Hezbollah was formed, ironically enough, on the belief ...

[RagingInMiami]

That Lebanon had the "right to defend" itself against Israel.

It was 1982 and Israel had invaded Lebanon in an attempt to quash the Palestine Liberation Organization, which was formed in 1964 with the goal to destroy Israel and replace it with a Palestinian state.

After all, not only were 711,000 Palestinians forced to flee Israel after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Palestine was denied the right to become an independent state after the fall of the Turkish Ottoman Empire during World War I.

The British, who took control of Palestine as well as three other Ottoman territories after the war, allowed those other territories to become Lebanon, Syria and Iraq.

But they insisted that Palestine remain under British rule for the sole reason of turning it into a national homeland for the Jewish people, according to the 1917 Balfour Declaration.

So even before the Holocaust, European Jews began emigrating to the British Mandate of Palestine, creating friction with Palestinian Muslims who believed their land was being swiped from them. After all, they believed they had the “right to defend” their land.

Now that Israel is using timeless mantra that they have the "right to defend" itself as they kill hundreds of civilians, many who are women and children, do they really believe they are going to end the violence?

After all, even if they do eliminate Hezbollah, there is no doubt that a new organization will form from all this death and destruction whose sole intent will be to see the "destruction of Israel".

[GAPeace]

1. The Arabs have never had that right in American minds

It's a horrific double standard or should we say single standard -- you play by the powerful's rules.

[madeline_con]

3. Too much anti-Arab sentiment goes unchallenged...

I am amazed sometimes at the ignorance and intolerance I hear, that no one bothers to say anything about! I mean just in general, not here on DU.

Welcome to DU, BTW. :hi:

[mom cat]

4. It is even here, I fear.

[JHH]

2. thanks for the insight

[LA lady]

5. The stupidity of the media

I watched a cable news program tonight where the idiot newscaster was talking about the Muslim Muslims and the Christian Muslims. She was so stupid she apparently didn't even realize that it is a faith, not a nationality. I assume she meant Arabs but I was fuming and just changed channels.

[breakaleg]

6. I guess the Lebanese aren't allowed to defend themselves in US/ Israel's

eyes.

[jonnyblitz]

7. they are referred to as "terrorists".nt

[madeline_con]

10. If they're Iraqi, they're called "insurgents". n/t

[breakaleg]

22. only by the US and Israel, not by the rest of the world

[MzShellG]

8. The whole Israeli issue goes sooo far back...

Does anyone here even address the Khazar/Ashkenazi{sp} conversion to judaism issue? The various wars and invasions that wwnt on in early 1st centary ad.? Earlier than that even. And what about the Israeli versus Israelites debate? That is the real root of all the mid-east turmoil. That will never be resolved. It's just like the Mexicans and Indians versus the Pilgrams/US gov't.

[HereSince1628]

30. You're right...it's the ROMANS fault!!!!!

Crikey. I'm not gonna buy into the notion that proximate deaths of hundreds of civilians on both sides is ultimately based on things from 2000 years ago.

As a holder of progressive philosophy I believe progress is not only desireable but that it has actually happened a number of times in the past 2000 years.

As a Progressive I reject the notion that all sides can and should rationalize contemporary conflict on the basis of centuries and millenia old grudges of tribes, petty princedoms and minor kingdoms.

As a world we must move beyond that sort of thinking. It is the only way we can progress.

[cali]

34. Please

that is the most bullshit conspiracy crap I've ever seen. Never heard of it until a few days ago when somebody posted exerpts about it. Disgusting and throroughly antisemitic, it was deleted, but not before being seen by a lot of DUers, who all rejected it soundly.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[RagingInMiami]

11. "Nigger hanging"?

[The Straight Story]

13. I like my popcorn with butter and salt

:popcorn:

[QuestionAll...]

14. here are more 're-writers'... :(

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html


How did land ownership traditionally work in Palestine and when did it change?

“ required the registration in the name of individual owners of agricultural land, most of which had never previously been registered and which had formerly been treated according to traditional forms of land tenure, in the hill areas of Palestine generally masha’a, or communal usufruct. The new law meant that for the first time a peasant could be deprived not of title to his land, which he had rarely held before, but rather of the right to live on it, cultivate it and pass it on to his heirs, which had formerly been inalienable...Under the provisions of the 1858 law, communal rights of tenure were often ignored...Instead, members of the upper classes, adept at manipulating or circumventing the legal process, registered large areas of land as theirs...The fellahin naturally considered the land to be theirs, and often discovered that they had ceased to be the legal owners only when the land was sold to Jewish settlers by an absentee landlord...Not only was the land being purchased; its Arab cultivators were being dispossessed and replaced by foreigners who had overt political objectives in Palestine.” Rashid Khalidi, “Blaming The Victims,” ed. Said and Hitchens

Was Arab opposition to the arrival of Zionists based on inherent anti-Semitism or a real sense of danger to their community?

“The aim of the Fund was ‘to redeem the land of Palestine as the inalienable possession of the Jewish people.’...As early as 1891, Zionist leader Ahad Ha’am wrote that the Arabs “understood very well what we were doing and what we were aiming at’... ‘We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in transit countries, while denying it employment in our own country... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly’...At various locations in northern Palestine Arab farmers refused to move from land the Fund purchased from absentee owners, and the Turkish authorities, at the Fund’s request, evicted them...The indigenous Jews of Palestine also reacted negatively to Zionism. They did not see the need for a Jewish state in Palestine and did not want to exacerbate relations with the Arabs.” John Quigley, “Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice.”

Inherent anti-Semitism? — continued

“Before the 20th century, most Jews in Palestine belonged to old Yishuv, or community, that had settled more for religious than for political reasons. There was little if any conflict between them and the Arab population. Tensions began after the first Zionist settlers arrived in the 1880’s...when purchased land from absentee Arab owners, leading to dispossession of the peasants who had cultivated it.” Don Peretz, “The Arab-Israeli Dispute.”

[papau]

26. So Arab upper class screwed Arab lower class - and cash paid doesn't

count as a sale.

The web site even says the under the Ottoman Land Code of 1858 all the sales were legitimate.

Then the web site tries to claim that an occupying authority - the Brits - can prevent land sales under the common law of the occupied area just because a Jew was involved. so the Jews only owned 6% of the land "legally“ - the other sales were illegal even if the arab party agreed to the salem accepted the money, and treated the land as sold. And the web site does not even mention that Arab "legal" ownership was less than the Jews.

How can that be - it doesn't add to 100% - you say. Well those crafty Ottomans took the land from the Balkans, from Greece, from those Arab lands - and legally transferred ownership to the state. So the state that existed on the Ottoman territory inherited the rights to the land - as in the State of Israel got the State land that was previously Ottoman.

And that unbiased site fails to mention this.

Indeed the authors on that site include not one voice that questions the assertions being put forth by various authors - and indeed there are no facts or documents on the site - just the selected authors assertions. There are no quotes from Samson Blinded: A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict for the obvious reason that such quotes would call into question all the other quotes. Indeed, the authors actually selected have one thing in common - an inability to see shades of gray. Sadly they even chose one of my favorite folks on the left -Noam Chomsky. When I "knew" him at Tech - in passing - his ability to squirm out of a proven falsehood via "what is the real meaning of is" type discussions fascinated me. His political ideas on the left were always an inspiration - except when it came to fellow Jews and Israel where he went off the deep end to the point he defended Holocaust deniers using an amazing lack of facts, using false "facts", and then denying that he had done so.

That is not to say that the site is not telling the truth. It is just not telling the whole truth.

My family lived under the Ottoman Empire -and like everyone else they were screwed by the Ottomans. I have never heard anyone claim unfair or corrupt Ottoman law was the fault of the Jews or that a current land title - having a trace back that includes transfers under Ottoman law - is somehow not valid. Indeed I know of no "Arab land" formerly under Ottoman control where the state has bought this reasoning and honored a claim for state land because someones family ancestors had farmed it in the 19th century, and subsequent land transfers under the Ottoman code were not valid.

As I said - any interesting re-writing of history.

[Clark2008]

17. Love your re-write, too!

:eyes:

Particularly since you probably weren't anywhere around there in 1948 and my son's grandmother was.

[eallen]

12. The only thing a liberal need know, to oppose Hezbollah...

Is that its goal is an Islamic Republic, along the lines of Iran.

As a liberal, I oppose states that institute religious law, especially when that law is enforced on all citizens, and even moreso when that law includes the kind of draconian restrictions on speech and sexual behavior as are seen in many Islamic states. Take the most extreme versions of the American religious right, Rushdoony's reconstruction movement and James Dobson and Jerry Falwell, then square it, and the result is something like Hezbollah. It epitomizes the kind of fundamentalism where fanatics fly airplanes into skyscrapers, thinking that is the sure route to paradise.

Pretending that that kind of ideology is the basis for legitimate resistance is insane. Every liberal should view Hezbollah and other organizations whose goal is a political implementation of Islamic fundamentalism as even scarier than the worse religious wackos from the west.

I criticize Israel, because it institutionalizes a favoritism for Judaism. But that at least is a soft kind of favoritism. People are not imprisoned for blasphemy; it is quite expected in Israel that non-Jews will say things contrary to G-d. Adulteresses are not stoned. Gays are not hung. For all its religious favoritism, Israel is not a Saudi Arabia or an Iran.

[rockymountaindem]

15. While I don't want to slam you, I would like to clarify something

Israel is a "Jewish state" in the sense of Jews as an ethnicity, not as a religion. It is supposedly a Jewish nation-state (though not to the exclusion of minorities, who live peacefully in Israel), not a Jewish theocracy.

The Jewish religion vs. ethnicity debate in general is a long tangle of issues which I won't start on here, but Israel is an ethnic, not a Jewish state. I do appreciate your perspective though.

[eallen]

19. They're not entirely separable, but I know what you mean.

[rockymountaindem]

24. I agree that they aren't entirely separable

And ironically, it was the anti-Semites like Wilhelm Marr who began to identify Jews racially as opposed to religiously, not us.

[Chulanowa]

33. Define "Jewish Ethnicity"

...We run into a big issue when peopel are categorized by race, because race in actuality does not exist. Many of the Jews in Israel are Slavic. Others are Jermanic. Lots are Semitic, be they of Hebrew, Arab, Maltese, or Berber extraction, who knows? If I recall right, Israel recently opened its immigration policies to Black and East Asian Jews as well. So what is "teh Jewish ethnicity"? Answer? There isn't one. "Jew" is the term used for a person who follows the doctrins of the Judaic religion, nothing more. Attributing it to race, as Israel does, leads to some hefty issues.

For example. Israel's definition is "an ethnic Jewish state"... But what happens a few years from now, when Arab Muslims are the majority of people living within Israel's borders? Is it still Israel? Will oppressive exclusivist laws need to be passed in order to maintain the "Jewish state"? Will Israel need to find an, ahem, final solution to preserve its national ethnic identity?

[RagingInMiami]

16. Not everything is as black and white as you describe

There are Jews and Christians who freely live in Iran. They may be a minority, but they are protected under Iranian law. There is also a strong sense of sexual equality in Iran, and women are encouraged to pursue higher education and government positions.

And Hezbollah has also provided an extensive network of social services to Lebanese civilians, including hospitals, schools, clinics and technical training.

So as a "liberal", I would hope you would see all sides of the issue, not just the ones spoon fed to you by the U.S. media.

[davidinalameda]

20. you're kidding right

Jews and Christians living "freely" in Iran?

sexual equality?

[RagingInMiami]

23. What is your definition of sexual equality?

"Iranian women had won the right to vote and to serve as members of parliament or Majlis in 1962, ahead of women in Switzerland. Since 1962 Iranian women had served as cabinet ministers, judges, lawyers, university presidents and directors of big companies. Since the revolution, as the universities were 'Islamised', traditional fathers who refused to send their daughters to universities could no longer claim that education corrupts. So girls rushed to universities in ever-larger numbers. At the moment, girls constitute more than 60 percent of some three million students in Iranian universities. Allegedly, there are more female doctors and dentists in Iran than male. Women form more than 35 percent of Iranian workforce, a higher figure than in any other Muslim country in the Middle East."

http://www.payvand.com/news/06/jun/1267.html

[davidinalameda]

25. you missed this part of the article

Yet despite all these advances, women have to face arbitrary medieval laws that are completely out of keeping with their level of education and social status. According to the laws of the Islamic Republic, the life of a woman is worth half that of a man. If a man and a woman are involved in a traffic accident, the man receives twice the amount of damages than the woman. The testimony of two women is equal to the testimony of one man. Men can divorce their wives at will, while it is very difficult and sometimes impossible for women to divorce their husbands. Men can legally have up to four wives. A woman cannot leave the country without the written permission of her husband, etc.

sounds like real equality working there!

[eallen]

29. For a liberal, the day-to-day law is far more telling.

Women are not free just because it might be a woman president or woman judge who enforces oppressive laws against women. Would freedom for women increase in the US, if Phyllis Schafly were elected president? Or -- horror! -- appointed to the Supreme Court? Of course not.

The laws that dwickham and I are pointing out are far more telling about the freedom and status of women in Iran, than whether women can be elected legislators. When was the last time Switzerland executed a young woman for adultery? What is the probability that that could happen under current Swiss law? Iranian law does that now. It is an odd obtuseness that ignores the kind of religious right tyranny that has been implemented in Iran.

[davidinalameda]

32. thank you

:hi:

[eallen]

21. Freely? Protected? So they can blaspheme the Prophet, without fear?

And the state will not prosecute them for that? And it will protect them from zealous neighbors who might do them harm because of that?

I think you have a very different notion of "freedom" that do I. Iran strikes me as one of the least free places in the world today. Young men are hung for homosexuality. 16 year-old adulteresses also. How much freedom is that?

[Nikki Stone 1]

18. Why did the British want a Jewish homeland?

I don't trust the British, especially of that time period. There had to be something in it for them.

[Bucky]

28. Apparently they wanted to get a lot of stateless Zionists to quit nagging

Britain's motives in the creation of Israel were, from all I've read, pretty noble. England's always had a literate and influential Jewish minority (think of D'Israeli or the Rothschilds). No doubt it would also help them keep a toe in the water among the Ottoman possessions. But their support was mostly above board--even if somewhat tailored to aggitate the Palestinians already there. The Brits still managed to drag their feat with creating Beth-Israel so that eventually extremist Zionists ended up resorting to violence to push for their dream. (eg, the bombing of the King David Hotel.)

[datasuspect]

31. to remove european jewry

from europe.

[papau]

27. land sold to Jews is "land being swiped" -Brit motivation is Jewish love?

What a load -

what a rewrite of history.