft of the powers of Hamas or Fatah. One should consider the extremely low rate of cease-fire violations by Palestinians as a point of respect, not criticism, for the Palestinian position. That Israel speaks of peace while it is demolishing houses, bombing and kidnapping Palestinians when it has a centralized miltary organization says much more against the State than attacks committed by vigilante Palestinians says about the Palestinian leadership.

I am in no way more concerned with land claims than with human life. But Human dignity, from your right to live to your right to keep your home, is critically in the balance when sanctions ruin your economy, in addition to the other abuses.

[theraven]

The question was not whether Palestinians continued attacks during negotians and cease-fires. The question was whether suicide bombings or theft of land was worse, which was actually irrelevant to the debate.

However, militant Palestinian groups have been very consistent with the prevailing policies of Fatah or Hamas during talks, respectively. This is quite a feat, considering that suicide bombings are almost universally committed bereft of the powers of Hamas or Fatah. One should consider the extremely low rate of cease-fire violations by Palestinians as a point of respect, not criticism, for the Palestinian position. That Israel speaks of peace while it is demolishing houses, bombing and kidnapping Palestinians when it has a centralized miltary organization says much more against the State than attacks committed by vigilante Palestinians says about the Palestinian leadership.

I am in no way more concerned with land claims than with human life. But Human dignity, from your right to live to your right to keep your home, is critically in the balance when sanctions ruin your economy, in addition to the other abuses.

I think Israeli's would disagree that whether or not arab terrorsits attack during the peace process is not a mater for debate. That's a big part of the debate.

[Dean]

I think Israeli's would disagree that whether or not arab terrorsits attack during the peace process is not a mater for debate. That's a big part of the debate.

Now, I never said it wasn't relevant to the debate. It makes perfect sense to bring it up. But it cannot be brought up as if it is an issue specific to the activities of the Pal leadership. It can only be brought up in the context of Pal security standards, and when it is brought up as if it were among some 2 or 3 central issues for the peace process, that is plainly ignorant.

[theraven]

Now, I never said it wasn't relevant to the debate. It makes perfect sense to bring it up. But it cannot be brought up as if it is an issue specific to the activities of the Pal leadership. It can only be brought up in the context of Pal security standards, and when it is brought up as if it were among some 2 or 3 central issues for the peace process, that is plainly ignorant.

No, these issues are at the core of the peace process. Thats why its called a peace process, it is meant to bring peace. for the Arabs the core is to get self governing territory, for the Jews its about being recognized as a nation by its neighbors and being at peace with them. Israel has expressed interest in providing the self governing territory, where as the Arabs have been elusive about providing recognition and peace for the Israelis.

[Dean]

No, these issues are at the core of the peace process. Thats why its called a peace process, it is meant to bring peace. for the Arabs the core is to get self governing territory, for the Jews its about being recognized as a nation by its neighbors and being at peace with them. Israel has expressed interest in providing the self governing territory, where as the Arabs have been elusive about providing recognition and peace for the Israelis.

Individual terrorism is a security issue. Quassam rockets from Gaza are a policy issue. Israeli incursions are a policy issue. Like Israel, I characterize suicide bombings as much less significant as the prevailing policy of Hamas. For this same reason, settler abuses of Palestinians are considered relevent, but Hamas can only go to the table and say "we would like you to crack down more on these abuses." Israel can only say "we want you to devote more of your police hours to stopping vigilantism."

To speak of the peace process as if you can expect wither side to totally wipe out individual vigilantism is pure ignorance, and this exemplifies how totally detached you are from the conflict.

[theraven]

Individual terrorism is a security issue. Quassam rockets from Gaza are a policy issue. Israeli incursions are a policy issue. Like Israel, I characterize suicide bombings as much less significant as the prevailing policy of Hamas. For this same reason, settler abuses of Palestinians are considered relevent, but Hamas can only go to the table and say "we would like you to crack down more on these abuses." Israel can only say "we want you to devote more of your police hours to stopping vigilantism."

To speak of the peace process as if you can expect wither side to totally wipe out individual vigilantism is pure ignorance, and this exemplifies how totally detached you are from the conflict.

We aren't talking about some random guy grabbin an AK and firing it. Suicide bombers are part of Hamas's policy, thus Israel can expect them to reduce it.

[Dean]

We aren't talking about some random guy grabbin an AK and firing it. Suicide bombers are part of Hamas's policy, thus Israel can expect them to reduce it.

Excuse me? Hamas tends to side with the bombers, yes. But in recent history (the last 10 years or so) Hamas has come out in opposition to the method time and time again. I suggest you do more research into the subject.

[theraven]

Excuse me? Hamas tends to side with the bombers, yes. But in recent history (the last 10 years or so) Hamas has come out in opposition to the method time and time again. I suggest you do more research into the subject.

Of course Hamas sides with the bombers, hamas is usually the one who sent the bomber.

[Dean]

Of course Hamas sides with the bombers, hamas is usually the one who sent the bomber.

Clearly, you have no interest in engaging in honest debate or providing any substantial argument or evidence. I think it would be fair to consider this "debate" over, considering this.

[theraven]

Clearly, you have no interest in engaging in honest debate or providing any substantial argument or evidence. I think it would be fair to consider this "debate" over, considering this.

Do you have any evidence that the suicide attacks are just random acts of vigilantism?