Arab Newspapers Reluctant to Criticize Iranian Leader's Remarks on Israel

[sabra]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001699381

Arab Newspapers Reluctant to Criticize Iranian Leader's Remarks on Israel


DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) Arab governments appeared reluctant Thursday to condemn Iran's president for calling the Holocaust a "myth" used by Europeans to create a Jewish state in the heart of the Islamic world.

While official Arab reaction in such cases is usually slower than international reaction, any issue involving a defense of Israel is a thorny one for Arab governments, who risk appearing to side with Israel against a Muslim nation.

The comments by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, broadcast live Wednesday on state-run Iranian television, drew quick condemnation from Israel, the European Union and the United States.

However, in the United Arab Emirates, the top three Arabic-language newspapers buried the remarks deep in their Thursday editions, with no commentary. Newspapers in the country are government-controlled.

[Jacobin]

1. Didn't some Likud Think Tank publish a statement

calling for the destruction of Iran?

Why is nobody whining about that?

[Behind the Aegis]

2. You have anything other than rumor?

[Coastie for Truth]

3. "Right of Return"

I am calling for a "Right of Return":

1. To my ancestral lands in Lithuania, Poland, Belo-Rus, Romania, and the Ukraine; and

2. To Rambam's ancestral lands in Iberia.

With full civil and legal rights, and full UN protection.

[11cents]

5. Rambam can already go home.

Spain extended a "right of return" to descendents of expelled Jews and Muslims several years go.

Germany extends a right of return to people of German descent living in communities elsewhere in Europe. (These communities were mostly established in the middle ages.)

Ireland has a right of return for people of Irish descent whose ancestors emigrated before the establishment of the Irish state in the 1920's.

I'm sure you'll find someplace that will take you.

[papau]

6. "right of return" meaning citizenship is indeed available in Spain and Ger

But please note:

International laws and resolutions state there must be a just settlement for refugees. The 1948 General Assembly Resolution 194 (concerning Palestine) states that refugees should be permitted to return; The 1967 Security Council resolution 242 (concerning the acquisition of territory by war) affirms the necessity "for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem"; The UN Declaration of Human Rights (Article 13) states that "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." Indeed under Article 12 of the UN Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, both Jews and Palestinian Arabs have a right of return, making the Arab resistance to the right of return of Jews was illegal, and a crime of the worst kind during the Holocaust.

The vast majority of these so-called refugees have never been to Palestine and yet millions claim now it is a sacred right to 'return'. Indeed the UN through UNRWA makes a joke of the "Palestinians had lived on their lands for generations before the Zionists 'invaded'" theme. Under UNRWA rules a Palestinian 'refugee' need only have lived in his/her home for two years before leaving.

No country that has displaced its indigenous people has ever experienced the right of return in the sense of the return of indigenous people to their exact former particular village, home, square-inch of land.

Israel accepted the UN partition plan in 1947 that allowed for a Jewish and a Palestinian state - the refugee problem is a result of an Arab declaration of war against the new state of Israel - so in a sense the refuge problem is an Arab problem. Granted that logic will not fly is there is to be peace. But some recognition that "Israel's refugee problem" was forced upon it by the Arabs would be nice.

If we are not talking about simple citizenship in Germany, what German "right of return" are we talking about? German Citizenship by Claim of the "Right of Return" is mostly granted to ethnic German "resettlers" (Aussiedler), the descendants of German farmers and craftspeople who settled in Russia and Romania and other parts of Eastern Europe in the 18th century. The ethnic Germans' "right of return" rests on Article 116 of the Basic Law, the Federal Republic's constitution. Article 116 also extends the right to German citizenship to those deprived of it on political, racial or religious grounds between 1933 and 1945.

Indeed a case can be made that a federation of Israel and Palestine would meet the citizenship type "right of return" rules in Germany and Spain (everyone a citizen of the federation).

Is this what the Palestinians want?

Don't think so.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[papau]

17. I'll raise that Hmmmmm to Hmmmmmm - the URL leads to a bit of error

in the interpretation of history.

Indeed at the extreme the argument leads to what a book called "The Bible Unearthed: Archeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Text." (by
Finkelstein, chairman of the Archeology Department at Tel Aviv University, and archeology historian and journalist Neil Asher Silberman) suggests is the "truth". That the Hebrews were actually Canaanite and that Judaism was a product of ideas borrowed from Canaanite faith systems along with an imported but adapted concept of one god (Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaton's concept of monotheism that dismissed all Egyptian deities in favor of a single god, the sun god Ra). Of course the book does not explain why these "Jews" stopped human sacrifice - since human sacrifice was a big part of Canaanite religion.

And of course the URL's Truth has that weak point that what was in Israel in the 7th century and later after the Arab conquest were Canaanites - and none of those Canaanites were Jews - so there was no taking the land from the Jews (we sort of skip over the Romans and even over the fact that not all Jews were removed from Israel by the Romans). Then we say the Arabs intermarried with the resident Canaanites post the 7th century AD and inherited whatever right there is to the land.

Sorry - but the truth is some Jews were always in Israel from 1800AD (or if you like 1000AD) on (the date variation is for all the usual reasons on what is a Jew). There was no voluntary leaving with the population going to zero.

Granted the Jewish "right of return" demanded of the Arabs in the 20th century also has a few logic holes (at what point do your descendants lose the right of return - if there is no such point, and given all the migrations, everyone has a right of return to everywhere).

So we come down to a legal system that sold land to Jews - which no one disputes - and a claim that wealthy Arabs who held title under that system had cheated and could not really sell the land to Jews.

Everyone is on the web these days with pages of "truth".

The only usable truth is that a Palestinian right of return beyond going to the West Bank/Gaza and being compensated for property taken within Israel for which they never received compensation is a non-starter if we want peace in the region.

[The Stranger]

44. Then you agree with the rest of the content of the document linked?

[papau]

46. No I do not agree with the rest of the content of the document linked -it

is a selection of facts - and spin presented as fact - that minimizes the Arab attacks on Jews over the centuries prior to 1948.

Not that anything justifies anything - for either side.

Just that the document is not even handed and excludes facts and spins the facts discussed to make it's point ( the 6% of Israel owned by Jews in 48 is one of the better ones as it assumes one does not understand crown ownership - and indeed leads to the question of how do you measure "ownership" - in the US do the "empty" states "own" a majority of the US?- , and I find that quoting folks that agree with you does not make you more correct about anything).

At this point we are going forward I hope with a 2 state solution that takes care of the right of return via compensation.

[Colorado Blue]

13. Good post, thanks. I'm sort of curious how people could

challenge your logic.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. Easy...

Much as I like Papau, some of his logic in that post is flawed, though I guess those who are of the opinion that Israel has never done anything wrong would be hard pressed to find it :)

Violet...

[Wordie]

22. You fail to mention that Israel itself was *founded* on a right of return.

You fail to mention that Israel itself was *founded* on a right of return.

Why else did the early Zionists want to go there, instead of say, South America? Are you claiming that the right established by UN Res 194 applies to such an ancient refugee problem, stemming from the time of the destruction of the temple by the Romans in the second century? From that time, until sometime in the latter half of the 19th century, when Zionism arose (talking historical Zionism here), the Jewish population of the area was a tiny portion of the overall population. The Palesinian refugees, on the other hand, are comprised of the very people forced to leave in the late 1940s, and their direct descendants, who had lived on that land for all the centuries in the interim. Even if one were to accept the ancient claim, how can Israel now turn around and say that a much more recent refugee case, that of the Pals, is without merit, on the basis of the age of the claim? ...or that residence was too short?

Of course, one could also debate whether the ancestors of the Pals might have preceded the early Israelites as the occupants of the territory in question in the first place. Weren't there people, already in the land that is now Israel/Palestine who were driven out in the time of Moses? Under this line of reasoning, they also have an right of return. That approach leads to such intractible problems that it cannot be reasonably used for a basis for anything, as cannot, imho, the ancient Israeli claims.

The fact is that the creation of the state of Israel was in many ways based upon a recognition of the evil done to the Jews by the centuries of oppression and attack that they experienced primarily at the hands of the West and the Europeans. The problem is that the Palestinians were in no way responsible for these European acts. To subtly imply that the Palestinian resistance to the huge influx of Jewish people into the land of their ancestors was somehow tied to the Holcaust is not accurate. How can we blame them for not accepting the decisions of distant powers to turn over their land to a different people? Their actions were not based on anti-semitism, as the European's actions were in the Holocaust; their actions were based on a desire not to have what they rightly considered to be their own land taken over!

I just cannot understand how it is possible to support the Israeli claim to the land, based on a residency of 1,800 +/- years ago, yet question a Palestinian right on the basis that it includes people who had only lived there a short number of years, within our living memory. Many of the earlier Zionists had not had ancestors who lived in the area in nearly two millenia.

Let none of this imply that I don't think Israel has a right to exist; it is only that the information needs to be presented from both sides of the conflict, imho.

[barb162]

23. I would disagree with some of your comments here, such

as the population of the Jews in that area was "tiny" and I am not so sure at all of your first premise on right of return. There were Jews there as there were Christians for many centuries. And the Jews were buying the land, etc. I don't see it as cut and dried as you do nor do I see it from your angle.

[Wordie]

28. Well, I guess we both know that we disagree on many aspects, barb

As I re-read that, it probably would have been better to say "small, relative to the arab population," rather than "tiny." So, sorry about that. You are completely correct that there were Jews there, but until about 100 years ago, the relative population of Jews in relation to arabs was small. And it had been that way since the beginning of the diaspora, in the second century, when the Romans destroyed the temple and forced the Jews from Jerusalem. I got this information, btw, not from a "revisionist" or anti-Jewish site, but from the Israeli journalist, Gorem Gershenberg.

And you know, I really don't see it as so cut and dried at all. I'm just presenting a different side of the story, one that isn't as familiar to us in the US. It takes both sides, I suppose, to make the whole. IMHO, there isn't one, easy-to-grasp, black and white truth in the middle east (or anywhere else for that matter). It is all shades of gray and depends quite a bit on who is telling the story. Each side selects it's own facts, glosses over others. Both the Palestinians and the Israelis do this. One of the reasons I post things from the Pal angle is because I feel it doesn't get as much of an airing as the Israeli side does. There are ways of looking at this situation that are different from your angle, too. The best we can do is try to understand the POV of those on the other side.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[barb162]

62. "...there isn't one, easy-to-grasp, black and white truth..."

we do agree
that's a nice post Wordie

[Colorado Blue]

27. What about the people who have lived on the West Bank &

in Jerusalem for thousands of years? They never left. Also the majority of Jews in Israel are of Middle Eastern descent, refugees from the Arab world who were expelled after 1948. They never did go very far, a few hundred miles - to Tunisia, Iraq, Morocco, Syria -

And in fact other locations for a Jewish national home were considered, but none seemed to be a proper fit, and the soul of so much Diaspora Judaism is centered on Jerusalem, on Hebron, on other holy sites. And let's face it - who really wanted Jews? Uganda? Siberia? If we weren't safe in Western Europe -

In any case, for all practical purposes there has been a population transfer in the Middle East, not the one-sided eviction merely of Palestinians.

Also, just looking at a map you can see that this is a tiny, tiny portion of the enormous region we call the Arab world - 22 states with vast resources. There are options here, if people would think creatively and with open hearts and minds.

One thing that shouldn't have lasted past the 1950's: the camps. That's appalling to me, it's bothered me my whole life. People were calling them open sores 40 years ago. There has been NO ATTEMPT, except by Jordan, to assimilate people. Rather, the only option considered has been to somehow get rid of Israel. Isn't it time to consider some other possibilities?

As far as the people who originally inhabited this region prior to the advent of the Semites in about 3,000 BC - their descendants may still be living there, or they may have moved on, or they may be totally assimilated or extinct. But the Jewish people have a direct, living connection to ancient times and Jerusalem has been a majority Jewish city for thousands of years.

There ISN'T anyplace else for us to go, that should be obvious by now. Between the far Left and the far Right, many of us are feeling increasingly uncomfortable even here in the States, wondering if indeed we might have to flee. At least, with Israel, we would have a place to go. That wasn't the case for the people trapped in Europe.

During the 1930's and 1940's - well - never mind. There's a lot I could say but I'll trust you to do some research about the Holocaust and its relation to the Middle East. There was in fact a very direct link. This is documented in the transcripts of the Nuremberg Trials, and extensively elsewhere, if you're interested. Key: Haj Amin al Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem.

And I also think you're underestimating the power of bigotry, in having created and fueled this conflict. Don't forget - it doesn't take many to create a nightmare. A few haters can drown out a multitude of otherwise tolerant and peaceful people. It was apparent soon after WWI, that this was the case. This is documented in the papers of the Emir Faisal and Justice Frankfurter.

It's sad that we are still discussing such sorrow, instead of the latest fashions in Beirut, or the latest Palestinian poem, or the hot new Israeli singer. Why do people choose death?

[Wordie]

29. CB...

I disagree with some of the claims you made in the first several paragraphs of your post, but let me focus instead on some of the other things you said:
There ISN'T anyplace else for us to go, that should be obvious by now. Between the far Left and the far Right, many of us are feeling increasingly uncomfortable even here in the States, wondering if indeed we might have to flee. At least, with Israel, we would have a place to go. That wasn't the case for the people trapped in Europe.

It's for this reason that I would never suggest that Israel shouldn't exist, and why I keep saying that I do understand the Israeli position more than people here in I/P frequently think I do. I realize the depth of Jewish feeling regarding these issues. I think if it ever did get to the point that there was severe enough a threat that Jewish people would need to flee, quite frankly, you wouldn't be the only ones! But when some pro-Israeli people malign the left (and I'm not saying that what you said was so serious a maligning), they really don't realize how deeply offensive it is to those of us on the left who care deeply about justice (and humanity) that we would probably take a bullet before we would ever allow that much harm to happen to a Jewish person, solely on the basis of their Jewishness. I speak as a member of a generation of Americans raised after WWII, who grew up knowing about the horrors associated with that war. We need to stand together against any forces who would try to repeat such a nightmare.

During the 1930's and 1940's - well - never mind. There's a lot I could say but I'll trust you to do some research about the Holocaust and its relation to the Middle East. There was in fact a very direct link. This is documented in the transcripts of the Nuremberg Trials, and extensively elsewhere, if you're interested. Key: Haj Amin al Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem.

I have done some research. I know examples can be cited, but also that the statements of some of the early Zionists regarding the disposition of the Palestinian population of the area aren't much to be proud of, either. It was a profoundly different world. I also think that it sometimes is difficult to evaluate some of what we read about the times before the war, and the opinions of individuals in those pre-WWII times, because, quite frankly, I think WWII and the Holocaust changed all of us, particularly those of us in the West. Even those of us who were born after the war was over, as I was, have had our way of looking at the world forever shaped by an awareness of it's horrors.

And I also think you're underestimating the power of bigotry...it doesn't take many to create a nightmare. A few haters can drown out a multitude of otherwise tolerant and peaceful people.

Oh, believe me I don't underestimate the power of hate. It's just that in the case of the Pals, I think much of what comes across as hate (and undeniably really is hate in some cases), has its root not in hate itself, or bigotry, but in what the Pals percieve as a genuine injustice done to them.

It's sad that we are still discussing such sorrow, instead of the latest fashions in Beirut, or the latest Palestinian poem, or the hot new Israeli singer.

Oh, I so wish we were there. I'm completely with you in these comments.

Why do people choose death?

Sadly, people "choose" death, imho, when hope is gone and they see no other possibilities. This is why I pray for a resolution to the I/P conflict that takes into account the needs, culture, hopes, dreams and aspirations of both the Pals and Israelis.

[Colorado Blue]

43. Wordie, just a quick response, I need some sleep:)

Your point about cultural conflicts in the early days of Zionism is well taken, as is your observation that WWII and the Holocaust changed people forever.

And, I understand that the Palestinians feel they've suffered injustice.

Believe me, from the Israeli point of view the feeling is mutual. The terrorism, the wars, have claimed so many thousands of lives, maimed tens of thousands, bereaved tens of thousands more.

But we need to go forward now. Violence and death are only going to beget more violence and death. Acceptance of the facts, that this is now 2005, and Israel is a reality, and Palestinians aren't going to go away either, but have a valid point of view, is step one.

Also, this isn't an isolated situation but part of a larger, very volatile and frequently violent region. It should be seen in that context.

Solutions must be regional in scope. Putting the entire onus for solving the Palestinians' problem shouldn't be entirely on Israel. Five states attacked her in 1948, similarly coalitions attacked again subsequently, funding for continuing terror and war comes from all over the place including, until recently, the Soviet Union. So a lot of parties created this problem and a lot of parties will have to help solve it along with all the other problems in the M.E. I wrote about this more in my note to VC, below.

Also, I know that you are idealistic and I appreciate that you understand our point of view. However, many on the Left seem to regard Israel with great hatred, would like to see it gone, have for some reason forgotten the importance of defending both minorities and democratic, liberal values when it comes to Israel. Why this is so I don't really understand. There is no question that Israel is hardly the image of perfection, vibrant and creative though she may be.

However, I see race riots in France and Australia, poverty and racism in America, religious extremism, terrorism and violence, genocides and civil wars all over the planet. So why the Left has chosen Israel as their target I don't understand, and it angers me; it is also costing votes, precious support for causes and political parties that would otherwise receive generous endorsement, though most of us still adhere loyally to the Democratic Party, and certainly don't trust the Right either.

Worse, I think the far Left has actually helped fuel this conflict. They've fed into the BS that "Zionism is racism", that Israel is an apartheid state, are complete refusniks in general, and worst of all, have given some cover to terrorism and the murder of Israeli citizens. How many are standing up, in this forum for example, against the hateful bigotry of the President of Iran? Does silence indicate consent?

The Green Party and other so-called progressive organizations would like to see Israel turned into a non-Jewish state. That isn't right and it isn't THEIR right. In fact, it's coercive, totalitarian politics in action - the opposite of creative, progressive, liberal politics.

And coercive, totalitarian politics are the enemies of us all. Descendant of Socialists and even a Communist or two, I hate to see the American Left going down that road.

[Wordie]

49. We see a lot of this in really different ways, CB.

And, I understand that the Palestinians feel they've suffered injustice.

Believe me, from the Israeli point of view the feeling is mutual. The terrorism, the wars, have claimed so many thousands of lives, maimed tens of thousands, bereaved tens of thousands more.

CB, what you wrote there seems to indicate that you don't really understand what I am saying. I'm saying that from the POV of the Palestinians the creation of the state of Israel, on land that had belonged to their ancestors for millenia, was a horrible injustice. It's not just a feeling that they have. There just isn't anyway around it, imho. And I'm saying that it was from that initial injustice that all the subsequent violence has flowed; it is not anti-semitism that is at the root of it. (I deplore the violence on both sides, btw.)

But we need to go forward now. Violence and death are only going to beget more violence and death. Acceptance of the facts, that this is now 2005, and Israel is a reality, and Palestinians aren't going to go away either, but have a valid point of view, is step one.

Agree with you there, completely. But then you go on to say:

Also, this isn't an isolated situation but part of a larger, very volatile and frequently violent region. It should be seen in that context.

Solutions must be regional in scope. Putting the entire onus for solving the Palestinians' problem shouldn't be entirely on Israel. Five states attacked her in 1948, similarly coalitions attacked again subsequently, funding for continuing terror and war comes from all over the place including, until recently, the Soviet Union. So a lot of parties created this problem and a lot of parties will have to help solve it along with all the other problems in the M.E. I wrote about this more in my note to VC, below.

See, this is what concerns me, because you say you understand the Pal position, but then go right back into the assumption that the "solution" that Israel desires, the "solution" that benefits Israel, is the only way to go. Again, the reasons those states attacked, in 1948 and subsequently, was that the creation of the state of Israel was seen to be a horrible injustice. The fact that other states participated in trying to resolve this injustice does not mean that now the other states are responsible for it. It is something to be resolved between the Israelis and Pals.

Also, I know that you are idealistic and I appreciate that you understand our point of view. However, many on the Left seem to regard Israel with great hatred, would like to see it gone, have for some reason forgotten the importance of defending both minorities and democratic, liberal values when it comes to Israel. Why this is so I don't really understand. There is no question that Israel is hardly the image of perfection, vibrant and creative though she may be.

I would like to suggest that you misread as "hatred," the recognition by the Left of the injustice that I spoke about earlier, and the reaction to that injustice. I know from my own experience that the questioning of Israeli policy can be seen as many as "hatred" when it is no such thing. And from the point of view of this person on the left, at least, democratic and liberal values are precisely what motivate my stand against the occupation. (This is of course not to say that there is nothing positive about Israel, merely that the fact of the occupation looms so large in my mind, that it becomes the focus.)

However, I see race riots in France and Australia, poverty and racism in America, religious extremism, terrorism and violence, genocides and civil wars all over the planet. So why the Left has chosen Israel as their target I don't understand, and it angers me; it is also costing votes, precious support for causes and political parties that would otherwise receive generous endorsement, though most of us still adhere loyally to the Democratic Party, and certainly don't trust the Right either.

In all honesty, I think that those who are highly pro-Israel often overestimate the amount of time that the average person on the left spends on the I/P conflict, and underestimates the amount of time that we spend concerned with other topics. I suspect that when a lot of time is spent, that it may have to do as well with the amount of push-back from pro-Israel supporters that invariably occurs, and the perception that the Pals are in an intractible position, and that the side of the Pals is infrequently understood here in the US. I don't think that the left has chosen Israel as its target, its just that the left expects the same thing of Israel as it does of any other state. And you see, it may also have to do with Israel at some point being the source of some of the idealism that you spoke of earlier. Israel was founded in idealism. When a person on the left recognizes that the source of this idealism is now engaging in a bloody occupation, and other associated actions, then it creates a greater focus on Israel.

Worse, I think the far Left has actually helped fuel this conflict. They've fed into the BS that "Zionism is racism", that Israel is an apartheid state, are complete refusniks in general, and worst of all, have given some cover to terrorism and the murder of Israeli citizens.

It's that loss of an earlier idealism that you may be seeing here. I would not say now that "Zionism is racism" but I must admit I saw it that way at one time. I once met a Zionist (historical sense, family was among the early settlers) who stated that the settling of the area by Jews and displacement of the Pals was justified because the Jewish settlers were "more technologically advanced," while the indigenous Pal population was backward. I saw that as racism at the time; now I would back down from that because I don't think such labels are helpful. Labels just end the debate. Let's face it, the rhetoric of the left does tend to get a bit overheated at times; I've been guilty of this myself. There is a difficulty with the exclusive nature of Israel, it being a "Jewish state," I think, and that's where some of these comments come from.

The Green Party and other so-called progressive organizations would like to see Israel turned into a non-Jewish state. That isn't right and it isn't THEIR right. In fact, it's coercive, totalitarian politics in action - the opposite of creative, progressive, liberal politics.

I don't know what the position of the Green Party on Israel is. I don't know what their reasoning might be. But I'd like to say I understand how some might have problems with the exclusive nature of the Jewish state. Can't you see how that might be a problem? If it were, say, the Danish who wanted to establish an exclusive state, who would agree to that? And I know there will be a temptation to refer back to WWII here, and the Holocaust, but again, that wasn't the responsibility of the Pals, and they should not be made to suffer for the errors of the Europeans, however inhuman. And furthermore, stating a support for a policy that is critical of Israel is hardly totalitarian. It's not having the debate that is non-creative/progressive/liberal, imho.

And coercive, totalitarian politics are the enemies of us all. Descendant of Socialists and even a Communist or two, I hate to see the American Left going down that road.

Again, I think you're really off-base here; the left isn't supporting coercion or totalitarianism just because it has problems with Israeli policies and actions. I'm deeply troubled by comments that suggest that it does.

As I've said, I believe the creation of the state of Israel was an injustice to the Pals. Can you take a look at all the subsequent assumptions from that POV? I think you might come to some different conclusions.

Maybe someday all the denizens of I/P will be able to attend a great party celebrating the resolution of the conflict. Wouldn't that be great?

[Colorado Blue]

51. We certainly do see this from different angles. OK, let's try

to walk through it.

Was the creation of Israel an injustice to the Pals? WHY? They were invited to stay and be a part of it. And a Palestinian state would have been next door and intermeshed with it. 78% of the Palestine Mandate became Jordan, an Arab state with a 70% Palestinian population. The ENTIRE Mandate was to have become the Jewish homeland. So we already had ONE Arab state, the vastly greater part of the Mandate, and the partition would have created another, leaving the Jews with a tiny strip - but even that was considered too much and a war ensued.

Isn't this an injustice too?

Much of the area partitioned in 1948 was already under Jewish control; the national home was already a reality. What should have happened to these people, especially in the wake of WWII? Should they have simply laid down and died? And make no mistake: they were promised total annihilation.

Jews have ALSO lived here for millenia, there has been a Jewish majority in Jerusalem for thousands of years. Why weren't the attacks on Hebron and on Jewish settlers, injustice? Why wasn't the exclusion of refugees from the Holocaust, an injustice?

Claims of injustice cut both ways. Can you see this? And even if we say, OK, the Palestinians suffered an injustice. Shall we fix this by creating another, with a whole new set of victims?

***

Secondly: if the Pals suffered an injustice, so did the Sephardic and Mizrachi Jews. The view of the Palestinians as the only victims here is wrong.

***

Seeing the I/P situation in a vacuum, not as a reflection of regional politics, is an error and also it won't solve the problem.

Simply put, there isn't enough space for everybody and both Israel and Palestine can't exist on the same patch of ground. Realistically, the Palestinian population now numbers more than 5 million - probably approaching 6 - and the Israeli over 6. Where is everybody supposed to live, even assuming they all love each other which they don't?

Oh - did I mention this is a desert? MOST of Israel is the Negev Desert. It is a moonscape.

And - shouldn't we assume that the population, both Arab and Israeli, will surely grow? What will happen when the total population in this New Jersey sized region, most of which is desert, reaches 20 million?

By the way - there is also very little water, no resources. How in this tiny space, even if everybody loved each other, will they make a living?

There is a lot of space and a lot of resources in the Arab world. Israel even including the West Bank, is only 1% of that.

There will have to be some ground and some resources granted to the Palestinian people by the other Arabs, unless the only option is to crush Israel. How will THAT be a good solution? And even if Israel is crushed - the same problems persist: desert, growing populations, lack of resources. This sure as hell IS a regional problem and getting rid of Israel won't solve it.

The region created the political problem. The doctrine of "Umma", the idea that Jews are a blight on sacred Islam - this isn't an Israeli problem. This has been in the background of nationalist and religious movements in the Middle East since the 1920's or even before. And, there is the idea that all the Arab states should be unified. Israel is obviously an impediment to that idea.

How many times does it have to be repeated that non-recognition of Israel, several wars by coalitions, economic boycotts of Israel, refusal to grant citizenship to Palestinians, are REGIONAL and not merely Israeli, problems?

And why can't people see that PRACTICAL solutions are needed in order to get people out of camps and into decent lives? Why is the idea of crushing Israel, killing the dream of the Jewish homeland, maybe even killing all her citizens and replacing them with Palestinians who left in 1948, a good idea?

In practical terms it is not 1948 anymore. So whatever happened then won't be helped by creating MORE injustice now.

***

Israel is an exclusive state. MYTH. Over 1/5 of Israel is Arab, and there are citizens of all faiths and from all over the world. It is in fact multicultural and multiethnic. It was designed to be the Jewish national home. So? This is bad?

Over 1/3 of the UN member states are Muslim. I don't know how many are de facto Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, but they represent BILLIONS of people.

Should Greece give up its status as the homeland of the Greeks? What about Sweden, Denmark? They have citizens from other ethnic and cultural backgrounds but they are predominately Scandanavian and Christian. Should they have to change? What about Saudi Arabia? Should they be forced to accept a Jewish majority?

***

Your statement:

Again, I think you're really off-base here; the left doesn't support coercion or totalitarianism just because it has problems with Israeli policies and actions. I'm deeply troubled by comments that suggest that it does.

OK, you are wrong here. Here is the Green Party position on Israel:

The Green Party of the United States has endorsed a statement calling for a comprehensive strategy of boycott and divestment that would pressure the government of Israel to guarantee human rights for Palestinians. The resolution, introduced by the Wisconsin Green Party and passed in the Green Party's National Committee, seeks reversal of Israel's current policies. The text is appended below. "Israel's treatment of Palestinians -- those who are Israeli citizens as well as those in the territories -- is comparable in many ways to South African apartheid, and has resulted in a cycle of violence and lack of security for both Israelis and Palestinians," said Mohammed Abed, a member of the Green Party of Wisconsin. "A stable and just resolution of the conflict requires the full realization of the human rights of Palestinians and Israelis." Greens allege that the 'peace process' will ensure neither peace nor human rights, and have called the Gaza Disengagement Plan a smokescreen to buy time and accumulate political capital for the Sharon government while it pursues a plan to force Palestinians into disconnected reservations on less than half the West Bank. The Green Party is already on record as supporting the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and to receive compensation for their losses; immediate Israeli withdrawal from all lands acquired since 1967, including the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem (see news.independent.co.uk...); maintenance of Jerusalem as a shared city open to people of all faiths; suspension of U.S. military and foreign aid to Israel; complete dismantling of the Israeli separation wall; and serious consideration of a single secular, democratic state as the national home of both Israelis and Palestinians. Greens have affirmed the right of self-determination for both Palestinians and Israelis.

***

OK. What about economic divestiture - economic boycotting - isn't coercive? What about the security fence, leaving Israeli citizens open to attack? That isn't coercive? It's murder. Making a mockery of the peace process is counterproductive, as are claims that Israeli human rights violations against Palestinians without also condemning Palestinian terrorism.

And, we have the old Zionism/apartheid bs, rearing its ugly head. 'Nuff said about THAT.

***

What about the "right of return"? Forcing this on Israel would destroy the nature of the state. This isn't coercion? Forcing Jerusalem to be a "shared city" rather than the capital of Israel - that's a very sore point to a lot of people. How many states share their capitols? Also - there are archeological considerations here, concerning the temple. This is a separate but very important issue. And I haven't begun to address the security issues.

A shared, open city is a wonderful dream, one that could work splendidly, in a peaceful world where the presence of Israel was accepted by all, where suicide bombers don't exist.

***

Forcing Israel back to the "green line" would strand hundreds of thousands of Israelis and leave much of Jerusalem out of reach. This isn't coercion? And, it is essentially indefensible along that non-border, which isn't a border but just an armistice line, drawn between bodies and burned out cars; and leaves Israel only 6 miles wide.

***

Leaving Israel without the funds to defend itself, whilst the oil rich states of the Middle East are awash in money and quite fond of spending it on arms and militias - isn't coercion? It's de facto destruction.

And finally - the position that Israel should become - not Israel. That's the end.

That is so insulting that I just can't begin to find any words. Even the not-so-Israel-friendly EU supports the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in Israel. This document takes away even that right and we're right back in 1948, refighting the goddam war.

[Wordie]

50. Need to add one thing:

You speak about the "coercive" politics on the left towards the end of what you wrote, CB, but you also said this:

So why the Left has chosen Israel as their target I don't understand, and it angers me; it is also costing votes, precious support for causes and political parties that would otherwise receive generous endorsement, though most of us still adhere loyally to the Democratic Party, and certainly don't trust the Right either.

I would like to suggest that there are a lot of people on the left who are also quite angered by threats of withdrawal of support for progressive causes solely on the basis of wanting an equitable resolution to the I/P conflict.

AND, from what I've read, the threatened loss of votes may not be so significant as thought. How many American Jewish voters would vote for Bush over a progressive candidate who said he wanted 1967 borders, for instance? If there truly are a great number of such American Jewish voters, who would switch to Bush, then can't you understand the remarks by some about our foreign policy being overly influenced by the issue of Israel?

[Coastie for Truth]

53. I have raised funds, stuffed envelopes, canvassed, and walked precincts

"on the margin" - and in many cases it is the voter "on the margin" who decides elections - especially state assembly, state senate, and congressional elections.

The extreme left attack on Israel is costing support "on the margin" - and in some cases it is hurting.

You also asked

So why the Left has chosen Israel as their target I don't understand, and it angers me; it is also costing votes, precious support for causes and political parties that would otherwise receive generous endorsement, though most of us still adhere loyally to the Democratic Party, and certainly don't trust the Right either.

Let me give you my thoughts:

1. In 1948 Israel was a model of the non-Communist left - socialist, kibbutzim, a labor union party being the majority party, military aid from the Soviet Union via Czechoslovakia, etc.
This was also the "model" of the non-Communist left in the west and political arm of organized labor.

2. Some change in 1967 - America likes the "underdog" - and the Palestinians became the new "underdog."

3. Major change in 1977 with the election of a Likud government.

4. In a strange kind of way - Israel is a kind of proxy for Bush and his Neocons.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Population transfer? Sorry, but that's bullshit...

In any case, for all practical purposes there has been a population transfer in the Middle East, not the one-sided eviction merely of Palestinians.

To believe that, one would have to believe that all Jews in Arab countries either fled or were expelled from homes that they didn't want to leave. While I'm sure that's correct in the case of some, it's completely incorrect to claim it happened to large numbers, or that in some way this conveniently evens out the expulsion of Palestinians from what became Israel. There's another huge difference that some people might think isn't very important, but many Jews from Arab countries moved to a country they knew was going to accept them and that they wanted to go to, whereas the Palestinians didn't have that luxury.

Also, just looking at a map you can see that this is a tiny, tiny portion of the enormous region we call the Arab world - 22 states with vast resources. There are options here, if people would think creatively and with open hearts and minds.

Last time someone told me to think with an open heart and mind, it was to try to tell me that I should open my heart and mind and see that the bigoted fuckers at Masada2000 were full of good intentions. I refuse to open my heart and mind to anything that I consider is veering in a bigoted direction. So, can you explain what these creative options are?


One thing that shouldn't have lasted past the 1950's: the camps.

Too right. Israel should have allowed the refugees to return to their homes. It didn't, and that's why the camps lasted past the 1950's.

There ISN'T anyplace else for us to go, that should be obvious by now.

Us? I didn't realise US citizens had to go anywhere...



And I also think you're underestimating the power of bigotry, in having created and fueled this conflict.

I don't. If I needed reminding, all I have to do is look at some (thankfully they're small in number, but like any small group of bigots, very loud) mainly US-based 'supporters of Israel' who defend even the most extreme examples of bigotry when it comes to Arabs :(

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

39. Really? Read these stories. They respectfully beg to

disagree. And please, no comments about "right wing"-dom. This is a story that transcends political orientation. The victimization of Middle Eastern Jewry was not some myth but a reality and the fact that anyone could casually write it off is amazing.

http://www.jimena.org/

No wonder people can't figure this situation out, if people are in complete denial about the other half of the equation.

Complaining that Israel successfully survived and therefore the plight of the Mizrachi and Sephardim wasn't as real as that of the Palestinians is a reprehensible error in historic judgement.

I'd also like to know how allowing a hostile population back into a region that had barely survived the war of 1948, would have been possible without risking another all-out war? Once the armies attacked on the day of Israel's Declaration of Independence, intentions for its future were all too clear. Your comment completely ignores this fact.

Had people elected to stay and become citizens, along with the Arabs who did stay and who are citizens of Israel to this day, had the Palestinians and the other Arab nations accepted the UN partition, which in fact left Israel only a tiny strip along the coast plus the Negev, it would have been another story. Quite probably we would now enjoy a cosmopolitan region in which inclusiveness and sharing were the common dream. Instead, rejectionism and threats of annihilation backed up by actual warfare and terror have been the means of dealing with Israel and this has left her citizens as well as the Palestinians in a constant state of war.*

As it is, we are left with the descendents of the original refugees, who need homes, lives, compensation, a fresh start in life and they need some alternative idea to waiting for Israel to die. By the same token compensation for the Sephardic and Mizrachi Jewish communities needs to be arranged, though hundreds of thousands of them are now thousands of miles away from the Middle East and managed somehow to create lives for themselves already. The fact of Israel's existence and/or their successful resettlement in the New World shouldn't deprive them of their rights to compensation for the losses of their property, livelihoods, communities and identities.

And importantly - nor does the existence of Israel and her absorbtion of Middle Eastern Jewry get the rest of the Middle East off the hook for their refusal to constructively assist the Arab refugees from the War of 1948. The fact that Israel has managed to survive in spite of their best efforts does NOT absolve them of responsibility for having created the war(s) in the first place, for having helped fund and arm terrorists, and for refusing to offer true and permanent hospitality to the refugees. After 60 years, they are still regarded as "temporary guests", often victimized, in Lebanon for example, not allowed to own property or hold jobs. They've been attacked by Lebanese, by Syrians, in Jordan. Discrimination in immigration law is the rule rather than the exception.

Why? To take the Jewish community as only one example, we have suffered expulsion after expulsion and have NEVER kept our brethren in cages.

For a start I do not understand why Syria and Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and the others of the 22 Arab League states haven't been more amenable to making citizenship and opportunity available to Arab refugees, who are all are from a few short miles away, aren't a different ethnic or language group, and may have originated from there in the first place.

Immigration into the Mandate was common, as people were attracted to the improved economic conditions created by the Jewish settlers; Churchill himself commented that he found it totally unfair that the Jews should be victimized by the very immigration that they had helped create. Status as a Palestinian refugee, unlike other refugee situations, only demanded 2 years of residency in the Mandate whereas most similar situations demand 20 years; therefore claiming that all the refugees are "indigenous people" is absurd.

Those who WERE actual refugees from 1948 should have the right to return to the West Bank when that region attains some sort of stability and peace, hopefully statehood. In the cases of families that are split perhaps they can be reunified within Israel. This has already occured in many cases. Concerning the 1948 refugees, they would be returning to a completely different world. So I think they should be given a choice, and I think other countries outside the M.E. should make citizenship options available as well, not just for the original refugees but for their descendants.

What is breathtaking in its lack of both compassion and a sense of reality, is the claim that tiny Israel should somehow be forced to absorb 4.5 million hostile Arabs, when its own population now exceeds 6 million in a region smaller than New Jersey, which is mostly desert and devoid of natural resources.

This of course doesn't even mention the fact that Israel is the JEWISH national home, the only one on the planet, and such a move would completely devastate the essential nature of the place. Moreover such an event would undoubtably occur over the dead bodies of the current residents - in the most literal sense - so the fact that the Green Party and other "progressive" organizations are advocating such a solution is reprehensible as well as incomprehensible.

It is no longer 1948. There HAS been a huge transfer of people - as is not uncommon in human history and particularly, after WWII. I do not believe that other refugees from this era are still living in camps, and nor are they declaring war on their former homelands. It is time THIS conflict was resolved in a commonsensical and humane manner.

It is time people recognized that this the year C.E. 2005, not 1948, not even 1967, and in order for even greater tragedies and wrongdoings to be perpetrated, the reality of Israel as she exists today, with her 6 million citizens and what THEY have created, must be accepted. Destroying that would simply compound what has already been a difficult and frequently tragic series of events.

The mindset that somehow we can return to 1948 is reactionary, it is anything BUT progressive, and it is reflective of both ignorance and a lack of creativity, as well as a lack of ability to deal with reality. And, it would create a whole new set of victims.

Is THAT the right way to go?

***

*Of course, violence and civil war and chaos are too common throughout the modern Middle East; Israel and the Palestinians are part of a larger equation that hasn't featured tolerance and acceptance of minorities and "the other" and which HAS featured increasing religious extremism. So one should neither see, nor judge, the I/P situation in a vacuum but rather in context with the rest of the region.

There is fear of increasing terror, fundamentalism and chaos but also hope: the recent Islamic meeting in Saudi Arabia, the conference earlier this year in Jordan; the enterprise zones; the elections in Iraq and Lebanon and Egypt, the moderating of former hardline Israeli leaders like Sharon, now committed to helping create a Palestinian state. Hope lies in open government, in moderate leaders like Abdullah, in the endorsement of women's and minority and civil rights, in the desire for peace rather than for war.

The fate of Israel and the Palestinians is connected to this larger, regional paradigm. It is another error to see it as an isolated conflict between two polar opposites. Rather, we have two groups of people victimized by the same larger tragedy. Let us help to work on the situation in the context of the region, rather than locking two groups of people into an endless dance of death over a tiny scrap of desert.

[Englander]

42. I think I know why that Jimena site is so appealing.

What with the occasional mentions of Nazi Arabs, & the notes that
quote a book by Pipes, & the notes that cherrypick from UN & other
sourced documents.

I had a look at the faq, this bit was *interesting*. It even includes a
picture of the Mufti, with Hitler, & everything.

http://www.jimena.org/faq.htm#2

As you say;

--No wonder people can't figure this situation out, if people are in complete denial about the other half of the equation.--

[Colorado Blue]

48. If you don't like Jimena, there are literally dozens of other sites

which tell the story of the Sephardim and the Mizrachi.

And do you think that you can make the Mufti and the Nazis disappear? That is what the Holocaust deniers are trying to do.

Are you saying they didn't exist and that they weren't important? That they DIDN'T have a profound impact on the politics not only of their time, but of ours?

That we shouldn't discuss them because they aren't politically correct?

Or WHAT?

[Violet_Crumble]

57. What the hell does the Mufti have to do with the Palestinian refugees??

n/t

[Englander]

60. That's nice.

Feel free to post them, hopefully these other sites do not rewrite history,
or rely on bigoted sources.

[Englander]

61. Also, as the 'Bat Ye'or' books are listed as a resource -

'LRB | Vol. 27 No. 20 dated 20 October 2005

Short Cuts
Thomas Jones

The first rule when concocting a conspiracy theory is not to make any claims that can be proved not to be true. It won’t do, for example, to assert that John Kennedy was shot by Jackie Kennedy, because it’s clear from the film footage of the assassination that he wasn’t. Of course, you could make a case for that footage being faked, but how then would you account for eyewitness reports? Best not to go there. A decent conspiracy theory is made up of hard facts; the invention lies in drawing the connections. For example: Diana, Princess of Wales and campaigner against landmines, died in mysterious circumstances in Paris in August 1997; in July 1998, Brazil’s star striker, Ronaldo, fell mysteriously ill the night before the World Cup final at the Stade de France in Paris, a match in which France defeated Brazil 3-0; on the same day, David Ginola, retired French footballer and sometime L’Oréal model, became the new face of the anti-landmine movement. So far, so unconnected. But now let’s posit the existence of a mysterious secret organisation working tirelessly and ruthlessly to improve the fortunes of French footballers, an organisation so shadowy that not even the players themselves know of its activities or existence.

So far as I know, this theory has no subscribers – yet. Though I’m sure it would acquire a few thousand if Dan Brown were to write a novel based on it. Conspiracies lend themselves well to works of fiction: plots make for good plots. The best conspiracy-theory novels – Gravity’s Rainbow, for example – contain more fact than at first seems credible. But lots of people are dispiritingly willing to believe any old nonsense. This doesn’t much matter when the nonsense is The Da Vinci Code. It’s more of a problem when it’s something like the most notorious and pernicious fictional conspiracy-theory document of the 20th century, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

>snip

There is a striking paradox here: as in most racist conspiracy theories, the people accused of possessing vast, clandestine power in fact belonged to a relatively powerless and vulnerable minority. A few months before publishing The Protocols, Krushevan helped instigate the Kishinev pogrom by blaming the murder of a Christian boy, who was in fact killed by one of his relatives, on the Jews. In the riots that followed, nearly fifty Jews were killed, hundreds were injured, and more than seven hundred houses were looted or destroyed over the course of three days. The police and military didn’t intervene.

In Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis (Fairleigh Dickinson, £17.50), Bat Ye’or

--describes Europe’s evolution from a Judeo-Christian civilisation, with important post-Enlightenment secular elements, into a post-Judeo-Christian civilisation that is subservient to the ideology of jihad and the Islamic powers that propagate it. The new European civilisation in the making can be called a ‘civilisation of dhimmitude’. The term ‘dhimmitude’ comes from the Arabic word dhimmi. It refers to subjugated, non-Muslim individuals or people that accept a restrictive and humiliating subordination to an ascendant Islamic power to avoid enslavement or death.--

Martin Gilbert praises Eurabia as ‘a warning to Europe not to allow the anti-American and anti-Israel pressures of Islam to subvert Europe’s true values: vibrant democracy, humanitarian free thinking and social fair dealing’. Tell that to the Muslim detainees in Belmarsh Prison. Daniel Pipes says that ‘Bat Ye’or has traced a nearly secret history of Europe over the past thirty years, convincingly showing how the Euro-Arab Dialogue has blossomed from a minor discussion group into the engine for the continent’s Islamisation.’ You may never have heard of the Euro-Arab Dialogue, but that only goes to show how powerful it is. And according to Niall Ferguson, ‘future historians will one day regard her coinage of the term “Eurabia” as prophetic. Those who wish to live in a free society must be eternally vigilant. Bat Ye’or’s vigilance is unrivalled.’

Western Europe is in danger from Islamic extremism, as was demonstrated in London on 7 July this year, and in Madrid on 11 March 2004. But if there’s a threat to our freedom and democracy, it is posed not by the suicide bombers but by government reaction to the bombings: the summary public execution of Jean Charles de Menezes; the proposal to extend the legal period of detention without trial for terrorist suspects from 14 days to three months. The ‘Islamisation’ of Europe seems a very distant prospect to me. Ye’or would probably put my denial down to ‘dhimmitude’. In a review of Ye’or’s previous book, Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilisations Collide (2002), Melanie Phillips said that ‘there are . . . alarming signs of attempts in the West to shut down such discussions on spurious grounds of prejudice. This is, of course, itself a prime example of the condition of “dhimmitude” which Bat Ye’or so graphically describes.’

The second rule to bear in mind when putting together a conspiracy theory is that in order to hold water it needs to be circular, or rather spiral, so that any criticism can be sucked in and turned into evidence in its favour.'

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n20/print/jone01_.html

:)

[Violet_Crumble]

56. I'll tell you what's amazing...

Attempts to portray the movement of Sephardic Jews to Israel as a wholesale forced expulsion as being the truth is just as amazing as attempts to say none of them were forcibly expelled. The reality is in the middle of both those extremes. And that's because both those extremes are in complete denial about anything other than absolutes. So, you can google away and drag up as many linkys as you like, it still doesn't change the fact that while some were forcibly expelled, others left because they found conditions had degerated to a stage they didn't feel safe, and others left because they felt the pull of the Zionist call to go to Israel. But they all knew they were heading somewhere where they would be welcomed, even though the welcome wasn't as warm as they'd anticipated...

Trying to negate the Palestinian refugees right of return by pointing to what happened to Jews in Arab countries is imo a bit of a clumsy tactic which in most cases tends to be borne of a desire not to feel any empathy towards what happened to the Palestinians and a desire not to blame Israel the slightest bit for what happened to them...

There are a few comments in yr post that I want to point out:

I'd also like to know how allowing a hostile population back into a region that had barely survived the war of 1948, would have been possible without risking another all-out war?

Portraying the approx 750,000 Palestinians who became refugees as 'a hostile population' is imo just a bit of a sweeping generalisation. Are you saying these refugees were all active combatants in the war? That's strange, because the vast bulk of them were shit-scared civilians, and the only quite understandable hostility they'd have felt was losing their homes and their livelihoods with not even compensation...

Had people elected to stay and become citizens, along with the Arabs who did stay and who are citizens of Israel to this day...

Wrong again. Palestinians were being expelled from Israel right up till 1950-51. They obviously weren't considered citizens of the state they were living in...

And importantly - nor does the existence of Israel and her absorbtion of Middle Eastern Jewry get the rest of the Middle East off the hook for their refusal to constructively assist the Arab refugees from the War of 1948.

I think both Israel and surrounding states hold blame for what happened and is still happening. My question to you is do you think Israel should shoulder any blame at all for what happened or is still happening?

Violet...

[papau]

40. I agree- except that "all" Jews never left Israel- &right of return is as

the UN says, about compensation - not about getting your house back.



The URL I was reponding to was one of many that mentions reasons for not having a Jewish state in the area called Israel - and indeed was mild in terms of the words/ideas used.

The Jews left long ago theme is indeed at many sites.

The land purchased by Jews was stolen by arab rich who had no right to sell it is in some tracts.

The mirrored thinking on Jewish websites includes the Jewish right of return and the crimes against humanity of not letting EU Jews into Israel before and during the war.

As I said initially, I agree with your points.

I just would like everyone to get on the same page - compensation - and off the idea of Muslim Israel via right of return.

[Wordie]

47. Israeli researchers say these things, the early *Zionists* said these

things (about the population of Arabs in the area before the influx of Jews due to historical Zionism)). Don't you remember about the rabbi who sent a group of Jews to investigate after one of the first Zionist congresses? They were supposed to determine the suitability of the area for a new Jewish homeland. And what did they cable back to the rabbi? "The bride is beautiful but she is married to another man." And there are other writings by the early Zionists that clearly acknowledge this reality as well. Do you consider the writings of Herzl, for instance, as a "tract," biased against the Jews???

It's clear that you wish to get everyone onto your page, and that you (and many others) think the Pals should just stop with all their pesky expectations of justice, but that just isn't gonna happen. Why should it be only Israel who sets the terms, and ignores the international conclusion (UN), and reaps the benefits?

[Violet_Crumble]

58. I think ROR has three aspects...

Like you said, compensation is one of them.The compensation will have to be accompanied by repatriation to wherever they choose to live (eg the US, Canada or wherever). But there are two other important aspects - a physical right of return to Israel of a symbolic nature for some refugees (I'd be thinking any surviving refugees from 1948 and of course ones who have close family in Israel would be the obvious ones), and acknowledgement from Israel for its role in the creation of the refugee problem....

One thing worth mentioning is that there are internally displaced refugees within Israel who have never been compensated for the loss of their lands and homes. I don't think they fall under the umbrella of UNRWA, but I read a really sad thing about a guy who was now living within view of the land that he'd been kicked out of in 1948 and has never been compensated for it. His home had been turned by the Israeli govt into a small hospital type thing to deal with people who suffer those weird religious delusions that a visit to Jerusalem can sometimes inspire mainly amongst Christians. He seemed resigned to it, saying he was reasonably happy with his lot in life, but he'd really like his land back or at least compensation for it, but his sons were much angrier about it than him, and were very bitter about the injustice that had been done to him. So after reading that, I hope any resolution of the refugee issue does involve Israeli-Arabs who lost their land...

In a nutshell, though, any belief that the right of return must involve a physical 'return' of every current refugee isn't realistic...

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

31. You could be talking about Jewish immigrants to Israel here...

"The vast majority of these so-called refugees have never been to Palestine and yet millions claim now it is a sacred right to 'return'."

Also, you don't think Israel should shoulder any blame for the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem??

Violet...

[papau]

41. I agree :-) It does apply equally. But at this point right of return

is about compensation - and compensation only - I hope.

[Jim Sagle]

19. Yeah, but will you find any such place?

[Violet_Crumble]

30. Do you support the Palestinians Right of Return?

n/t

[Coastie for Truth]

52. Actually I do support reparations for the Palestinians. NT

[GatoLover]

4. Assuming such a statement exists

and I'd like to see it, are you seriously suggesting that such a statement "from a Likud think tank" is in any way equivalent to a public address of the President of Iran???

[The Stranger]

11. Well, you inadvertently make a good point.

The poster is talking about LIKUD -- NOT ISRAEL -- and Likud is an extremist Right Wing party, yet there seems to be no shortage of people on this, presumably a Left Wing PROGRESSIVE web site, defending that extremist Right Wing party.

[Colorado Blue]

15. EXCUSE ME? There seems to be no shortage of people on

this left wing, progressive website, defending the President of Iran.

GIVE ME A BREAK. Let's hear some outrage. I can't believe that holocaust revisionism isn't considered absolutely repulsive here and that people aren't angry and upset about this. I guess it's ok to wipe out people's history along with the people.

What is wrong with this picture? No wonder folks think the Left is antisemitic. I'm not seeing a whole lot of proof that this isn't so.

Meanwhile, Jewish voters, old time liberals, Democrats and moderates are left wondering where the hell they stand politically if holocaust deniers and demagogues who threaten to exterminate another nation actually find defenders on the Left.

If there's ANYTHING we stand for it's the defense of minorities and I would say a people who number MAYBE 13 million people on this entire planet and have been the targets of 2,000 years of murder, inquisition, forced conversion and brutality, would constitute a minority whose rights NEED DEFENDING and whose one tiny nation, the one place where they can openly celebrate their history and their nationhood, is under constant attack.

Instead, we find defenders of people who talk like Hitler. Great.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. Where are all these people??

Who's defending the President of Iran. Got any posts you can point me to that shows there's 'no shortage' of people doing this?

So, what level of outrage would be acceptable to you? I'll tell you something that outrages me. It's when some on the Left constantly attack the Left and DU and claim that it's anti-Semitic (the reason being because it's thought that any criticism of Israel = anti-Semitism). That is not reality at all. While there's some anti-Semitism amongst some on the Left, there's also bigotry against other groups in those same circles. But to label the entire Left as anti-Semitic is a complete distortion of reality. You want to see ingrained and widespread anti-Semitism? Take a look at the Right...

btw, you talk about 'we' as though every Jew thinks the same way. Just like any other group, there's a wide sprectrum of opinion on things. While many would stand for the defence of ALL minorities, there are more than a few who are bigoted against Palestinians (read some posts in forums like LU and Middle East Forum if you don't believe me)...

So, where are all these posts where DUers defend the Iranian President?

Violet...

[The Stranger]

45. You seem to equate Likud with the Iranian hardliners.

Many people you would never expect to talk like Hitler do so everyday now, and they also occupy other people's land, build walls around modern day ghettoes full of these people, and consider themseleves to be born superior to them.

[Colorado Blue]

7. Oh for Pete's sake.

I don't think anybody is calling for the destruction of Iran. Limiting access to nuclear materials is something else again, however, given the irresponsibility of the current government. That's a shame because it isn't irresponsible at all to plan for a petroleum-free future and if it weren't for these grossly inflammatory comments I'd say Iran has a right to a reactor for energy needs.

BUT - members of the Iranian government have already discussed the fact that Israel is so small it could be wiped out with nuclear strikes whereas Islam, with its 1.3 billion citizens, would survive a counterstrike.

Of course any nuclear attack on Israel would also wipe out the Palestinians.

Given that scenario it wouldn't be irresponsible to contemplate the destruction of A REACTOR. That's a far cry from destroying a country.

Details, details.

[oblivious]

9. 'It wouldn't be irresponsible to contemplate the destruction of A REACTOR?

I can't believe you wrote that. So if Iran were contemplating the destruction of an Israeli reactor, for example, that wouldn't be irresponsible?

[Colorado Blue]

12. Put yourself in the shoes of the Israelis. If you believed your-

self (and your neighbors) to be the targets of an(other) existential threat, what would you do? Is it better to sit there and get bombed, or what?

Now, take a moment and reflect on this SERIOUSLY and cut the knee-jerk reaction. This is not a joke. There have already been several wars and 60 years of non-stop terror. The population of Israel has already seen the destruction of European Jewry and its Sephardic and Mizrachi (Middle Eastern Jewish populations) have already been the victims of expulsion from Arab lands. Others, such as the Russians and the Ethipians, were also victims of persecution.

To where will they run? When Hitler was making similar noises in the 1930's, nobody listened and 6 million people died. There ISN'T anyplace left to run. A nuclear attack on Israel would wipe out almost half the world's (remaining) Jews and also her Arab and multiethnic population, plus the Palestinians, plus people in neighboring Arab states.

I think that all of us pray for diplomatic success. But what if that fails? Meanwhile I think it's pretty obvious that the Iranians are not contemplating the destruction of an Israeli reactor. They are contemplating the destruction of Israel. Why is this so hard to understand?

[oblivious]

21. There is no evidence they are contemplating the destruction of Israel.

Their president said that Israel should be wiped off the map - that is, the political entity should not exist in the ME, but should rather be set up in europe or Alaska or Canada. This has been Iranian policy since the Shah was overthrown. There is nothing new except that their president is a buffoon.

Almost all of the Arab press took his remarks to mean just that. But Bush, Blair, Israeli spokesmen and many western commentators chose to substitute words like destruction and annihilation to make it sound as if Iran was planning the physical destruction of Israel, building up fear and hatred.

Iran has the largest Jewish community in the ME outside Israel. As far as I've read, the Jewish culture and religion is recognised and respected by the government and people of Iran. I may be naive, but this tells me there's hope. What we don't need are people suggesting bombing nuclear reactors. That gives no hope whatsoever. Can you imagine where such an attack might lead?

[Colorado Blue]

25. Ummm. Wiping Israel off the map, moving it to Europe,

denying the Holocaust, other comments by Iranian leaders in the past about the ease with which Israel could be destroyed by nukes while Islam would survive the counterattack - I am sorry you don't take these comments seriously. The leaders you mention are taking it seriously because THEY READ HISTORY BOOKS.

Also this isn't happening in a vacuum. Holocaust denial and inflammatory antisemitic sermons, TV shows and books are common in the Middle East. What this region does not need are more inflammatory and bigoted speeches. Iran arms and supports militias dedicated to the destruction of Israel, Hizbollah for example, which is located in the Shi'a region of southern Lebanon. Hamas has voiced support for the President's "brave statements." Hamas is also dedicated to the destruction of Israel and has also declared they will not renew the truce that has reduced the death toll in Israel and the Palestinian regions over the past few months, while the Gaza withdrawal was underway. Unfortunately rocket attacks and suicide bombings began almost immediately thereafter.

This cannot bode well for the future. Iran is directly fueling this particular conflict, at a time when Israelis and Palestinians of moderation and good will are trying to find a peaceful solution to their problems.

It is true that Iran has the largest Jewish community in the M.E. outside of Israel. This is because all the Arab states expelled their Jewish communities, nearly 1,000,000 people, after 1948. About 600,000 went to Israel, most with nothing. Another 300,000 or so relocated to the New World. They lost their homes, their livelihoods, their identities - and they started over. Unfortunately this has not been an uncommon situation for Jews. So you will understand that it is galling to hear somebody speak of relocating Israel, after 2,000 years of Diaspora - prayer and dream, misery and inquisition, persecution and death - and less than 60 years of statehood. That tiny nation was paid for with millions of lives.

There are still a few Jewish people living here and there throughout the Middle East but the Arab world is practically judenrein, its ancient Jewish communities nothing more than a memory. In the past Iran has been considerably more tolerant especially by that standard, and it should be noted as well that Central Asian communities in general did not turn over their Jewish communities to the Nazis, for which we are grateful. Many Jewish people still live in these regions, in Uzbekistan for example, but radical Islamism is putting them at ever increasing risk.

Jews were very active all along the Silk Road, all the way into China - where in fact the Jewish community was assimilated. Particularly under certain dynasties - the Seljuk and the Mughal come immediately to mind - they enjoyed relative freedom and tolerance.

But under the mullahs this community is living in a delicate situation to say the least. But then so are many minorities including the Ba'hai. And, "tolerance" is NOT the same thing as "equal rights". But IF the moderate voices in the Middle East, in Iran, can speak - then I agree there is hope. But so far I haven't heard any, I haven't heard anybody from this region condemning these comments.

Have you?

[Violet_Crumble]

38. More incorrect claims...

This is because all the Arab states expelled their Jewish communities, nearly 1,000,000 people, after 1948.

No, actually they all didn't. Or are you claiming that no-one moved to Israel willingly, and that the Zionists didn't actively seek Jewish immigration to Israel?

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

35. I didn't realise Islam was a country...

BUT - members of the Iranian government have already discussed the fact that Israel is so small it could be wiped out with nuclear strikes whereas Islam, with its 1.3 billion citizens, would survive a counterstrike.

Wow. Learn something new every day! ;)

Violet...

[Darranar]

54. "whereas Islam"

:eyes:

[Violet_Crumble]

59. Islam - the world's most populous country!

I'm searching for this country named Islam in the atlas and I still can't find it anywhere. And when I google, the only country that has a population of 1.3 billion is China ;)

Violet...

[StrafingMoose]

8. IMO, Ahmadinejad is playing right into..

the hands of Israel. He's giving them all they need to do whatever they may like - from preemptive strike to strikes "à la Osirak": justification.

Calling for the destruction of Israel is like wrapping yourself in the USSR flag in the 50s during McArthy's year.

[Miss Chybil]

14. He's just pulling a Bush on them.

He knows what buttons to push. We're in for a very bad ride, I fear. Insane men are running the world.

[Colorado Blue]

16. Agreed. And the people of Iran don't deserve this any more

than the rest of us do. Iran is full of intelligent, well-educated people, diverse ethnically and linguistically, with talent, natural resources, an ancient history and endless promise.

HELP. Will nobody speak for life?

[Miss Chybil]

26. Don't you know all those people who "error on the side of life"

are adament, war-mongering, death sentence loving liars? People of all nations and tribes have always been at the mercy of their "leaders." We will, no doubt, follow them to hell - whether we like it, or not.

[Violet_Crumble]

37. Will nobody speak for life?

That's the same thing US anti-choicers ask!

Violet....

[fbahrami]

18. some history

Disclaimer: I do not support the Islamic Republic or it's current president, and I am not anti-Jewish. I do not support the policies of Israel, Iran, or the U.S.!

I learned a lot from listening to this interview:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1456.htm

[Jim Sagle]

20. Zionism RRRRRRAWWWKSSSSS!!!!!!!!! That's all you need to know.

;-)

[barb162]

24. Why does this not surprise me

birds of a feather

[Violet_Crumble]

36. How are they birds of a feather?

n/t