Results 261 to 280 of 280
The deaths themselves don't provide understanding as to the causes and perpetuation of the conflict. It is only via analysis of the power structures in place, and of their relation to the conflict, that will answer these questions.
"whatever they might make would never be the same as that world of dark streets and bright dreams"
http://youtu.be/g-PwIDYbDqI
...some of us might just like to just point out that there is a reason that the 'proper' UN are doing their own investigation. Mainly because the upper echelons of the UN, as well as many western governments, pretty much dismiss the UNHRC as a bit of an Israel-bashing entity, not the comprehensive, free from bias bunch they're supposed to be. They did under Kofi, as they do under Ban Ki-moon. So let's not run around expecting the UN to pay any attention to that, they'll let their own investigation help them decide what exactly they'll want to do about the situation
If you question the legitimacy of Israel as a nation state then technically you question the legitimacy of nearly all nation states- see the problem?
Re Arab-Israelis- I know some Arab-Israelis personally- they obviously have a particular viewpoint on the problem but I don't think they are discriminated against directly in Israel and they all have Israeli passports. Of course prejudice is bound to exist. Racism didn't disappear with apartheid etc etc.
But the whole problem is very complex and I don't think it helps by bringing it down to such binary analyses either.
-www.revleft.org-
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
красные лисы
Displacements are wrong, end of. This is why the state of Israel is largely illegitimate as it continues to displace and expand it's borders contrary to international law and human rights.
largely illegitimate- Which bits are legitimate and which bits aren't then? In your opinion.
-www.revleft.org-
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
красные лисы
Well the borders that are recognised by international law. Beyond that it is criminal.
What isn't legitimate is the war crimes carried out by the Zionist government; the inhumane blockade, the daily acts of aggression, oppression, attacks on their neighbours, land theft, the racist and sectarian agenda and the lies that are fed to the media.
A good source for information about the truth is this jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html
Erm, no .... more twists and distortions which only looks at the history through the eyes of Israel and the USA and gives one side of the story.
Right, I've not read this entire thread but thought I might contribute some answers for the original questions. From what I've read so far people have basically been saying ''the evol Imperialists signed a blood pact with the Zionist Imperialist scum to DESTROY THE ARAB PEOPLEZ!''
To understand why Israel was created we must delve back into the latter half of the 19th century. During this period the Zionist movement was born. Essentially the Zionist movement wanted a homeland for the Jewish people. Nothing more, nothing less. But this raised an important question - where? The Jewish people were spread widely across the entire world (mostly in Central and Eastern Europe though) and were the majority nowhere. The solution was for the Jews to emigrate to a new land and colonise it (this might have been partly inspired by the European colonisation of Africa which occured at the same time as Zionism developed at the tail end of the 19th century). The obvious choice was the Holy Land, this was extremely popular with the Jews themselves within the movement as this land was obviously their Biblical home. However there were problems. The only power that was really receptive to the Zionist movement was Great Britain - it did not own Palestine - the region belonged to the Ottoman Empire.
At this time the British actually offered a strip of land aproximately consisting of modern Uganda as the Jewish homeland. The Zionists were nearly accepted the proposal. Remember that at this time the prospects of getting any of the Holy Land were very poor.
From the early 20th century Jews started to emigrate to the Ottoman province of Palestine as Zionists bought up land. The Turks accepted this as it brought some wealth to an impoverished backwater province and helped refocus some anti-Turk hostility. But at this stage it was small scale.
After the Great War modern day Israel, Palestine and Jordan became the British Mandate of Palestine (basically these lands were annexed from the now defunct Ottoman Empire). This was when Zionism really kicked off and mass immigration of Jews into Palestine really began. The rise of Nazi Germany helped push the immigration into overdrive. By the the mid 30s the Arabs were starting to get really concerned at fears of Zionism played a major role in a large anti-British rebellion.
After WWII the Jews owned large tracts of land in Palestine and made up a significant amount of the population (33%). The area quickly erupted into chaos. The Zionists started a powerful terrorist movement aimed against both the British and the Arabs, the Arabs likewise starting to attack both British and Jews (although they were not nearly as well organised). The British essentially wanted to get the hell out of that mess and rushed through the partition.
Here is a map. Well as soon as the British withdrew Israel and Palestine were drawn to the borders of the map on the left. A war immediately ensued in which the Israelis, against all odds, smashed a league of Arab states and annexed large amounts of land.
From then on Jewish immigration increased significantly whilst the Arabs were driven out. Methods of driving out the Arabs vary. Many were killed, many more fled as war refugees (1/2 of Jordan's population is made up of Palestinian war refugees and their families) and many more were forced out by Jewish settlement programs.
Why do Western governments support Israel?
A mixture of reasons. Firstly - guilt tripping. The Western world fealt very guilty about what had happened during the War and this played a major role in building support for Israel.
Secondly - Cold War politics. During the Cold War many Arab regimes adopted pro-Soviet foriegn policies (read Nasser) so Israel was a useful counter.
Thirdly - Jewish population in the US. There is a very significant Jewish population in the US which is very pro-Israel. The Arab population has never been so large or so influencial. Therefore this plays an important role.
Fourthly - end-timers. You may find this hard to believe but there is a very powerful force in the US that pushes for pro-Israel policies based on the hope that a powerful Israel will push on armageddon and their 'rapture' into heaven.
Fifthly - culture. Israel has a pretty Western culture, the Arab world does not.
Finally - Islamism. In a world in which the greatest foriegn threat to Western powers is Islamic extremism Israel is again a useful bulwark.
Why are leftists against Israel?
Tradtion.
Barbarous Imperialism - colonisation, treatment of Palestinians etc.
Sticking up for the little guy.
Leftists usually attack anything pro-US.
Israel is pretty right wing.
Just my input.
Reminded me of this picture..
i54.tinypic.com/2hib4v4.jpg
The area has been fought over for centuries, claims of 'its their land' are moot, especially in terms of leftist ideology. I also balk at the idea of supporting either Israel or Palestine, why not just support peace? Neither state is exactly secular, there are Muslims and Christians in Israel, and Jews and Christians in Palestine, but in both cases there are accusations of mistreatment and inequality.
Support my 3-state solution!!
In the end, the ballot must decide, not bullets Jonas Savimbi
Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers Aristotle
Thats like saying I don't support the guy beating up a guy with a baseball bat or the guy getting hit with a baseball bat, I support peace, its rediculous. This is a case of Isreal oppressing palestinians, what your assuming is a false equivilancy.
Follwing that line of reasoning historically then nobody belongs there but the original settlers in the regions that were dispersed when the Judean people displaced them.
Fact of the matter is that there was (relative) peace amongst the population in the region and the three religions were living there rather pleasantly for that time frame untill some dimwit thought it a good idea to start migrating there in large numbers and arming themselves using terrorist activities with the sole purpose of carving out a nation based on judaism at the expence of all others who lived there.
A three state solution is not a solution at all. That country can not be devided in equal parts without the parts being devided into a mosaic. which does not bode well to national unity...given the very, very umatchable ideologies and political and national interests.
Not in the least the interest of zionism which clearly states and propogates that the whole of the region belongs to the Jewish faith and no other should have ownership of land there but jews.
It also completely ignores the fact that there has been a population control policy going on getting massive amounts of people into Israel in the last 52 years...completely unbalancing the division between the three groups.
Not to mention the fact that the original partition was grossly unfiar to start with. Seeing as 30% of the population got about 65% of the available land.
The only solution is a secular one nation state....and that means the destruction of the institutions of Israel. (note; INSTITUTIONS.... NOT its people)
Also...refering back to your immage...it really doesn't matter how much land you take for you to be imperialistic in your designs.
Yes there is a huge imbalance in power, and definite abuse of that power, but (to use your analogy) if you as an outsider saw that would you go and beat up the guy with the baseball bat, or would you try to seperate them till they calmed down? Because remember you could shoot the guy with the baseball bat but his brother will just come back with a gun.
No that's not my line of reasoning, I'm sorry if I implied as much. I don't support any concept of nationalist territorialism, be it jewish or arab.
Yes there was a purposeful zionist movement, although the common perception is of jewish refugees from Germany, there were also many immigrants from Russia and other parts of Europe, since the late 1800's. It was they who started a terrorist campaign against the British.
At the moment its unthinkable, although in some areas Muslims and Jews live together in relative peace, this is greatly hampered by the actions of the Israeli army, and perhaps to an extent Hamas/ Fatah etc. But those political/ national interests should have no part of the 3rd State, by its constitution.
Hence my suggestion that the 3rd State be in Gaza, where people are desperate for peace. And together they fight against any sort of aggression from either side of the divide.
This will still be an issue but at least there will be a safe region for Arabs/ Muslims and indeed jews who want to live in peace and without fear.
Agreed and Israel continues to try to expand its borders. However the greatest issue we have to deal with is the immediate danger to civilians, the third state would ideally take equal amounts of land from both Arab and Israeli areas, and possibly create a 'buffer zone' between them.
With all due respect would that not mean the destruction of the institutions of hamas and fatah as well? I am no doubt subject to western propaganda and my own ignorance here but they seem to have a certain religious agenda also, with martyrism etc. If we went back to the situation before the borders were constructed would we not just go back to the civil war and bloodshed that preceded them? Or are you talking about removing the Israelis from all (current) Israeli/ Palestinian territory?
Agreed
In the end, the ballot must decide, not bullets Jonas Savimbi
Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers Aristotle
No I would try and seperate HIM, I would stop HIM from beating the guy, I'm not in favor of terrorism, but to act as if its juts 2 poeple fighting is ignorant, you have one party oppressing another, you got to stop the oppression.
Haha.....? Well, at least its original... more than can be said of the other 'solution' slogans, I guess...
Still, I think I'll have to pass.
You are ignoring the fact that this is a proposal to solve "the Jewish Question" as it was known through bourgeois nationalism.
Where is your class analysis of the role of Jews in Europe? This is just potted history. In the 19th Century, Zionism was a tiny movement among Jews. Socialism and assimilationism were at least as popular.
Actually, the Zionists toyed with other places, such as Uganda.
As I state above, Zionism was far from "extremely popular" among Jews. It basically represented a petit-bourgeois ideology, ignoring class divisions in Europe and among Jews themselves.
And, please note, the Zionist movement was kissing the ass of the imperialist powers. They attempted to make deals with the Ottomans, the Germans and the British. No account was ever taken in Zionist literature of the existing population.
And, again, represented, in spite of the idealism of rank-and-file Zionists, the beginnings of an outpost of imperialism. The migration to Palestine corresponded to the Jewish migration to the West, especially the USA.
There was no mass migration at that time. And, I might add, the softened position of the British had to do with Zionist collaboration with the Brits during WWI.
Wrong. There was relatively little immigration to Palestine before WWII in spite of Zionist propaganda.
This is so as the Zionists, while pursuing their own agenda, were collaborating with the British in oppressing the Palestinian Arabs.
The Partition was designed to serve both British and US imperialism and was supported by the Russians.
More later. On a personal note, during the 1950s, when most American Jews accepted Israel on the basis of a refuge from the Holocaust, and recognized that there were significant problems involving the Arab people there, the Zionists were pushing a program of virulent racism and Cold War imperialism. I know because I was nearly recruited to Zionist as a teenager and remember the propaganda vividly.
RED DAVE
Whose to say if the other guy had the baseball bat he would not be beating down harder on the other guy, for whatever reason, rightly or wrongly. Violence breeds violence, if you're not creating a new completely equal and secular state, whats the point in the destructiveness of a regime change? Or back to the analogy, yes stop him from beating the other guy up but just beating up the guy with the baseball bat will necessarily solve the problem, you need to stop them fighting and phsyically disarm them if possible. Can you tell I used to work with kids in Glasgow?
In the end, the ballot must decide, not bullets Jonas Savimbi
Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers Aristotle
No one, but so what, you still stop the guy with the baseball bat from hitting the other guy without one, how the hell is that an argument?
You need to stop the guy with a baseball bat from beating the guy wihtout one, thats whats causing the fighting, you stop that the reason for fighting is gone and most of it will go.
Enough with the false equivilancy.
