Blows to Israel Must Never Go Unanswered

[bemildred]

Posted mostly because it's in the LA Times.

Jewish history had prepared neither Gentile nor
Jew for the cosmic achievements the Zionist
enterprise would make in the process of
reconstituting a nation. These achievements are
easily summarized: the ingathering of a millennially
dispersed and diverse people; the regeneration of
its ancient and near-moribund language; the
fashioning of a lively and democratic polity and
press; a genuinely independent judiciary; the
mobilization of one of the two or three most
proficient and scrupulous militaries in the world; the
crafting of a commonwealth curious, open, tolerant
- a nation-state not unlike the United States.

At the end of a century of unthinkably cruel and
ultimately empty revolutions - Nazism, communism
- Israel stands virtually alone in the right to assert
that, after the crackup of empires and rage for
popular sovereignties, it is a success, and a
decent one at that.

Now envision Israel in its actual neighborhood -
the tyrannical societies of the Middle East made
even more twisted by corrupting and unproductive
oil wealth - and you have a standing reproach to
the Arab hubris that lies to itself.

From the western Sahara to the deserts abutting
the Persian Gulf, not a single regime beyond Israel
has so much as even embarked, or allowed its
entrepreneurs to embark, on the exacting
beginnings of industrial advance. This wide swath
of terrain on which a quarter of a billion people live
produces with all its hands and brains just about
what little Finland or Spain does. Remind yourself
also that not one ruler across the region governs
by consent of the ruled. Evoke the phantoms of lost grandeur put in the
heads of miserable boys and girls by dogma and dogmatics.

LA Times

[wtmusic]

1. Po' little nuclear-powered Israel

climbing the backs of the oppressed toward a brighter future!!

[Gimel]

93. No nuclear power in Israel

another myth down the tubes.

At least the author of the LA Times article seems to be familiar with Israel.

[durutti]

211. What?!!

Mordechai Vanunu would beg to differ.

Israel alone in the Middle East has nukes. Israel's estimated to have 200 nukes, more than India and Pakistan combined and the same number as the United Kingdom.

[Darranar]

212. Terminology...

"nuclear power" refers to electricity generated from nuclear reactions. The electricty in Israel is not generated by such sources.

[durutti]

214. Ah, okay

That explains it.

[calm_blue_ocean]

2. Sounds like Israel has . . .

a much greater right to exist in Germany and Eastern Europe than it does in the Middle East.

Seems to me like the world would be a more peaceful place if we (the US and Britain) had placed Israel where it belonged.

Maybe it is time to move Israel and redress this relatively recent historical blunder.

[Muddleoftheroad]

5. Fantasies

Ah, the fantasies of those who hate Israel. Let's just pick it up and move it somewhere else. Then, 10 years from now, would we be arguing about displaced Slovakian natives?

Sorry, Israel isn't going anywhere. It's time the Arab world accepted that. Frankly, it's time many on DU did the same.

[calm_blue_ocean]

7. You act like I am . . .

proposing to move Israel to some arbitrary location on a whim. I am not.

The article quoted at the beginning of the thread said that Israel's special status and prerogatives are based primarily on Nazi and Communist persecution. I don't see why Middle Easterners should have to pay the price for the persecution of the Nazis and Communists. The price (in the form of giving up land for a Jewish state) should be paid by the people who did the bulk of the persecuting. This is the reason that moving Israel is fair (as things can get in a messy world) and ought to be done.

As far as hating Israel: I don't hate Israel, you do Muddle, you Israel-hater. Please stop hating Israel -- it is not nice.

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. Easy to infer

If you advocate the destruction of Israel or the transfer of its citizens (ethnic cleansing), its pretty easy to infer that you hate it.

History is an imperfect entity. Israel exists in the here and now and so is not subject to debate.

[calm_blue_ocean]

13. I am not for any forced relocations or ethnic cleansing of anyone.

I am not for the destruction of Israel.

I do not hate Israel.

In fact, I think the Jewish people who choose to relocate will be much safer in the new Jewish state of West Poland. This is a fantasy (perhaps reality someday) born of love, not hate.

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. Advocating the destruction of a state and the transfer of its population

out of love. Sure.

[calm_blue_ocean]

16. Clearing up some misrepresentations

I am not for the destruction of Israel, merely transfer of the Jewish state to where we should have put it in the first place.

I am not for forced transfer of anyone. People who want to move, move. People who want to stay in Israel as it becomes a separation-of-church-and-state democracy can stay.

Moving the Jewish state is no more "ethnic cleansing" than creating Jewish-state Israel in the first place was "ethnic cleansing."

[yuvalmadar]

21. So why move at all?

Why would anyone want to move to poland?

Why would the polish people agree?

How will that help?

[calm_blue_ocean]

22. see post #7

And, yes, the Poles and/or Germans will be understanding of why Israel needs to be there. Holocaust memories are still fresh and vivid and there is a great desire to make everything up to the Jewish people if only they could find the appropriate way.

This is very different (understandably) than the typical attitudes in the Middle East.

[yuvalmadar]

23. You haven't explained

Why would we want to move to Poland?

I see no reason whatsoever for a man who spent his entire life In Israel to move to Poland.

Had it been a legit solution we could have applied it to the Palestinians as well (Less people to be moved) - we don't - that's called transfer and isn't legitimate because nobody has a right to forcefully move a man from his home.

[calm_blue_ocean]

26. It would be burdensome

for Jewish people to move, sure, but, hey, that is the breaks.

Not every religion gets a superpower to create a religous state for its faithful. Any solution to creation of a viable Jewish state has to consider what is fairest in the aggregate for all involved: the Jewish people, Poles, Germans, Palestinians.

The Palestinians have been making way, way too many of the sacrifices for 60 years now (and complaining violently all the while). It is time for the Germans and the Poles, and to a lesser extent Jewish citizens of Israel, to start making up for this historic unfairness because the problem is just getting worse every year.

Anyway, if a Jewish Israeli wants to stay in Israel after the change he would then get the experience of living under a separation-of-church-and-state democracy. This is a wonderful way to govern -- it is one of the best features of US government! All to the good.

About the only reason I can see for moving to Poland after the change would be safety concerns, which would be greatly reduced under my plans, but perhaps still present.

[yuvalmadar]

29. I still can't figure out

What the poles and Germans have to do with it.

About the separation of church and state, I agree with you, as most Israelis do, but again I fail to understand the connection between it and the I/P conflict.

Whatever reason you believe we should leave to Poland (And I am yet to understand how that'll be any different than the transfer), there is absolutely no way that'll happen, ever.

[calm_blue_ocean]

33. If you don't understand . . .

what the Holocaust had to do with the creation of Israel, then I probably can't help you.

I am pretty sure that the concept of creating an Israel in Palestine was discussed before WWII, but until the world discovered the camps, it was all just talk.

[The Magistrate]

41. It Was A Good Deal More Than Talk, Fellow

You would be well advised to look into the history of the matter. A show of naivite wears damned thin when so determinedly pursued as this nonsense.

"It is wrong to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious."

[calm_blue_ocean]

43. sure would have been nice if Britain . . .

had gotten its act together in 1933 when it might have actually done some good.

I'll bite: what happened beyond talk? Why was Britain's and the US's (regrettably) limited acceptance of Jewish refugees in the 1930s such a problem, when these refugees could have relocated to the developing Jewish state in Palestine?

[yuvalmadar]

46. I understand fully

What I don't understand is why should we move to poland.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

141. why move to Poland?...

cause it has a really big Jewish graveyard...:shrug:

and because peace will reign throughout the world thereafter...:shrug:

[Lurking Dem]

143. I'm trying to picture the various members

of my Sephardic family the first Polish winter......good for a chuckle or two, I guess.

Of course, now that we've sold Poland a killer airforce think how many more Jews they could kill if they participated in a Holocaust.2!

[calm_blue_ocean]

165. Questions you might know the answer to

1. How many Jewish people were in (what is now) Isreal in the early 1940s?

2. Was your family there in the early 1940s?

[Lurking Dem]

168. Can only do 1946

There were about 500,000 Jews in the area.

My family was not there in the early 40's having already fled for their lives in the previous century from Morocco to the Carribbean and then the Southeastern United States.

The question of a state for the Jews is not just about who would have went where in the 1940's. It's about where those of us now will have as a refuge to go. Aliyah from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Ethiopia are all fairly recent historically as well.

[calm_blue_ocean]

169. We undoubtedly need a Jewish state somewhere.. the Holocaust showed that

Wherever we finally decide to move the Jewish state to, it will be harder for some Jewish people to get there than others.

I was mostly just wondering how many Jewish people moved to Israel (in its current location) after 1946, and how many were already there in the early 1940s. I also kind of wonder whether most of the Jewish immigrants to Israel came from close by (Syria, Egypt) or from far away.

[Muddleoftheroad]

176. Laughable

Like you really expect that the Jewish state will move?

[Lurking Dem]

178. I can hear us praying now....

Next year in Gdansk! :eyes:

[calm_blue_ocean]

179. It is tough to say what will happen

I am the first person to make the proposals that you are now hearing in this thread. I am the first person to call Israel a mislocated Holocaust retribution. I am sure that it will take a least a couple of years for my new way of thinking to catch on with everybody else. At this point my novel arguments are just too mind-blowing for you, which is completely understandable!

Laughing is good. It can help relieve the tension in your mind caused by the intense mental effort my ideas call for.

Why the Palstinians didn't make my arguments earlier, when they should have, is beyond me -- probably they too impaired by hate and rage to think clearly and argue as persuasively as I am now doing 60 years later. They can be *so* hateful. It is not always constructive.

[Cassandra]

180. Have you contacted the German and Polish..

governments for a suitable location for the new Jewish state? Have you informed them that this is your decision and that they are to abide by it, whether they like it or not? What were you planning on doing with the Jews and the descendents of Jews who were born in Israel or were there before the war? What were you going to do with those who refuse to be moved? Can the Jews take the Temple Mount with them when they leave? What gives you the right to decide, anyway?

" I am the first person to call Israel a mislocated Holocaust retribution."

You are the first because you are wrong. A Jewish state was planned decades before the Holocaust.

[calm_blue_ocean]

181. I have paid lots of taxes to support Israel

that means that my opinion matters, just like every other US citizen who pays taxes. Democracy in action.

As I said in another reply on this thread, before the Holocaust, the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine was just talk and empty promises (based on Britain's shameful colonial conquests).

The Holocaust made the Jewish state a reality, quick-fast and in a hurry.

[Cassandra]

186. Your taxes allow you an opinion...

on whether or not to support Israel. They do not give you the privilage of deciding where to move it, or to move it at all.

The idea of a Jewish state in Palestine was not just talk and you don't know that it wouldn't have come into being without the Holocaust; you just assume.
Do you ever read The Magistrate's posts? You might actually learn something.

[calm_blue_ocean]

187. Being a citizen of the world

gives me a say in where to move Israel -- it is an international question, not a national one.

On a more personal level, my ancestors helped to defeat the Germans in WWII, so, yeah, I should have a say in what reparations for the Holocaust are fair or unfair.

[sushi]

209. I have already thought about it

and agree with you now. If we are to have peace in the Middle East then one party should move, because they can't get along. One side refuses to be bullied by the other.

[Cassandra]

71. Let me rephrase that for you and see how it sounds...

It would be burdensome for Palestinian people to move, sure, but, hey, that is the breaks.

Not every religion gets a superpower to create a religious state for its faithful. Any solution to creation of a viable Palestinian state has to consider what is fairest in the aggregate for all involved: the Palestinian people, other Arab countries, as well as the Jewish people.

The Jews have been making way, way too many of the sacrifices for 2000 years now (and complaining politely all the while). It is time for the Germans and the Poles, and to a lesser extent the Arab countries, to start making up for this historic unfairness because the problem is just getting worse every year.

Anyway, if a Arab Israeli wants to stay in Israel after the change he would then get the experience of living under an actual democracy instead of a Muslim theocracy. This is a wonderful way to govern -- it is one of the best features of US government! All to the good.

About the only reason I can see for moving out of Israel after the change would be safety concerns, which would be greatly reduced under my plans, but perhaps still present.

How does that sound to you?

[calm_blue_ocean]

74. The problems:

1. You are letting the Germans off the hook for recent (60 years go), gigantic (4-6 million dead) and indisputable (Holocaust deniers suck) harms.

2. You are overpunishing the Palestinians for long ago (100s, 1000s of years ago), smaller scale and disputed (ancient history is not always reliable) harms.

I am not denying that Jews have been oppressed prior to the Holocaust. However, when I balance the Holocaust against the earlier diasporas and pogroms, it is clear to me who needs to pay the piper as far as creation of the Jewish state.

The balance that you propose above is understandable, but it is not a fair balance.

[Cassandra]

79. Since the leadership...

of the Palestinians (the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) was a frequent guest and host of the Nazis and aligned himself, and by extention, his people with the Nazis, the Palestinians at the time were not quite as blameless in this as you would like to believe.
I'm not letting Germany off the hook; they have paid quite a bit of monetary reparations to the State of Israel, without the mealy-mouthed self-justifications that the Swiss have exhibited.
I'm trying to imagine, in the wake of WWII, a state of Israel being created in Germany or Poland; gathering Jews from all over Europe, as well as the Sephardim and Mizrahim from the Middle East and trying to create a state there. The weirdness of that overwhelms me. The east Germans still have not figured out how to exist within a capitalist environment, and at least they speak the language. How would the Yemeni Jews have fared? Why would the Soviets, in charge of the areas you think should have been used, have agreed to that plan? How would ordinary Germans and Poles have reacted if they had seen money pouring in to create a new state while they were devastated and asked to make room for people they already considered to be aliens anyway. Do you think anti-Semitism would have subsided even a little in those circumstances? Why is it that everyone else considers themselves experts in where the Jews should have gone? Why are the Jews the only people not entitled to decide for themselves?
The idea that was Zionism was active long before the Holocaust, and Jews have been praying "next year in Jerusalem" for millennia.

[Darranar]

81. The British and the French...

didn't treat the Arabs very well. There were many reasons for the Arabs to align with the Nazis aside from anti-semitism.

[Cassandra]

84. I didn't say anything about anti-Semitism in my post

Clearly, it was only one of several reasons that the Arabs of the area sided with the Nazis, with whom they meshed well. Are there no repercussions that are seen as fair for being on the losing side? The Axis powers have acknowledged their defeat, gotten over it and moved forward. When are the Arabs going to try that?

[calm_blue_ocean]

86. Pre-Holocaust Zionists

wanted more than they deserved.

History is full of injustice, but international standards of repose dictate that the Jewish people no more deserved a state in Palestine than the Native Americans deserve to have the United States back. Of course, I feel badly for both Native Americans and Pre-Holocaust Zionists, but I am really, really reluctant to hand out (back?)nations based on long-ago oppression. A large part part of the problem is that these aren't the only two groups to have been seriously oppressed over the course of history.

The Holocaust, because it was so big and horrible, changed most people's (including my) calculus over whether the Jewish people desrved to have a Jewish state set aside. Before the Holocaust they didn't see fit to create a Jewish state -- after the Holocaust (and the oppression of the 1930s), they did. Of course, this wasn't the Zionist position, but it does reflect the position of most people who were around at the time. This is why Israel was created in 1947 instead of 1923.

However, instead of doing the fair thing in response to the Holocaust, the US, Britain and the USSR took advantage of pre-existing Zionist sentiment to make sure that they would not have to pay with land for the creation of a Jewish state. They wanted somebody else to pay and they figured out a very clever way to do this. Part of this self-serving strategy is to say, "I think the Zionists were right all along, even prior to Nazi oppression."

Israelis and Palestinians pay for this sleight of hand every day with their lives.

As far as blaming Arabs for the Holocaust, that is an interesting idea, but I just don't think enough of the concentration camps were located in the Middle East or staffed by Middle Easterners.

[Cassandra]

87. Not really interested in the way you twist my words or...

make up history to suit yourself.
"The Holocaust, because it was so big and horrible, changed most people's (including my) calculus over whether the Jewish people desrved to have a Jewish state set aside. Before the Holocaust they didn't see fit to create a Jewish state -- after the Holocaust (and the oppression of the 1930s), they did. Of course, this wasn't the Zionist position, but it does reflect the position of most people who were around at the time. This is why Israel was created in 1947 instead of 1923."

The position of most people around at the time before WWII was that it didn't matter if Jews were slaughtered en masse, so why should I concern myself with their opinion as to whether Jews "deserved" their own state before the Holocaust.Why is the opinion of Jews not enough?
Of course there were no concentration camps in the Middle East. That's why the Arabs had to content themselves with merely massacring large numbers of Jewish residents (many unarmed), instead of gassing them.

[calm_blue_ocean]

88. I am disappointed to hear that

you think I am making up history or twisting your words. I thought we were having an interesting discussion.

Despite the embarrassing anti-Semitism many US citizens evinced before WWII, I don't think it is fair to say that Ameicans didn't care whether Jews were slaughtered. This characterization is gross exaggeration.

Question: How many Jewish people were killed in the Middle East in the 1930s or 40s? (Not trying to trap you, I don't know the answer and I am curious).

[Cassandra]

89. Odd more than interesting

Your ideas about where to put Israel sound a bit like global fantasy football; well, lets put them in this other spot because it seems fairer and those other people will just have to understand. Except they won't and not only would it not be workable now; it wouldn't have worked then either.

"Despite the embarrassing anti-Semitism many US citizens evinced before WWII, I don't think it is fair to say that Ameicans didn't care whether Jews were slaughtered. This characterization is gross exaggeration."

The reason many Jews were unable to emmigrate to the US before the Holocaust was the anti-immigration laws put in place by the Know-Nothings and other assorted nativists and the WASP establishment during the Coolidge administration (or at least, the 1920's). There was NO push to loosen those laws even when the atrocities of the Nazis had begun to make themselves known. This country would never have gone to war just to rescue the Jews. Even those who knew and were sympathetic considered it political suicide to push the Jewish cause during the war.

"Question: How many Jewish people were killed in the Middle East in the 1930s or 40s? (Not trying to trap you, I don't know the answer and I am curious)."
The Magistrate, drdon or YANG would have better numbers than I do for that.

[calm_blue_ocean]

90. Another question

What year do you think the average American first realized that over one million Jewish people had been killed by the Nazis?

[Cassandra]

91. I assume Jews knew before others

but I'm not even sure when that was. Kristalnacht and the Jews being transfered to labor camps should have been enough for others to get interested, but of course, it was only Jews, so they didn't bother. Why should one in a series of massacres and forced transfers be any more interesting than the others, for people who didn't like Jews even on a good day?

[calm_blue_ocean]

92. Questions:

Do you think that the average American knew that over a million Jewish people were (or would be) killed in 1933? in 1938? in 1942?


Or did they get wind of this fact at some point closer to the time that the Jewish state of Israel was finally created by the US?

[Cassandra]

116. What happened to the other 5 million?

No one knew in 1933, including the Jews in Europe. In 1938, some had already left and many wanted to. By 1942, the government certainly knew, from Jewish agencies if not from intelligence.
The US didn't create Israel, the UN did. By 1948, anyone who didn't know the death count from the Holocaust had their head in the sand. Certainly, just past the end of the war, everyone knew, whether they believed it or not.

[calm_blue_ocean]

124. so 1946 ...

is the year that people petty much knew?

[Cassandra]

132. Are you going somewhere with this?

I keep thinking you want to spring something on me with regard to dates, but that just may be too much time here on I/P. I wasn't alive then, so I don't have a clear sense of what people knew when. I assume locations on the coasts with large Jewish populations (along with Texas which has a large German population) knew more sooner. When you've been receiving letters from family for years and suddenly they stop coming, and the same thing is happening to others you know, that's a good clue.

[Muddleoftheroad]

133. War time

During war time, it's pretty safe to assume that letters from a country that you are fighting might never arrive.

[calm_blue_ocean]

166. My point is this . . .

Massive knowledge of the Holocaust (not the mere oppression of the 1930's, I am talking specifically about the 4-6 million dead thing) corresponds extremely well with creation of Israel by the big players in the UN.

They may not have connected these two things (Holocaust, creation of Israel). I think these two events are intimately connected. I think that knowledge about the Holocaust is what convinced US taxpayers the Jewish people deserved the creation of a state for them (which is something that the UN and US generally do not do for oppressed religious groups).

Of course, the contemporary leadership and the history books do not say that the Holocaust is why Israel was created. If that had happened, then there would have been embarrassing questions about why the US and Britain and Germany were not giving up their shares of Germany, and instead giving away Palestine.

However, looking back on events as a young person who wasn't alive at the time, it is crystal clear to me that the creation of Israel was a big (the biggest?) part of the reparations for the Holocaust. We stuck the wrong (ie, least empowered) group of people to pay these reparations and that is simply not fair.

It is not what people have said that makes all this clear to me. It is the fact that mass awareness of the Holocaust happened in 1945-46, and Israel was created in 1947. The timing shows where Israel's right to exist really comes from.

[The Magistrate]

170. A Few Small Points, Mr. Ocean

England under the Labor government elected in July 1945 vehemently opposed the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, and did everything in its power to block its creation in the years following World War Two, hoping to retain the place as a secure base for English forces needed to back its hold on various Arab states over whom it held only treaty ties. Its principal interest was the protection of Suez, and secondarily of Iraqi and Persian oil.

The Soviet Union supported the creation of a Jewish state, as a means of destabilizing England's interests in the region. The French government, composed largely of maquis veterans, felt a real solidarity with the Jews, and similarly wished to scupper England's position in the Near East. The State Department of the U.S. was solidly opposed to creation of a Jewish state, and was over-ruled by Truman, who was very sensitive to the political pressures brought on him by Jewish organizations, prominent in the Democratic Party, and was of the personal belief the Jews ought to have a home in their historic homeland. In the last two cases, the Hitlerite crimes did have some enabling effect. Germany, of course, had no say in anything at the time. The U.S. government, however, gave no financial or material assistance to the creation of Israel, nor did it do so for many years after the creation of that state.

There would certainly have been no embarrasing questions about why England and the U.S., or the Soviet Union or France, for that matter, were not giving over some of their zones in Germany to Jews. The men running those countries at the time were rather impervious to embarrassment. The question, certainly, did not even come up; no one, anywhere, suggested it as a serious policy option. However, what to do about Palestine was a leading concern of the United Nations, as Palestine was its property, inherited from the League of Nations, and only administered by England under its authority. The Security Council refered the question to the General Assembly, which for purposes of the question was declared a committee of the whole concerning Palestine, which had authority over that territory vested in the United Nations. Arab Nationalist opposition to the proposed partition was rather badly hamstrung by their record of collaboration with the Axis during World War Two, which extended far beyond the Mufti Haj Amin. The Zionist organizations had already established an embryonic state authority under English administration of Mandatory Palestine, and were clearly determined to fight to get the establishment of full statehood for themselves. While the Hitlerite crimes gave them a great political advantage, it was the existance of this functioning proto-state that was the decisive factor: without it, there would never have been a Jewish state established, even in the favorable climate after World War Two.

As a side note, it never ceases to amaze me how discussion of any particular item in the present day so routinely devolves into attempts to deny the legitimacy of the existance of Israel, and various suggestions for its dissolution. It is unfortunate, and accounts for a good deal of the bitterness with which debate in this forum is often conducted.

[calm_blue_ocean]

173. Thank you for the thoughtful answer

1. we do agree that the selfishness of the European powers prevented Israel from being put in Germany (where the Jewish people suffered their greatest oppression ever).

2. I did not know about the US limited support Israel in its early days, or about the debate in Britain. It sounds like these countries were more focussed on the question "Jewish-stet-or-no-Jewish-state" rather than the question "where-is-it-fairest-to-put-the-Jewish-state."

3. As far as the embryonic state activities you helpfully cite, although these activities involved nowhere near the number of Jewish people that the Holocaust did. Also, it is quite unusual to see anybody on this board supporting any sort of embryos. I admire your courage in that.

4. Funny how when anybody on this board proposes that Israel be moved the debate devolves into false accusations regarding the dissolution of Israel.

[Cassandra]

182. Most of us here would probably support...

a state for the Kurds if we could figure out how to do that without the Turks going crazy. I once asked an Armenian friend (who, of course, hates the Turks) if he had sympathy for the Kurds. He gave a derisive snort and said that the Kurds were just the bagmen for Turkey.

" Funny how when anybody on this board proposes that Israel be moved the debate devolves into false accusations regarding the dissolution of Israel."

Funny how when anybody on this board talks about moving Israel, they talk about the state like it's a kindergarten class that needs to be bussed across town. Why don't you speak about Palestinians that way and see the reaction you get?

[calm_blue_ocean]

183. Okay. I'll ask

If there are any Palestinian refugees out there:

If Middle Eastern Israel opened its borders to Palestinian refugees and simultaneously outlawed all forms of religious discrimination, would you be willing to be bussed there?

Extra Credit Question: Would you be willing to be bussed there in the manner of a kindergarten class?

[The Magistrate]

188. You Presume A Good Deal, Sir

And on damned short acquaintance, too.

We are in no agreement whatever concerning your first point above: "selfishness of European powers" had nothing to do with the matter. To the degree the map and demographics of Europe were being re-drawn in those days, the factors were elimination of ethnic German minorities as a political factor, and the expansion of Soviet power. No statesman anywhere, Gentile or Jew, proposed the creation of a Jewish state on German or Polish territory, or Ukrainian territory for that matter, and any who had would have been laughed out of a career.

Fairness has very little to do with the world, or the practice of statecraft. The fact was that Zionists were in the process of erecting a Jewish state in Palestine, on territory under legal authority of the United Nations, and the question was what to do about it.

On your final point, it would be best if you dropped all pretense. Your proposal is utterly impractical, and you know it to be so. It is, indeed, a shop-worn disguise for a claim the state of Israel does not exist legitimately. You have stated above you are the first to propose putting Israel elsewhere here: let me assure you that is not so; you are, perhaps the first to maintain a dead-pan over the proposal for so long. You might well be a dangerous card-player, but my wager would be you rely far too much on bluff, and cannot last too long in a money game.

[calm_blue_ocean]

189. I disagree. Fairness has a lot to do with statecraft.

It is sad that the Jewish people were duped into going along with the selfish unfairness of the European powers and the US and Britain back in 1947.

Pre-Holocaust claims of the Zionists: (1) stale, (2) theologically-based and (3) factually disputed. The Holocaust was so big and bad that it changed all the equities, made what is fair and what is unfair much clearer. It is unfair to ignore this.

Israelis and Palestinians continue to pay the price for this unfairness almost 60 years later and they will continue to do so until the unfairness is acknowledged and finally corrected.

Also, it is grossly unfair to keep accusing me of arguing that there is no right to a Jewish state. Maintaining a Jewish state is neccessary and central to my proposals. The Holocaust mandates this. I don't think I could be more clear or more honest about whether I think that a Jewish state needs to exist. I say this despite the fact that I will be forced to continue to pay US taxes to help support a Jewish state anywhere in the world. Anybody who accuses me of not wanting a Jewish state is a lying liar.

[The Magistrate]

192. Like A Fish Needs A Bicycle, Sir

The hobby-horse you ride is too obviously farcical in its impracticability to be taken for any serious intention. It is practicability that is essential to statecraft.

[calm_blue_ocean]

193. I can live with this characterization of our disagreement. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

153. It wasn't the one-sided thing you portray it to be...

That's why the Arabs had to content themselves with merely massacring large numbers of Jewish residents (many unarmed), instead of gassing them.

There were atrocities on both sides during the British Mandate. Trying to pretend that what happened in Palestine was due to the same rampant anti-semitism that produced the Holocaust is untrue as well. Yr pretending that the Arabs living in Palestine at the time didn't have very genuine and understandable grievances towards the Zionists, given their plan for Palestine....

Violet...

[Cassandra]

158. They did have grievances...

but they also hated them because they were Jews; why else kill unarmed religious Jews who were not Zionists? Either way, the Nazis found a nice bunch of friends there. Whether the anti-Semitism was whipped up by the Grand Mufti with or without the help of the Nazis doesn't really matter to those who died. And if they hadn't prevented the British from letting more Jews into Palestine, some of those trying to escape the Holocaust might have lived. There were many who died waiting for visas from other countries which would have taken years to arrive.

[Violet_Crumble]

160. Bulltwaddle...

So because Jews killed unarmed religious Arabs, they were Arab haters? Or does it only work the other way?

Also, it wasn't only Arabs who prevented the British from letting more Jews into Palestine. Right from the start of the British Mandate, Chaim Weizmann was opposed to allowing mass immigration into Palestine and even in the pre-WWII days when there were pogroms in Russia, he only wanted those who brought capital with them and people who were healthy or skilled. The ill and those who couldn't work weren't welcome....

Hey, you want to lay blame for the lives lost in the Holocaust. Start looking a bit closer to home and point a finger at the US govt of the time. When news of the genocide became known, they reacted the exact same way they did to the genocide of Armenians during the First World War, and the same way the US has responded to every genocide since. And what they did was nothing....


Violet...

[Cassandra]

163. I didn't know bulls twaddled...

but at least you spelled it out. :-)
That idiot who went into a mosque and shot up the place and the worshippers was certainly an Arab hater, as are those misguided nuts who support him. Most Palestinians who object to the killing of innocent Israelis would probably be shot as collaborators by their own side.
I have already pointed a finger at the US for it's refusal to take in those fleeing the Holocaust in other threads.
I have my doubts that Weizmann made his decisions in a power vacuum. Do you think if he had pleaded a case for the refugees, anyone would have cared before 1945?

[TheYellowDog]

119. But,

Arabs deserve Israel because they are Arab? :shrug: When does being Arab entitle you to special rights?

[calm_blue_ocean]

126. Answer

I guess the same reason that being US entitles the US to being US. International standards of repose.

[Gimel]

95. Mixed-up history

While you say that the article expains about Nazism and Communism pushing modern Israel into existence, you turn around and say it was the "superpower" that befriended the lost people and gave it a state.

So you want to transform American separation-of-church and state (it doesn't exist elsewhere, historically) to Israel and to do it forcefully. Isn't that the American way?

Manichaesm, which is a religious philosophy originated in Persia, explains the polarity of how the victor actually absorbs the quality of the loser. American politics and society became more like the Nazis, according to this concept, after the second world war.

The Jews were victims, and were described as being passive throughout, not doing anything to save themselves as they were hearded into the ovens of Auschwitz.

The first generation of "Sabras", native born Israelis, scoffed at their parents generation for this passivity. This fear of being too passive is what is the strength of the State of Israel. Not the support of American administrations after 1967.

[calm_blue_ocean]

96. Responses

1. I want a Jewish state to continue. I think the shame and tragedy of the Holocaust mandates this. The separation-of-church-and-state-Israel is *only* proposed as part of a larger plan that includes moving Jewish state to Poland and/or Germany.

2. I don't think there would be a Middle Eastern Israel now had it not been for US support in the 1940s, the 1960s, now and at all points between. Maybe I am wrong about this?

[Gimel]

123. Decidedly

While the US has been friendly towards Israel and to the idea of a Jewish state, the state itself was created by the vulcanic forces of the holocaust. I'm not taking time now to describe the process in its historical fulness. It was European anti-semitism that forced the Jews out, beginning more than 50 years before the Holocaust.

It is hubris to say that the US created Israel. Israel found the means to defeat attackers in the '67 war without support from the US. That financial support increased only after Camp David. Egypt received as much as Israel, and the loans given to Egypt were forgiven about four years ago. Israel repays the loans plus interest. Do you say the US created Egypt as well?

[calm_blue_ocean]

125. Dispositive question

Okay, we can just cut off US to Israel and reduce our deficit. Good luck.

[Gimel]

128. Not your decision, I might add

If you think that's a final check-mate to the game, it isn't. Israel, as I said repays all loans. That means that much of the grant money now received is being used to repay previous loans.

If you alone had the power to cut of US aid to Israel, you might consider the possibility of loosing Israel's trade business, which has increased in the last 10 years, and other loses that might incurr. Israelis no longer buying US made cars, or US made TVs and appliances, etc. That might help cut down the deficit, as Israelis would be too poor to keep up the payments on the loans.

Apparently you think that forgiving debts to Egypt should be balanced by eliminating aid to Israel. This shows your bias, as it not only favors Egpyt but punishes Israel. That in turn would help the Palestinians suffer more, so they could attack more, as Israel would no longer be able to support them or give them jobs.

Then the Syrians, and Iranians could use their US aid to launch strikes agains Israel, seeing that Israel has lost favor with the US.

Nice peace maker.

[calm_blue_ocean]

164. Helpful answer, I think we might agree now

1. I was talking about aid to Isreal (grants, loans with seetheart terms). Not other loans. True loans shouldn't cost the US anything in the long run and so are just a distraction with respect to this strand of the discussion.

2. We can eliminate aid to Iran and Syria, too. Sounds only fair. You make a good point.

3. It sounds like you think that Israel could and would continue if the US withdrew aids from all sides in the region. Hopefully, we can agree that this is exactly what the US should do. Like I said above, nice deficit reduction tool for the US.

[Gimel]

194. Loan Guarantees

1. Yes, the 9 billion dollar loan guarantees that were of so much interest here a few months ago (actually it's 3 billion a year over 3 years time) allow Israel to raise that much money on the US market. sounds complicated, but it still is essentially a series of loans, that are repaid with interest. It's the way banks and creditors gain from the poor.

2. If the US goes out of the foreign aid business, there are dozens of strings to cut. Turkey gets aid, as does Egypt and Jordan.

Here ia a copy of the US budget International Assistance programs:

http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2004/pdf/budget/state.pdf

Much can be eliminated here, if the US wishes to return to a time of isolationism.

3. I'm not sure that the US sould withdraw all financial aid. Primarily because the aid enables the US to act as an influence, above just that of the market. Unforunately, the timing is wrong. To withdraw now would seen the signal that the US has been defeated by the terrorists.

[calm_blue_ocean]

195. Miliitary aid, humanitarian aid and victory against terrorism

1. I am glad to hear that Israel has gotten to the point where it can do without US military aid. Sounds like the time is ripe: no further military aid or loans to enemies of Israel; no further military aid or loans to Israel. We have plenty of domestic needs for that money right here in the US now, anyway.

2. Humanitarian aid: If US humanitarian aid is subverted into paying for military and/or terrorism, then humanitarian aid is a bad idea. If humanitarian aid can be kept truly "humanitarian," then I think the US should keep giving humanitarian aid.

3. If a US policy of isolationism with respect to the Middle East would frighten Middle Eastern terrorists so much that they stopped making terrorist attacks on US soil, then I would consider that to be a great and cost-effective victory against terrorism. Sounds like a good strategy to me.

[Gimel]

200. Netenyahu crafted this

1. The famous Bibi ws promoting the idea of voluntarily reducing dependence on US aid. Prior to the the recent Intifada, Israel accepted a reduction in aid, at Israel's request.

2. You wrote that you do not include loans " I was talking about aid to Isreal (grants, loans with seetheart terms). Not other loans." in this idea, which you do not consider aid. Yet loans are often a part of an aid package. Israel repays loans on schedule. Some have been refinanced to save interest rates which for the US gov't was 10%.

3. I don't think a policy of isolationism would "frighten Middle Eastern terrorists". It would increase their determination as they would consider themselves winning the batle. Reagan pulled out of Lebanon after Marines were killed with a car bomb. Did that stop terrorism? It was followed by attacks on US embassies in Africa. A lesson from history.

[calm_blue_ocean]

202. Interesting reply

1. I think I like this Netenyahu fellow better than Ariel Sharon. Was Netenyahu assasinated by Palestinians or something (I honestly don't know)? If Netenyahu was assasinated by Palestinians, it sure would explain a lot about the way Israel behaves now.

2. My thoughts about continuing loans in #125 and #164 were formed before you had tentatively convinced me that Israel could continue to exist without US military help. I only propose to cut the loans as a way of extricating the US from the volatile situation in the Middle East. Besides, if the loans are not sweetheart loans, then Israel can get these loans (by definition of non-sweetheart loans)from other sources than the US in the future.

3. Re: your history lesson concerning the Lebanon attack. Another history lesson involves the attack on the warship USS Cole in the Middle East in 1999. After this attack on its military target, the US remained involved in the Middle East. Then later, two years ago today, there was then a big terrorist attack on US soil (I think by the same group). I believe that the US pulling out of the Middle East entirely would frighten the terrorists a lot more than Reagan's limited pull-out from Lebanon. The reason to believe this is that nations that are not involved in the Middle East seem to experience fewer politically-motivated terrorist attacks by Middle Eastern terrorists. This is a strong correlation. These isolationist countries have found a powerful way to keep the terrorists scared and shaking in their caves, far away from their borders.

[Gimel]

203. Netenyahu

is currently finance minister in Sharon's government. He is a former Prime Minister, and believe me (an expression I rarely use), he is far more right wing than Sharon. He was educated in the US and speaks English like a native.

Your concentration on the US military aid is your attempt to change the subject of the thread and content of my posts. You have convinced yourself that I have convinced you. Nonetheless, while I don't believe that the US is going to discontinue financial assistance to Israel, (the military aid is a minor portion of that), I'm sure that if it did come about that Israel would meet the challenge.

Going back to your post 96, you made two points. In point one, you proposed a plan which included The separation-of-church-and-state-Israel is *only* proposed as part of a larger plan that includes moving Jewish state to Poland and/or Germany

The separation of state and synagogue already exists in Israel. Israel is definately not a chess piece for moving around the globe.

In point two you mention specifically the supposed great support for Israel that the US showed in 1940's and 60's. This is a myth as well.

[calm_blue_ocean]

204. Good observations

But let me clear things up so I don't end up sounding like a hypocrite:

1. I clamor for Israel to be moved, primarily because I am a US taxpayer who is subsidizing Israel to remain in the unfair place it exists. This side discussion about withdrawing US support was a side discussion about how we might get US taxpayers (like me) to get their noses out of Israeli affairs. I intitially didn't think it was feasible to have a Jewish state without US support. You have tentatively convinced me that it is. If my tax money continues to be spent on the Israeli miliray, then I want to see Israel moved to where it belongs. If Israel can continue without further spending of my tax money, then it is none of my business where Israel is located. The option I reject is the option where my tax money continues spent on the Israeli military and yet people tell me that my voice should not count with regard to what is fair for Israel. I pay, so my voice counts and should be heard.

2. I was under a misapprehension that the US provided lots of military support for Israel, pre-1967. Okay, so the US had only limited complicity in originally locating Israel far away from the Holocaust (eg, I think the US voted in the UN to place Israel outside of Germany in the 1946-47 time frame). So what?

3. People are saying I have no right to speak out on this subject because there is something that they do not want to respond to in substance, specifically: Germany was the nation that killed 4-6 million Jewish people and therefore fairness dictates that it is Germany who should pay with its land for this slaughter. I don't think there were 4-6 million Jewish people in (what-is-now) Israel during the WWII time period, or even at any point prior to that. This being the case, how could Palestinian oppression of the Jewish people be considered anywhere near as bad as the shame of the Holocaust? Even if Palestinian-area oppression of the Jewish people was the world's worst before 1933, how could it still be considered the world's worst in 1947?

[Gimel]

205. Who determines Israel's existence?

1. The US military aid to Israel is spent primarily in buying US made F-16s. That is, the profits go to Americans. The US does not supply the Israeli military with the majority of it's equipment, and none of it's manpower. I don't think Americans have the right to tell Israel how to defend itself, or to bug off to some other location.

2. If Americans supplied the Israeli military with operating expenses to cover a more substantial portion of its military budget, the US administration might assume more rights. However, Israel is not a US puppet. To claim that would be playing right into the hands of the enemies of Israel.

The treasury has proposed a
defense budget of NIS 30.5
billion for 2004, down from NIS
36.6 billion this year.

The current exchange rate is about 4.5 NIS per dollar. That is 6.78 billion dollars. If the US were to give a grant of 1.5 billion and a loan of 1.5 billion that 3 billion is still not half of this year's budget. You are not counting loans as foreign aid, as it is repaid with interest.


Of further interest in this :

there is an argument
over what the baseline for the cut should be:
the official defense budget for 2003, which is
NIS 34 billion, or the actual budget, which is
NIS 36.6 billion, thanks to a special American
aid grant and an advance on next year's budget.
The treasury argues that the baseline should be
NIS 34 billion, meaning that a reduction to NIS
32.3 billion has already been approved; on top
of that, it is asking for an additional cut of
NIS 1.8 billion. But the Defense Ministry views
the baseline as NIS 36.6 billion, and
therefore, accuses the treasury of trying to
cut NIS 6 billion, or almost 18 percent of the
budget, in a single year - which is far too
much, defense officials say.
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=338958

Therefore, the American aid is not even counted in the budget allocations, which is balanced against revenues from taxes, primarily.


The 6.5 million Israelis are paying much more heavily for the Israel defense budget that the 300 million Americans. You have the right to express your opinion, but it won't be heard very loudly.

3. You have the right to express your opinion, but if not many would agree with you, and that is their right as well. There were less than a million inhabitants on the land called Palestine during WWII. I haven't heard that Palestinian oppression os the Jewish people is claimed to be as bad as the Holocaust. That is not a factual claim. The raids on the Jewish settlements did exist. Settlers built walls around their communities with a guard tower as a matter of necessity. It was never considered to be the world's worst oppression, and I don't know where you heard that. The worst oppression of the Jews was in Europe and Russia.

Much of Germany and France were in ruins after WWII. Why should the Jewish people be forced to live there? Why should Jews have to rebuild the land that destroyed their own families? The Jewish homeland is Israel.

[calm_blue_ocean]

206. Some Statistics on US military aid to Israel:

<snip>

U.S Financial Aid To Israel:
Figures, Facts, and Impact


Summary
Benefits to Israel of U.S. Aid
Since 1949 (As of November 1, 1997)

Foreign Aid Grants and Loans
$74,157,600,000

Other U.S. Aid (12.2% of Foreign Aid)
$9,047,227,200

Interest to Israel from Advanced Payments
$1,650,000,000

Grand Total
$84,854,827,200

Total Benefits per Israeli
$14,630

-------------------------------

Cost to U.S. Taxpayers of U.S.
Aid to Israel

Grand Total
$84,854,827,200

Interest Costs Borne by U.S.
$49,936,680,000

Total Cost to U.S. Taxpayers
$134,791,507,200

Total Cost per Israeli
$23,240

<snip>

source: http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm

[Gimel]

217. I also have statistics

1. Although I've hesitated to post them, as some DU's object, the figures from the www.us-israel.org site correspond to the total aid figure. This is ALL US aid to Israel, including financial assistance and loans (which are repaid). You have labeled it military aid, which isn't even the label on the site you've posted. This is all assistance to Israel from 1949 to 1997, thus a 48 year span. If I added up the total I've paid in rent over the last 10 years, it would be mind-boggeling as well. As for the calculation per Israeli, that's obviously bogus, since the number of Israelis and the exact persons (many have immigrated some emigrated many have died and many born during that 48 years).

Have a look at the break down of the loan statistics:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html

This table goes to the year 2003 with a total of $90,420,65.

The military grant money for 54 years is 43,696.85.

2. You have not responded to my post. Instead you chosen to presnt a cumulative total of 48 years. The benefit per Israeli amounts less than a year's education per person. It certainly doesn't give you the right to determine the future of every Israeli citizen, Arab or Jew or Druze or Christian.

[calm_blue_ocean]

218. Fair points. Now: a more responsive response for you

I am not equipped to get to the bottom of the financial doings between the US and Israel. I don't think you are equipped either. I think that your assertions that the bulk of the military aid to Israel has come back as loan repayments, interst repayments or profits to arms-makers (not that I am particularly sympathetic to redistribution of US tax money into arms-maker profit, in any case).

However, you could never collect the documents and testimony to prove your opinion, and I could never collect the documents and testimony to prove your opinion wrong. This stuff is too: (1) voluminous; (2) finacially complex; (3) procedurally complex; (4) secret; and (5) hard-to-access.

So why do I, without complete evidence, believe that there has been a *lot* of outright military aid to Israel?

(1) if the US help was paid for itself, then Israel could get it from someone else -- and my suggestions to cut off military aid would not cause any alarm. My suggestions do which suggests to me that the US payments aren't simple investments with fair returns.

(2) all money transfers involving the military and arms seem to involve a high ratio of waste and pocketlining (eg, that recent Moyers show with the retired Pentagon guy).

(3) the numbers are just so huge (the point of my posting statistics, which only go up to 1997 btw) -- if Israel were really paying all that money back, then we could disband the IRS and re-allocate those employees to make sure that Israel just kept up its loan payments -- there would be plenty of money then to solve the US deficit problems and even add some new social programs. It would be nice to think that that enormous chunk of money cited in the quoted stats was a US investment with a meaningful financial return, but it ain't raining money here, which suggests to me that that money was, in effect, overwhelmingly a grant.

(4) Your voice denial that the US really spends a lot of (net) money on the Israeli military seems like kind of an unusual position. As you know, I am not automatically against unusual political positions. However, if the US weren't giving a lot of US military aid to Israel, it seems to me like there are plenty of pro-Israel voices here in the US who would make sure that everybody understood how little the US is really giving Israel in terms of military aid. That really doesn't seem to be the approach of most US, pro-Israel folks. If you were correct, I don't think you would seem so isolated on this military funding sub-issue.


Based on this incomplete evidence, of limited probativeness, I have to work with, I strongly suspect and believe that the US has given Israel lots of military aid over the years and continues to do so, even the 1997 statistics.

ps: until Dean is elected, of course ;)

[Gimel]

220. US Military aid

It is not that the US doesn't give Israel military aid. Indeed it does, and no other countries (except France in the early days) seem to be selling at the moment. It is not that this assitance is unappreciated and is not useful. Indeed, it has helped Israel considerablly. In 1980, when the Camp David Agreement was reached, and aid programs were given to both Israel and Egypt, the financial assistance (aside from military aid) really helped to boost the economy and help social and immigration programs.

But to assume that this aid runs the Israeli military, and gives Americans the right to dictate Israel's existence, even to the point of shuffling it off to some other location, is absurd. I showed you the difference in terms of the 2003 and 2004 military budgets. The overall budget for the year could be located also.

The relationship between the US and Israel remains a close working relationship. Egypt's loans were forgiven. Israel has not had the same consideration. Some of the grant money is written as loans at Israel's request, and those loans were forgiven. But that does not apply to the actual loan agreements. Look at the tables I posted and you will wee the figures for grants and for loans. That is the situation. Further informaing can be located in the US State Department files. I have posted information on this forum several months ago, that describe this total arrangement.

[calm_blue_ocean]

221. What the UN has the power to make, the UN has the power to move nt

[calm_blue_ocean]

207. Shared homeland

Israel, in the 1922-1947 time frame was *not* a Jewish homeland. Rather, it was a *shared* homeland, shared by Jewish people and Muslim people.

My proposal is that this region be returned to the shared homeland that it used to be during the British occupation years (see, my post #16), with Jewish and Muslim people sharing the land (this time without discrimination or persecution).

You act like there was some point in modern history when Palestine had no significant Muslim population. I disagree. I think Palestine has been shared for a long, long time. I think we should focus on a peaceful shared Israel (eg, separation of religion and state), while the new *Jewish* state prospers on the site of the Holocaust. Europe may have been in tatters in 1947, its pretty nice now (thanks Marshall Plan!).

[Gimel]

216. Shared land

This is true. Moslems have lived in Israel and continue to live in Israel. However, the Partition which was a UN resolution divided the land. Some of the Palestine that you are talking about was given to the Moslems, and some to the Jews. However, a considerable number of Moslems live in the Jewish area (about 1.4 million). The land is shared, both by partition and de facto residency. Some consider that Jews living in the "territories" are out of place and "illegal", This however, is part of the Palestine Mandate, and always was. I never said that the land that comprised Palestine, from the Mediterranean to the Jordon should be only inhabited by Jews. This is an extremist view held by radicals as a solution to the conflict.

[wtmusic]

40. 'nobody has a right to forcefully move a man from his home'

tell that to the settlers on the West Bank

[yuvalmadar]

45. This is not in my hands

I am with you, though...
I am against the creation of new settlements, and believe that the older ones should be evacuated.

[The Magistrate]

47. If You Might, Sir

What is your estimation of the sentiment of Israelis on that question? Do you feel your sentiments concerning the settlements are widely shared?

[yuvalmadar]

48. It depends...

The settlers are strongly against it, though most of the people are against them.
The normal Israeli is endangered because of them, and hates their egocentric view of the world.
Soldiers and money are wasted for their sakes, and that is outragous, especially with settlements with less than 20 people.
It's stupid political tool that does only damage to Israel, so yes, I believe most secular Israelis share my beliefs (Who are the majority of the Israelis).
Or at least I certainly hope so...


Problem is, the government doesn't...
The religious parties still believe in the concept called "The full Israel", believing we should control the entire region, like we did in biblical times.
And so many governments didn't take care of this problem to prevent confrontation.

[The Magistrate]

49. Thank You, Sir

Your comments are much appreciated, and offer perhaps some grounds for hope. Much, it seems, depends on growing the power of determinedly secular political parties by the next election.

[StandWatie]

72. the secular right is no better

They rely on the the religious for extraworldly justifications for their actions but they don't need them.

I have no hope.

[sushi]

208. I agree with you

"Nobody has a right to forfully move a man from his home."

But this is what Israel wants to do to Arafat! Is this right?

[Darranar]

142. I disagree...

the Poles and/or Germans will be understanding of why Israel needs to be there.

They didn't after WWII, when many Jews attempted to return to their homes and were sent away and/or shot; why should they now?

[Equinox]

110. yuvalmadar...

Exactly...so why did the Arabs have to agree to partition?????

...and around and around we go.

[Gimel]

94. "Where we should have..."

So you are playing God. Whore is the "we" and why do "we" have the right to choose where the Homeland of the Jews belongs? The Jewish homeland and culteral heritage is Israel.

[calm_blue_ocean]

97. Yeah

and the Native American homeland and cultural heritage is spread over all of the US, Canada, Mexico and more.

I will consider your points more seriously after you give your land back to the Native Americans. Your brand of justice is kind of understandable, but I think it has to begin at home.

[Darranar]

98. She lives in Israel...

so your point doesn't apply to her.

[calm_blue_ocean]

99. True

Maybe Israel can continue in the Middle East without US support.

In that case I would consider Israel to be none of my business. (I live in California)

[Darranar]

101. I'm not going to get into this argument...

it's one where my opinions have not yet been completely formed.

My only point was that Gimel does not live in the US.

[calm_blue_ocean]

102. Sorry about my bluntness.

I wasn't trying to attack you or make you feel bad. I just like a plainspoken, vigorous discussion. Your point was relevant and meaningful -- it helps move the discussion along so that we can all come to a concensus at some point in the future.

Please don't let me discourage you, you are helping, not hurting.

[Darranar]

103. Okay...

you didn't discourage me... I just thought you misunderstood me. Bluntness is not a problem in my view.

[calm_blue_ocean]

104. By the way,

I like your sig line. I actually used to believe in that Compassionate Conservative stuff to some extent.

The Chimp administration has got me turned around on that.

[Darranar]

105. Compassionate conservatism is an oxymoron

n/t

[calm_blue_ocean]

106. The preferred spelling is oxymoran

and you can meme that!

[Gimel]

130. No land

I don't own land in the US. I don't even rent there. However, the Native Americans have won several law suits and are gaining ground in their struggle, which I support. Nonetheless, the two situations aren't parallel. I mean the Native American stayed around, those who were left, after the disease and battles with the European invaders. Their descendants don't have the best of the American Dream, but some have built business successes.

If they wanted New York back, the city would evacuate, right? It's only fair. Out in Minnisota, where some of my family do own land, there have been court settlements. Indian land is theirs, and not even part of the State in that they run their own affairs (although they do pay federal taxes).

[rini]

107. what are you smoking?

[calm_blue_ocean]

108. pcp

pure, refreshing pcp

[chapter32]

145. Jewish people to relocate to West Poland?

keep fantasizing.

BTW, have you been to West Poland, as a Jew of course?

[calm_blue_ocean]

162. West Poland

1. As a Jew, I would not relocate there, unless and until: (a) Israel was converted into a secular state; and (b) West Poland was converted into a Jewish state.

2. If the news is a good indication, West Poland is safer than Israel. It has been suggested on this thread that the Poles would rise up and become violent, just like the Palestinians, if their nation were put under Jewish control. I do not agree with this prediction.

[The Magistrate]

171. West Poland Is Germany

Contrary to the old jest of the Arkansas traveler, who asked a local if this road goes to Fayette and received the reply, "It don't go no-place, it just stays there in front of my house," countries have been known to move. Poland underwent a distinct westward shift after World War Two: you might find it instructive to consult a map from, say, 1930, and compare it to one from the Cold War era.

In this matter, Sir, you are pressing a hobby-horse that cannot get anywhere under its own power. The world as it is must be dealt with, not the world as we would have it to suit our flights of fancy.

[calm_blue_ocean]

174. I don't care whether New Israel is . . .

located in Poland or Germany. I just want it to be as near as possible to the places where they slaughter 4-6 million Jewish people in the 1940s.

As far as my proposals dying, they won't die until a way is found to curb the violence in Palestine. Until that region simmers down, we are not yet at the End of History.

[Equinox]

109. LOL...

That's funny....I'm going to do that the next time some one tells me that I "hate" Israel because of my criticism.

I'll just turn it around and say, "No, you do!"

That's brilliant!!!!!

[calm_blue_ocean]

127. Yes

It is really easy to deflect baseless criticism.

[damnraddem]

18. Israel never should have existed, but it does and will.

That is an essential to accept. It will not be 'moved,' although it IS true that Germans should have been displaced at the end of WWII to make way for an Israel there. The current Germans or Poles did not do what the Germans of 60 years ago did, and certainly will not be moved now.

Now for the fantasies of those who hate the Palestinians: they will not pick up and move elsewhere, although many have left in terror for their lives or have been forcibly expelled in the past half century. Nor will those in exile settle where they are, rather than return to Palestine. It's time that Israel accepted the reality of the Palestinian people, their rightful claims to the land (and water rights) taken from them since (fill in any date after 1948), and accepted that they will have an independent state with its own foreign and military policy.

[calm_blue_ocean]

34. I don't think you need to displace the natives

to have a Jewish state. Just make it clear that the Jewish people are in control.

[sushi]

210. I don't believe

that when the Palestinians finally have their state, they will be allowed to have their own foreign and military policy.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

140. sounds like...

or rather, it sounds like Israel, the state, has a right to exist exactly where it already exists, while at the same time, Jews, as individuals have the right to live in Germany or Eastern Europe or anywhere else they are able to if they choose to...


and...what bearing would, "placing Israel where it belonged", as you call it, have had on the lack of peace throughout the rest of the world since (Kashmir, Chechnya, Columbia, Congo, etc.)?

and...don't forget that one man's historical blunder is another man's historical redress...or some such paraphasing of that wonderful cliche...

[chapter32]

146. Beautifully put,

Couldn’t be said better.

[calm_blue_ocean]

167. You don't understand how big a deal the Holocaust was

The Holocaust is the big historical event that is what gives Israel the right to exist. the Holocaust dwarves any opperssion of Jews that has ever occurred in the Middle East.

Because the Holocaust gives Israel that right to exist, the Holocaust also determines where Israel should exist.

Any other answer disrespects those who died in the Holocaust. It minimizes their deaths and uses their deaths as an unexcuse to unfairly oppress Palestinians.

[Cassandra]

184. Jewish right to self-determination is what gives Israel the right to exist

The Holocaust was the two-by-four upside the head to the rest of the world that they could no longer be trusted with the safety of the Jewish people; something they had actually been demonstrating for centuries with expulsions and pogroms.

Have you ever asked Mizrahi Jews what life was like in the Middle East before Israel was formed?

"You don't understand how big a deal the Holocaust was" ???? :crazy:

[calm_blue_ocean]

185. Yes I asked a whole bunch of them

They all agreed that it was much preferable to Germany, circa WWII.

[UnapologeticLiberal]

196. Israel belongs in the land that is holy to the Jews

and that was ours first and taken away forcibly by the Romans.

FYI, the word "Palestine" comes from the Roman name "Falestin", which the Romans named the land in order to make the Jews feel less connected to it. The Romans occupied it until the middle ages, when it became part of the Ottoman Empire. Then the British took it in WWII and acted as occupiers, drawing the wrath of both Jews and Arabs living there, until 1948 when the state of Israel was born, having been sanctioned by the League of Nations and later the UN. The UN had originally voted on a 2-state solution, but the Arab states rejected it and made war on Israel. The 1948 borders, or the magical "green line" are nothing more than, as a British representative to the UN in 1967 said when they were debating the wording of Resolution 242, "where the two sides stopped for the night in 1948." That is why Resolution 242 calls on Israel to withdraw from "territories" captured in the 1967 war and does not say "the territories" or "all territories." The USSR had tried to pass a resolution with one of those two phrases, but it was deliberately rejected by the US, the British, and a few other delegations on the Security Council. So contrary to popular belief, 242 calls on Israel to withdraw from some of the territories captured in 1967, but it does not state that Israel must return to the borders it had before the 1967 war.

I am in favor of Israel immediately freezing construction of settlements and withdrawing from most of the existing ones as part of a negotiated settlement. But I think Israel has every right to the land and has no obligation under international law to return to the 1948 borders, let alone pack up completely and move to Europe as you have suggested. I think it is the right thing to do and in Israel's long term interest to withdraw from most of the territories and dismantle most of the settlements, but I do not think they have any obligation to do so.

[calm_blue_ocean]

198. This time-of-the-Romans stuff . . .

is exactly what I mean by stale claims.

I would rather return the US to the Native Americans, their claim is much less stale. (the same ould be said of many, many other oppressed peoples)

[Cassandra]

199. If I decide I want Mecca

Would you hand it over to me?

[durutti]

213. Wrong

and that was ours first and taken away forcibly by the Romans.

It was not yours first. In fact, it was never yours...

First of all, Judaism is a religion. Throughout history, in various areas, most notably Khazaria, large segments of the population converted to Judaism. Thus, today, some Jews have no biological connection to the ancient Israelites.

Secondly, the Old Testament is not a reliable historical record. It is a highly mythologized history that does a racist hackjob on some of the world's greatest civilizations.

Archaeological findings tell us something quite different. Before the Israelities, the land was occupied and controlled by the Canaanites. Israelite tribes invaded Canaan in 13th century BCE. (That's right, you took it forcibly from them.) And before the Israelites invaded, it was invaded by the Egyptians, the Hyskos, and the Hittites.

Various Israelite rulers established small tribal kingdoms throughout over the years. But there was never an Israel that encompassed all of historical Palestine, or even all of the land occupied by the modern state of Israel.

Why should it belong to the Jews, as opposed to the descendants of any of the many other occupying forces who have taken Palestine throughout history?

Furthermore, why Palestine? Why not Germany, Syria (home of Abraham), or Egypt (where the Jews were supposedly enslaved, though we know this too is probably false).

FYI, the word "Palestine" comes from the Roman name "Falestin", which the Romans named the land in order to make the Jews feel less connected to it. The Romans occupied it until the middle ages, when it became part of the Ottoman Empire.

True. But what it's called is irrelevant. The Palestinians were and are the descendants of the Canaanites, who inhabited Palestine before the Israelites.

Then the British took it in WWII and acted as occupiers, drawing the wrath of both Jews and Arabs living there

Yes, but not the ire of the Zionist settlers. The indigenous Jews of Palestine were largely opposed to the Zionist project. It's also worth noting that Palestinian Jews initially had to live under military rule just like the rest of the Palestinians, until 1964.

The settlers, far from being angry with the British, at first collaborated with them, receiving military training and acting as a means to keep the Palestinians in check.

And you omit an important point: the Arabs fought for the British against the Ottomans, with the understanding that they'd be granted sovereignty over Palestine.

until 1948 when the state of Israel was born, having been sanctioned by the League of Nations and later the UN.

Utterly false. According to the White Paper of 1939, indefinite Jewish immigration and the transfer of Arab land to Jews was a violation of both League of Nations Article 22.

The UN proposed partition in a General Assembly resolution. General Assembly resolutions are non-binding; they have no legal force. (Israel constantly reminds the public of this fact, since its conduct has been condemned in countless such resolutions.) The UN never ordered partition.

Furthermore, the resolutions called for provisional partition -- a temporary partition to see if partition was a feasible solution.

The UN had originally voted on a 2-state solution, but the Arab states rejected it and made war on Israel.

Wrong again. If the Zionists accepted the UN's authority to partition the land, it logically had to accept that the UN, not Israel, would determine Israel's borders. But Israel decided to do just that, in defiance of the UN -- arguably an act of war in itself.

Furthermore, the neighboring Arab states had suspected that Israel was going to invade the area allocated for Palestine and divide the area between itself and Jordan (which was seen, more or less correctly, as a British puppet). Jordan's rulers had dreams of conquering much of the Middle East, Palestine being the first step in their plans. So the Arabs invaded not to prevent Israel from being established, but to prevent the rest of Palestine from being divided between Israel and Jordan.

Of course, even if what you're saying here were true, it wouldn't justify denying Palestinian statehood. It's totally racist to say that because some of "the Arabs" (a bit like saying, "the Asians") decided to invade, the Palestinians in particular should be held responsible.

That is why Resolution 242 calls on Israel to withdraw from "territories" captured in the 1967 war and does not say "the territories" or "all territories." The USSR had tried to pass a resolution with one of those two phrases, but it was deliberately rejected by the US, the British, and a few other delegations on the Security Council.

This isn't true. But this a complicated matter beyond the scope of this post. I'll post more later concerning it, but for now, I'll just note that at the Fifth Emergency Session of the General Assembly convening the war's immediate aftermath, there was "near unanimity" on "the withdrawal of the armed forces from the territory of neighboring Arab states captured in the recent war" since "everyone agrees that there should be no territorial gains by military conquest." (Secretary-General U Thant, summarizing the G.A. debate)

But I think Israel has every right to the land and has no obligation under international law to return to the 1948 borders, let alone pack up completely and move to Europe as you have suggested.

I've never met anyone who suggested that Israeli Jews move to Europe. The only demand that's been made is that Jews in the Middle East live as equals with the Arabs.

My personal view is that Palestinians should fight (violently, if necessary) for a secular, democratic state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The settlements should all be dismantled. The former settlers should be given to the opportunity to live as equals in the new Palestinian state. Palestinian refugees should be granted the right of return or compensation.

Israel will remain a racist, religious chauvenist state after the Palestinian state is established. Palestinian Israelis should continue their struggle for equality, employing electoral action and civil disobedience. Eventually, I would like to see Israel becomea secular, truly democratic state.

And when both states exist side-by-side in peace, secular and democratic, I would like to see them reunite as one state, called Israel or Palestine -- it doesn't really matter -- with the consent of the citizens of both states.

But that's a long way off, if it will ever happen. For now, Palestinians and their supporters should focus on the first step, attaining statehood and the right of return.

[Darranar]

215. Sorry, that's revisionist history...

the ancient Israelite kingdoms occupied more land area than the state today - at one time. This was recorded by sources other than the Bible.

Additionally, the claim about the Khazars is, plainly, a long-refuted claim. It is utter junk spread by anti-semitic hate sites.

As for everything else in your post, I agree.

[durutti]

219. About 242

Picking up where I left off...

242 referred to "territories" rather than "the territories" or "all territories" because the UN agreed that there could be mutual land exchanges between Israel and the Arab countries. Israel could have extended its borders into the territories, but it would have to then turn over an equal amount of its land to the Arab countries. This point was emphasized by the British delegate you mention.

Undr 242, Israel cannot expand in area. That's why the resolutions emphasizes the inadmissability of the acquisition of land by force. It doesn't say "by aggression", it says by force -- so even if Israel claims it occupied the territories in self-defense, or even if it really did, it still can't annex them. If such a thing were permitted under international law, states could blatantly use claims of humanitarian intervention and preemptive or preventative self-defense to justify conquest.

The resolutions introduced by the USSR (and in some cases, supported by the U.S.) to introduce more specific language into the resolutions were rejected not for the reasons you claimed, but because some states wanted to make the passage of such a resolution contigent upon the Arab states' recognition of Israel.

[HawkerHurricane]

3. "Blows to Palistine must never go unanswered"

And they can kill each other for the next 50 years, and STILL it won't end.
I avenge myself on you. You avenge yourself on me. And it never ends.
It wouldn't bother me so much if they weren't killing each other with our money; oil money for the Palastinians and direct grants to the Isrealis.

[bemildred]

4. Hey Hawk.

Nice to see you around.

[The Magistrate]

9. Let Me Second Mr. Mildred's Greeting

A pleasure to see you here, Mr. Hurricane. Please do not be a stranger, my friend.

I hope all is well, and you have some liberty.

[Muddleoftheroad]

6. One difference

As long as the fighting continues, as long as the Palestinian terror persists, the Palestinians will never see their dream of a state realized. Israel, meanwhile, will continue to exist as a state. So, if the Palestinians want a state, they have to stop the terror.

[StandWatie]

8. why do you believe that?

"terrorism" inside Israel was quite rare until the late 80's and no one and I mean no one wanted to create a Palestinian state.

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. Terror evolved

From the lunacy that was Munich in 1972 to Entebbe to attacks on Israelis around the world to attacks on Israelis at home. Every militant group evolves its strategies.

As for a Palestinian homeland, I think the Palestinians have been vying for one for decades.

[StandWatie]

12. fair enough

I think Israel itself would collapse in internal war if there was ever a real Palestine independant of Israel. It would just freak them out to bad.

[Gimel]

122. The "late 80's"

That was after the Madrid Confrence, and before the first Gulf War, was it not? The creation of the dialog for peace and the creation of a Palestinian State was underway. James Bakers words were being broadcast throughout Israel in 1989. "a properly structured peace process" was in the works.

Why the, suddenly, all the violent attacks? Is this to bring about peace or the kill the idea? Why with every move toward peace, Hamas creates a string of death in its wake?

[DuctapeFatwa]

15. Israel does not have a state, it has a weapons depot and mafia hideout

As long as the fighting continues, as long as the Israeli terror persists, the Israelis will never see their dream of a state realized. Palestine, meanwhile, will continue to exist as a state. So, if the Israelis want a state, they have to stop the terror.

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. Huh?

Israel has a state, has a government, has a military, has ambassadors and is recognized as a nation. It IS a nation, although you choose to dispute it.

[Violet_Crumble]

60. Being a nation isn't worth jack-shit nowadays...

You've gotta get with the program, Muddle. The major thing about being a state is that each state has sovereignty and until recently that sovereignty was generally acknowledged and respected by other states. Now we've got a unipolar world with the one superpower it works a bit differently. While US sovereignty is absolute and not to be challenged, the US gets to decide that sovereignty for other states is a conditional thing that can be revoked by it if it feels that state isn't living up to the US idea of what US interests and values are. Israel, being one of the buddies of the US, probably doesn't have much to fear when it comes to its own sovereignty being violated, but being a state really doesn't amount to all that much, especially when it can be pointed out that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was also a state with all the trappings you described and look where it got them...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

61. One other point

Israel having nukes also makes sure that the unipolar world won't eliminate it without trouble.

[StandWatie]

100. the De Clerk government had nukes to

all that is history now.

[Muddleoftheroad]

161. They collapsed from the inside

Israel is threatened from the outside.

[StandWatie]

172. if you say so..

I don't know how "outside" the West Bank and Gaza are, for all intents and purposes they are Israel and will combined with Palestinians living inside Israel (citizens or not, citizenship is not granted by birth and there statelessness is carried on generation to generation and is a growing problem)outnumber Jewish Israeli's within the borders it has claimed very quickly which will make a "Jewish Democratic State" an imposibiltity.

[Muddleoftheroad]

177. Not at all

They are NOT Israel. Both sides treat them differently. Sure, parts of them may become Israel, but are not treated that way currently.

And the Palestinians you mention are mostly not Israeli citizens and won't ever be, so they pose no threat to a democratic Israel -- at least politically.

[Violet_Crumble]

154. It's not really much of a point, Muddle...

I'm probably underexaggerating here, but the US is kinda a vital part of the unipolar world, wouldn't you agree? Without it, we'd have a multipolar world. If we were to go down the 'The Whole World Is Against Israel' path, Israel waving a handful of short to medium range nukes in the face of the US would probably earn it a short, sharp kick in the arse. Then again, if reality's anything to go on, what threatening the US with nukes seems to do is send US into a series of negotiations with the nuke-wavers, and torrents of hot and blustery rhetoric before the US runs off with its tail between its legs to conjure up a nuclear threat from any other state it knows doesn't pose a threat, and then when they've got their exit strategy all worked out to avoid another Vietnam, they give their arse-kicking a way cool name like 'Operation Enduring Cheap Oil And Eternal Democracy' and only then do they proceed to administer a butt-kicking ;)


Violet...

[damnraddem]

20. As long as the denial of Palestinian rights persists, the terror ...

will not stop. So if Israel is to ever realize its dream of living in peace, it will have to stop stealing Palestinian lands and water rights, denying Palestinian rights, and following policies that favor the terrorists. Who's the friend of the terrorists? Sharon. From the start, he promised them success: so long as they engaged in attacks, Israel would not talk peace with the Palestinian Authority. In effect, he gave the terrorists the green light to suicide bomb away any chance of a peace agreement. And if they deferred the bombing, he would order an attack. With Sharon and the terrorists each pushing to get the other to 'respond,' the cycle of violence was not only assured but ramped up to levels not seen before outside of open warfare.

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. Peace?

Honestly, Israel isn't being offered peace -- under any scenario. No Jewish person I know and none of the Israelis I have met expect peace with the Palestinians. All they hope for is a lower level of hostility.

The militants want to destroy Israel. The Palestinian leadership doesn't want to tangle with the militants. So there is no reason why Israel should deal with either.

[Equinox]

111. Muddleoftheroad,

Why? Israel got to be a state through terrorism.

They are remaining and expanding through terrorism, as well!

[damnraddem]

17. My version.

European history had prepared neither Gentile nor Jew for the cosmic achievements the Colonialist enterprise would make in the process of creating a new nation. These achievements are easily summarized: the ingathering of a continentally dispersed and diverse European people; the regeneration of its ancient and near-moribund economy; the fashioning of a lively and democratic polity and press; a genuinely independent judiciary; the mobilization of one of the two or three most proficient and scrupulous militaries in the world; the crafting of a commonwealth curious, open, tolerant, for Europeans, not for Indians or slaves. A settler state not unlike the United States.

No, there's no going back: the U.S. will not be given back to the Indians; nor will Israel to Palestinians. But the U.S. needs to pay reparations to Indians, recognize their rights, stop grabbing the little land left to them, and recognize their tribal sovereignty. Just as Israel needs to recognize the Palestinians as a people, apologize for the wrongs done to them, recognize their rights, stop grabbing their land, dismantle the settlements (going back to at least the 1967 borders), and recognize their sovereignty as a people with an independent state.

[calm_blue_ocean]

19. I like your plan

However, it should be pointed out:

1. Israel was created much more recently than the conquest of Native Americans in the US.

2. Native Americans have historically recognized US authority to a much larger extent than Muslim Palestinians have ever accepted the authority of Israel.

For these reasons, I think it is okay to make a policy distinction between the Native American situation and the Muslim Palestinian situation.


PS "Muslim Palestinian" seems awkward -- not sure of the correct label for this group.

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. Why?

You give a list of demands of what Israel must do, but why? Because you say?

As things stand, Israel gets NOTHING from that bargain and it loses much. The militants would still terrorize Israelis and the Palestinians would want to negotiate for just a little bit more.

[StandWatie]

28. Israel stole everything they ever had

how exactly do they always get to "negotiate" with people and land they hijacked in one war or another.

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. Misrepresentation

of history. Israel was granted a nation according to UN mandate. The Arabs objected and were defeated. The land Israel took then and in 1967 was the result of Arab hatred, not Israeli greed.

[StandWatie]

31. the green line isn't the mandate

it's the armistace line and if you want to characterize Arab actions in '67 as "greed" I wonder what you would call the motivations behind the Suez war and Lebanon.

[yuvalmadar]

32. Greed

I am not sure of the suez wars, but Lebanon was not of Israeli interest.

It was Sharon's fault as he decieved the prime minister.

[StandWatie]

70. he decieved Shamir?

Shamir really was stupid but he wasn't naive. He realized that the PLO had become a threat because they were capable of holding a ceasefire and asking for Palestinian self-determination and it chilled him to the bottom of his soul because once you open that door and realize they are humans with rights you have to start thinking about the former Arabic names of every city in Israel.

[Equinox]

113. Excellent post, Standwatie...

Shamir really was stupid but he wasn't naive. He realized that the PLO had become a threat because they were capable of holding a ceasefire and asking for Palestinian self-determination and it chilled him to the bottom of his soul because once you open that door and realize they are humans with rights you have to start thinking about the former Arabic names of every city in Israel.

The dream of Israel has become an historic nightmare.

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. Not greed, but hatred

Reread my post.

[StandWatie]

65. shallow stuff

"Hatred" is convienent but it doesn't stand up in the real world. Arab resistance to partition was rooted in handing over the fate of Muslim Arabs to a Jewish dictatorship. This is the only way partition could have worked and is the reason behind the behaviour of the Hagannah.

[Muddleoftheroad]

67. Dictates and dictators

I'm pretty sure the world hasn't seen a Jewish "dictator" since around the days of the Jewish kings 2,000 years ago or so.

But what you really seem to be saying is that it's OK by you that Jews accept absolute authority of Arab or Muslim leaders, but that Arabs or Muslims should never live in a nation run by Jews?

[StandWatie]

69. a minority shouldn't rule a majority

This was the opinion of mainstream zionism until 1947.

[Muddleoftheroad]

77. Hence partition

The original plan would have been better had the Arab nations not intervened. They did, the rest is history.

[StandWatie]

78. How would that have worked?

resolution 181 (resolutions are non-binding in international law gave 54% of Palestine to a "Jewish State" where only 30% of the residents of Palestine were Jewish. How could that have ever been a democracy?

[Equinox]

114. Muddleoftheroad,

What he's saying is if they wanted to move to Arab lands, then they should be prepared to accept their authority.

[Muddleoftheroad]

121. More complicated than that

The lands in question WERE NOT really Arab lands. They were administered by the English or the Turks.

[Equinox]

136. Yes...

but they were inhabited by a majority of Arabs. Now when statehood should be declared it should be by the majority...not an immigrant minority.

[Equinox]

112. Muddleoftheroad,

You're history is amusing.

I can take all your stuff and then force you to negotiate for it back?


That's wonderful!

Yes, Arabs hated Israel so much that she struck first!!!!!!!

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cassandra]

73. The world is upside-down...

when land purchases are called stealing. And hijacking is a loaded term, best attached to Muslim extremists.

[StandWatie]

80. I used it intentionally

the only land purchased amounted to 6.59% of Palestine vs the rest grabbed up and smashed to build Israeli cities upon.

[Cassandra]

82. "grabbed up and smashed"?

I think you're confusing Israelis with Palestinians and other Arabs in the area.

[Aidoneus]

85. oh

so it was all just a freak accident that hundreds of Arab/Palestinian villages before '48/'67 now have Jewish/Israeli names and citizens?

[rini]

35. Thank you for such

a good posting. Another reason Israel can never let blows go unanswered is found in an Arabic proverb

"You kiss the hand you cannot bite."

[chapter32]

39. How about:

"Whoever pats scorpions with the hand of compassion gets stung."

[cantwealljustgetalong]

137. how about...

"Kick them in the teeth, and they will kiss your hand." (Khomeini on his policy toward Western powers)...

[chapter32]

138. Interestingly,

that would yield either a “soft” kiss or just “harder” to kiss, wouldn’t you agree?

[cantwealljustgetalong]

139. not in my nature to agree completely as another comrade here might...

but what I will agree to is that for a region that is either raging or is always on the verge of raging, there seems to be a lot of kissing going on...

[chapter32]

144. Apprently not enough, and,

it has to be mutual. What good does it do if one side wants to do it and the other side keeps zipped lips persistently?

[bemildred]

37. I thought it was an interesting bit of propaganda.

I can just imagine the little chubby he had writing it.
There is no need to take it seriously. It is full of chestnuts:

"cosmic achievements the Zionist enterprise"

"From the western Sahara to the deserts abutting
the Persian Gulf, not a single regime beyond Israel
has so much as even embarked, or allowed its
entrepreneurs to embark, on the exacting
beginnings of industrial advance."

I suppose there is no need to worry about those Iranian nukes then.

"History moves forward, but not the Arabs"

"The defeat of terror takes overwhelming force, and only Israel
itself can provide it. Indeed, only Israel should."

"These attacks will come from the air and also be fought on the
streets, deftly and precisely"

[Darranar]

42. This is more than propaganda...

Not wanting to get into another debate about racism, I have avoided this thread for a while, but I can't stop myself now. This is more than propaganda; it is more like pure bigotry.

[bemildred]

44. Drool?

[Violet_Crumble]

50. I have one question before I decide whether it's drool...

Is it worth registering with the LA Times to read it? From the excerpt you posted in the original thread, I'm thinking it's probably not worth the buggering around to register...


Violet...

[bemildred]

51. No, not just to read this.

But sometimes the LAT does have good stuff.
And they are not too annoying if you say you don't
want any helpful advertisements.

[Violet_Crumble]

57. I might register sometime...

but not to read this one, I don't think. It sounds pretty much like yet another rehash of the same sort of stuff I've read a million and one times before...

Violet...

[Aidoneus]

52. who's the author of this, btw?

if I were to guess it'd be Peretz, fits his style close enough ("Muslims really, really, really suck"), but I don't have/want a LATimes login to be sure..

[rini]

53. Muslims

are not the problem, Islamists are the problem.

[Darranar]

54. Israelis...

are not the problem, the rightwing Israelis are.

The Americans are not the problem, the Anerican realists, imperialists, and corporations are.

By the way, to ease confusion I would use the word "Wahabist" instead of "Islamist." Islamist could easily be seen as offensive.

[Violet_Crumble]

58. Islamist...

Personally I see it as a term being used by those who want to blur the lines between anyone who is Islamic and Islamic fundamentalists, but like to pretend they're too fucking lazy to actually get that word *fundamentalist* out. And you sure won't see these folk using the terms Christianist or Judaist to describe Christian or Jewish fundamentalists...

Violet...

[Darranar]

59. Possibly...

but I'll give rini the benefit of the doubt.

[Cassandra]

63. You call people "too fucking lazy"...

for not using the whole word "fundamentalist"? Your habit of saying "yr" instead of "your" of "you're" has been annoying me for some time. Who's lazy?

[Violet_Crumble]

117. Yep, I sure did...

I'm not lazy, I'm a Sonic Youth fan. I should turn the sarcasm tags on here I guess, but thanks every so much for actually addressing the use of the word Islamist and not resorting to a petty little personal attack. Seeing as how my insistance on saying yr instead of your or you're annoys you so, maybe yr up for a trip around DU where you can lambast those lazy buggers who insist on using contractions. I can set you up a macro so that when you hit F4 these words appear 'Yr habit of saying "can't" instead of "can not" has been annoying me for some time. Who's lazy??'

btw, you mightn't have noticed but the word 'fundamentalist' doesn't appear anywhere in the word 'Islamist'....

I'm sad though that yr finding my habit of saying 'yr' annoying to yr sensibilities. *sob* Really sad. Really...

Violet...

[Cassandra]

131. They must teach a strange form of English in Australia

if can't is not considered a proper contraction for cannot, but yr is considered a proper cover-up for those who may not understand the difference between your and you're and would prefer to hide that. Or perhaps you're Data in disguise. When yr turns up in the dictionary, we can revisit this. We were, after all, just talking about the laziness of those who can't be bothered to type out a much longer word, opting instead for a shorter one which doesn't meet with your approval. Paraphrasing and attempts at synonyms are also not allowed in Australia? Since there are many (too many) types of fundamentalists in the world, I can't blame someone for trying to coin a new word (common practice here). Do you have a constructive suggestion for a suitable word or do you just prefer to call others lazy?

[tinnypriv]

147. u must really h8 txt spk

:D

[The Magistrate]

149. As You May Imagine, Mr. Priv

It is rather low on my list of acceptables....

It pains me to think my grandchildren may read literature written in it at my age.

[tinnypriv]

151. I feel your pain

"The number of text messages sent a month passed the billion mark" - British Media Interactive Association

Billion

[The Magistrate]

152. Your Sympathy Is Appreciated, My Friend

[Violet_Crumble]

156. Let's hope not...

I've caught my little person sitting in a chat-room with her friends typing that stuff. That's bad enough without thinking about literature being butchered that way as well...

Violet...

[Darranar]

148. Ever typed LOL...

in this forum?

[Cassandra]

150. In this forum?

I don't think so (I don't chuckle that much here, and when I do, it's my own joke). In the Lounge, once or twice, I think. It's more casual there and nobody there is accusing others of laziness because they don't want to type out fundamentalist.

[Violet_Crumble]

155. We speak Real English here, Cass & ra!!

Not like Americans!! Geez, what I said about contractions was tongue in cheek. I didn't realise you were going to make a High Court case out of it. Last time I checked, this was a board on the internet, not fucking uni. If you've got a problem with me typing 'yr', try and suffer silently, okay? But don't try and pretend that the word 'Islamist' is a shortened version of the words 'Islamic fundamentalist' because they're not, and you haven't explained how they could be. Feel free to try...Or not...yr call....

Hey, wanna back up and reread my first post and point out where I called people who insist on using the word 'Islamist' lazy? I didn't, y'know...

Violet...

[Cassandra]

159. All High Court cases...

are to be referred to The Magistrate, although this one has already been adjudicated.
I reread your post and indeed, you didn't call them lazy:

" Islamist...Personally I see it as a term being used by those who want to blur the lines between anyone who is Islamic and Islamic fundamentalists, but like to pretend they're too fucking lazy to actually get that word *fundamentalist* out."

You called them too fucking lazy. Absolutely, that makes all the difference. :eyes:

[rini]

135. Aljezeera

uses the word Islamist. Good enough for them, good enough for me.

[Violet_Crumble]

157. Is that so?

Where have they done this? Got a link? I kind of don't believe that you operate on a 'good enough for them, good enough for me' basis with Aljazeera says. That could open up a whole new can of worms for you...

Violet...

[StandWatie]

175. unless they do it in the new English version they haven't

Since that's only on the Web and a search shows no hits on that word and there is no Arabic equivalent it's just someone making it up as they go along.

[rini]

75. Please

have someone read this to you. I posted this on another board. I challenge you to find something good to say about the United States, Israel, or Jews.

"Just as fundies in this country read the new testiment and turn it on its ear, so do Islamists. So please everyone, just because some terrorist uses the word Muslem, do not be taken in, that matches Falwell using the word Christian to make his doctrine Christian, it's not. These terrorists use religion to make a point, to brain wash people but it is not Islam."

[StandWatie]

76. OK..

The US makes good movies, Israel has some of the best journalism in the world and most of my favourite political thinkers were Jewish :shrug:

[rini]

115. good job

and some of my best friends are Aussies.

[Violet_Crumble]

118. No thanks...

I find it tedious enough on a first read, let alone dragging some poor soul in to read it as well...

Good things to say about the US? Uh, you show me something good about US foreign policy and I'll oblige you on that IF I agree...

Good things to say about Israel? Being a forum on the I/P conflict, I'm only interested in Israels policies towards the Occupied Territories. Again, show me something good about what Israel's doing in the Occupied Territories...

Good things to say about Jews? Sorry, but I don't speak about any group of people as one homogenous group. Every group of people has its good and bad people, its morons and bright people, and folk who are tolerant as well as bigots. If you disagree with that, then that's yr problem to deal with and not mine...

Violet...

[Darranar]

129. Something good about the US's foreign policy...

well, under Bush, that's a very hard one. All I can think of are the Liberian peacekeepers that have finally arrived (though seem to be doing nothing.)

When it comes to the Israelis, the people's concern for the environment and conservation of water is admirable, though it seems to have been forced on them rather then a policy adopted willingly. Another good thing about Israel is the multiparty system, which I see as superior to that of the US.

I believe that there are Israeli hospitals that are treating very sick palestinians, which is one good thing Israelis (though not the Israeli government) are doing in the Occupied Territories.

As for Jews, well, I agree.

[rini]

190. not aljazeera, Jordon

http://www.middleeastwire.com/jordan/

[Darranar]

191. I don't see the word "Islamist" in there...

Better try again, rini.

[Aidoneus]

55. hypothetical exercise

"Jews are not the problem, Zionists are the problem";--still a formula you'd stick by?

[Darranar]

56. Well...

the Zionists aren't the problem. It is the extremists among them who are.

[StandWatie]

66. do you see where he is going though?

I don't think that was meant to be serious but it's an appropriate comparison of terms and a damning indictment of just how thick the atmosphere of the US is cut with Islamophobic and racist sentiment towards Arabs.

[Darranar]

83. I understood him completely...

I was just my usual nitpicking self.

[bemildred]

62. Good catch.

Peretz it is.

[Cassandra]

64. You're braver than me

I saw this yesterday and was tempted to post it, although it didn't speak for me in the way a previous Peretz piece had, but I could already see the :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: in response, so I didn't bother.

[bemildred]

68. You are too kind.

I'm a trouble maker. :-)

I thought it would be good to stimulate discussion.
The extreme is enemy to the moderate.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Scurrilous]

134. I doubt very much....

.....that the creator of this universe draws-up the duty roster for the IDF.

[Fight_n_back]

197. After each blow I recieve

I make it a point to call the next day.

[Lurking Dem]

201. But you never send flowers.

Dammit. :+