@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:Notice the newspaper headlines during WWII. What word was acceptable for "Japanese"?
The word they used was "japs." Over and over and over.
Now, because the USA had a terrible history of treating the Japanese, does this mean that any criticism of Japan's policies becomes racist? No.
As an example, Japan should face some serious scrutiny for the way it treats immigrants, and non-ethnically Japanese citizens. Giving such criticism to them is important.
Similarly, now matter how terrible the Jews were treated (amongst others), it does not green light them to treat others with the same cruelty.
A
R
T
@failures art,
failures art wrote:
The Nazi's rounded up the Roma people too. They still have no land. Since Israel is a great idea to resolve the travels of nomadic people, I guess Israel would be perfect! Perhaps Israel should surrender some of their land so the Roma can have a country of their own!
Or is it only a good idea when it's not your land that's being taken.
A
R
T
Well, the Roma had less organization than Jews, since Jews did get the Balfour Declaration. Jews were only "nomadic" due to anti-Semetic regimes kicking them out of a country (usually when there was a change of regimes). Roma seemed to incorporate movement into their cultural ways. But, yes, even today many Europeans are very anti-Roma. I thought the EU has been studying this situation, and looking for an approach to lessen their plight. But, since Israel is no larger than New Jersey, I would think a Roma homeland would be someplace larger. By the way, the Roma supposedly came off the Indian subcontinent thousands of years ago. So, why not India? In otherwords, once again (sarcastically said), pander to the preferences of many Europeans, in that both Roma and Jews were not considered "authentic" Europeans.
What people do not often get about Jews being in Israel is the greater object lesson to all autocrats. That being, kick someone off of their land (such as the Romans did in the first century), and even though there could be many other inhabitants in the interim, one day they may come back. There are many other peoples that could get kicked off of their land, simply because they are not the powerful majority.
So, the Palestineans can stay where they are; however, there are some Palestineans that just want the Jews to go back to Poland and Germany and Hungary and Austria, etc., etc. Now, where was that Polish Welcome Wagon??????
@failures art,
failures art wrote:
...Similarly, now matter how terrible the Jews were treated (amongst others), it does not green light them to treat others with the same cruelty.
A
R
T
I do not compare the invasion of Gaza (based on the retaliation for 8,000 missiles from Palestineans) with the "Jew hunt" in all Nazi occupied countries, that was gladly assisted by many from each occupied country.
If Palestineans can claim that one-third of their population was killed (forget the six million figure for a moment) then I can see some equality. The Jews lost their civilization in Europe. The Palestineans lost people, due to their using population centers as camouflage. Their culture continues right where it is.
If the pro-Palestinean position, of non-Middle Eastern people, shows anything, it is that the attitude during WWII, that Jews were expendable, has not really changed in the minds of many people. Since Israel understands this, I am not optimistic about peace there. Only Germany, that has its own cross to bear from WWII, can understand Israel's position. But, in my opinion, many other people of European descent just cannot get over the intractable attitude that Jews are not supposed to function like other people.
See what two-thousand years of brainwashing can do.
@Foofie,
So, Foofie, it's about numbers now?
@Foofie,
Israelis aren't "expendable" but their losses are not any more important than Palestine's. Israel has the gross share of power in this relationship, and with that comes the commensurate responsibility.
Your blaming of Palastine for the casualties inflicted by the IDF is cowardly.
A
R
T
@Advocate,
Quote:The charges against Israel are lies. It is as simple as that. E. g., most here condemned Israel for its invasion of Gaza. The truth is that Israel's invasion took place after at least 8,000 missiles and shells were fired into Israel, not to mention the killing and kidnapping of soldiers in Israel. Moreover, Israel killed a very small number of Hamas soldiers, when it could have killed hundreds of thousands in Gaza.
Why did they fire phosphorus shells into a UN depot which was harbouring hundreds of people displaced by the attack, gone there for sanctuary?
That's not a lie, it was filmed, and confirmed by international observers.
There's your "terrorist" behaviour.
@McTag,
If you think "Never Again" gives moral justification for any and all of Israel's actions, you're very confused.
Here is the truth of the matter.
The Palestinians and Israel: Just Say No
by Ben S. Cohen, Huffington Post, October, 28, 2010
The persistence of refugee status for millions of Palestinians has been the physical bedrock of rejectionism, both expressly, as in the infamous "three noes" of the Khartoum conference of 1967, and by implication, as demonstrated by the recent Palestinian decision to withdraw from direct talks.
I wonder how many of those commentators who diligently monitor the "muzzling" activities of the "Israel Lobby" will note the story of a UN official who made a perfectly reasonable observation at a recent conference, and now has everyone from Hamas to the government of Jordan demanding his head on a plate.
The official in question was Andrew Whitley, the New York Director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA,) the UN body charged with providing aid and services to Palestinian refugees. When UNRWA began its operations in 1949, there were approximately 700,000 refugees; now there are close to 5 million, by dint of the fact that, in marked contrast to other refugee populations, Palestinians registered with UNRWA can pass down refugee status to subsequent generations. It's also a pertinent fact that explains why Whitley said what he did.
"We recognize, as I think most do, although it's not a position that we publicly articulate, that the right of return is unlikely to be exercised to the territory of Israel to any significant or meaningful extent," Whitley told an audience at the National Council for US-Arab Relations conference. "It's not a politically palatable issue, it's not one that UNRWA publicly advocates, but nevertheless it's a known contour to the issue." Instead of entertaining that "cruel illusion," he continued, Palestinians should start considering "their own role in the societies where they are, rather than being left in a state of limbo where they are helpless."
For simply articulating a truth known by very many, not the least the Palestinian leadership, for decades, Whitley was chastised by the Jordanians, while Hamas angrily demanded his dismissal: one more example of how speaking your mind can land you in scalding water with those who regard freedom of speech as contingent on what you say.
Still, it's hard to fault Whitley's logic. Of the 50 million people who lost their homes because of war and conflict in the twentieth century, practically none of the original displaced returned to their homes, never mind their descendants. The historical record shows that refugees—like those 17,000 displaced Jews administered to by UNRWA back in 1950—are invariably absorbed by host countries.
What's different in the Palestinian case is that the refugee question, and its associated "right of return," has been deliberately positioned by the Arab side as the single biggest obstacle to a final settlement of the conflict with Israel. Accepting that the refugees will not go home, that they will live free of the apartheid conditions imposed on them in states like Lebanon and Syria, and that they might even receive some financial compensation on top, is the height of political incorrectness in the Middle East. It means accepting not only that Israel has the right to exist, but also the right to define itself as the democratic state of the Jewish people.
More than settlements, or (ultra-right Israeli politician) Avigdor Lieberman, or any other variable you might care to mention, it is this refusal to break with the narrative of Zionism's original sin which has derailed the peace talks for nearly two decades. As I was researching a new short film on the peace process, I was struck by how the offers made by Benjamin Netanyahu's predecessors would have resulted in a contiguous, viable Palestinian state in nearly 100 per cent of the West Bank, had they been accepted.
They were rejected because resistance to the notion of two states side by side—which, let us remind ourselves, is where President Obama wants the parties to be one year from now—runs counter to the main currents of Palestinian nationalism.
The persistence of refugee status for millions of Palestinians has been the physical bedrock of rejectionism, both expressly, as in the infamous "three noes" of the Khartoum conference of 1967, and by implication, as demonstrated by the recent Palestinian decision to withdraw from direct talks. Could Andrew Whitley's carefully worded remarks mark the beginning of a seismic shift on the Arab side, given that he has arrived at these conclusions as a friend of the Palestinians? I don't want to predict. All I will say is this: those who call themselves peace advocates could prove themselves by encouraging the liberation of the Palestinians from what, to the western flotillistas and their ilk, seems like a noble dream, but is, for the people living the reality, a quixotic struggle with no end.
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
If they are lies, why are most reliable media sources so consistent in their reporting of the Israeli atrocities? Are they all liars?
Facts reported by reputable journalists support Israel. It is many of the commentators and people like you who lie.
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
While in Israel some years ago, the Israeli's had check points on most of the roads - especially the road that ran close to Jordan. Yes, they were armed.
Why is it that people like Advocate uses their great imagination about the US-Canada invasion when that issue doesn't even come close to what Israel does in Palestine - for real.
You silly boy. Of course Israel is somewhat of a police state, and has many armed check points. If it didn't, there would be even more suicide and other bombers coming into Israel to kill its civilians. But isn't it terrible how Israel defends itself. I guess it should just turn its cheek.
@McTag,
McTag wrote:
Quote:The charges against Israel are lies. It is as simple as that. E. g., most here condemned Israel for its invasion of Gaza. The truth is that Israel's invasion took place after at least 8,000 missiles and shells were fired into Israel, not to mention the killing and kidnapping of soldiers in Israel. Moreover, Israel killed a very small number of Hamas soldiers, when it could have killed hundreds of thousands in Gaza.
Why did they fire phosphorus shells into a UN depot which was harbouring hundreds of people displaced by the attack, gone there for sanctuary?
That's not a lie, it was filmed, and confirmed by international observers.
There's your "terrorist" behaviour.
Israeli troops were being fired at from the UN depot. You can be sure that the troops will return fire. Just as other countries, such as the USA, occasionally use phosphorus, Israel deemed it necessary on that occasion.
@Advocate,
You just confirmed for all of us that Israel is not a democracy. Thanks for that admission!
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:
Israeli troops were being fired at from the UN depot. You can be sure that the troops will return fire. Just as other countries, such as the USA, occasionally use phosphorus, Israel deemed it necessary on that occasion.
Interesting.
Perhaps you look up the 1980
Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Protocol III. (The USA signed Protocols I and II on March 24, 1995 [and the amended article II on May 24, 1999] and later Protocols III, IV, and V, on January 21, 2009.)
@Advocate,
Quote:The Palestinians and Israel: Just Say No
by Ben S. Cohen, Huffington Post, October, 28, 2010
The persistence of refugee status for millions of Palestinians has been the physical bedrock of rejectionism, both expressly, as in the infamous "three noes" of the Khartoum conference of 1967, and by implication, as demonstrated by the recent Palestinian decision to withdraw from direct talks.
Cohen is wrong here. The Palestinians decided to withdraw from direct talks because the Zionists wouldn't stop building settlements in lands that the international community regards as illegally occupied by the Zionists, and that are to be set aside for the so called "two state solution." The Zionists wouldn't even make that good faith gesture, let alone consider any kind of meaningful Right of Return.
Quote:I wonder how many of those commentators who diligently monitor the "muzzling" activities of the "Israel Lobby" will note the story of a UN official who made a perfectly reasonable observation at a recent conference, and now has everyone from Hamas to the government of Jordan demanding his head on a plate.
It's absurd that Cohen attempts to compare the muzzling activities of the Israel Lobby with the protests of the Palestinians and their supporters. Had Whitley's comments offended the Zionists, they
would have had his head on a plate.
Quote:"We recognize, as I think most do, although it's not a position that we publicly articulate, that the right of return is unlikely to be exercised to the territory of Israel to any significant or meaningful extent," Whitley told an audience at the National Council for US-Arab Relations conference. "It's not a politically palatable issue, it's not one that UNRWA publicly advocates, but nevertheless it's a known contour to the issue." Instead of entertaining that "cruel illusion," he continued, Palestinians should start considering "their own role in the societies where they are, rather than being left in a state of limbo where they are helpless."
Whitley's is a simplistic take on the situation. Depending on where they live, many Palestinians wouldn't take up their right of return as they are living comfortable lives where they're at. Palestinians living in other countries don't fare as well due to official discrimination against them therein.
Quote:Still, it's hard to fault Whitley's logic. Of the 50 million people who lost their homes because of war and conflict in the twentieth century, practically none of the original displaced returned to their homes, never mind their descendants. The historical record shows that refugees—like those 17,000 displaced Jews administered to by UNRWA back in 1950—are invariably absorbed by host countries.
Cohen fails to take into account the international resolutions expressed through the United Nations that grant the Palestinians the right of return that one doesn't find in the refugee situations with which he tries to compare that of the Palestinians'.
Quote:What's different in the Palestinian case is that the refugee question, and its associated "right of return," has been deliberately positioned by the Arab side as the single biggest obstacle to a final settlement of the conflict with Israel. Accepting that the refugees will not go home, that they will live free of the apartheid conditions imposed on them in states like Lebanon and Syria, and that they might even receive some financial compensation on top, is the height of political incorrectness in the Middle East. It means accepting not only that Israel has the right to exist, but also the right to define itself as the democratic state of the Jewish people.
What's different in the Palestinian case are those UN resolutions granting the Palestinians the Right of Return that the Zionists to this day are violating.
In regard to "apartheid conditions" imposed on the Palestinians, Cohen disingenuously leaves out those under which the Palestinians live imposed by the ethnocentrically repressive state of Israel itself which is at the core of the Palestinians' apartheid plight in the Middle East.
For the Palestinians to accept that Israel has the right to exist as the state of the Jewish people would be to relinquish their own rights to that land in the name of accomodating the Zionists' insistence on maintaining their necessarily discriminatory and oppressive ethnocentric state.
Quote:. . . All I will say is this: those who call themselves peace advocates could prove themselves by encouraging the liberation of the Palestinians from what, to the western flotillistas and their ilk, seems like a noble dream, but is, for the people living the reality, a quixotic struggle with no end.
What is quixotic is that an official of the UN asks the Palestinians to give up their rights as granted by the very organization that he purports to represent.
What is astoundingly quixotic is the fact that the Zionists would rather risk their own destruction and the ruin of most of the rest of the world in maintaining their repressive state than owning up to their obligations to the Palestinians. The Zionists do not need a state of their own. What the Zionists need is a good session of collective psychological counseling.
@InfraBlue,
Israel is so repressive, they don't even treat American Jews equally. American Jews are looked up as too liberal, and marry others not of the Jewish faith. There was an article recently in the local newspaper about an American Jew who moved to Israel, but is being denied where she wishes to live in peace.
Many American Jews on a2k support Israel, but I wonder how they would react to being discriminated in Israel?
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
Israel is so repressive, they don't even treat American Jews equally. American Jews are looked up as too liberal, and marry others not of the Jewish faith. There was an article recently in the local newspaper about an American Jew who moved to Israel, but is being denied where she wishes to live in peace.
Many American Jews on a2k support Israel, but I wonder how they would react to being discriminated in Israel?
I would never visit Israel. I do not associate with Israelis. It has a Middle Eastern culture and foreign language. The Israeli machismo is alien to my upbringing. I am just an American of Jewish background.
However, being aware of the anti-Semitism that prior generations of my family had to endure in the U.S., not to mention in Czarist Russia prior to the 20th century, I do feel that a percentage of the world needs to get over its intractable desire to maintain "the wandering Jew, downtrodden" image, based on two-thousand years of brainwashing. So, yes, I am pro-Israel.
But, to be intellectually honest, let us both admit that prior to the Palestinean situation, going back to the 1920's when Zionists came to the Holy Land and bought land to farm from the Ottoman Empire, the Arabs fomented a Jew hatred that could rival the Nazi's Jew hatred. So, it might be very hard for non-Christians to "turn the other cheek," when one is hated with so much venom?
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
So, Foofie, it's about numbers now?
Why do you not give your point, rather than make an oblique question?
@failures art,
failures art wrote:
... Israel has the gross share of power in this relationship, and with that comes the commensurate responsibility...
A
R
T
Tell that to all the world powers as they rose to power.
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Israeli troops were being fired at from the UN depot. You can be sure that the troops will return fire. Just as other countries, such as the USA, occasionally use phosphorus, Israel deemed it necessary on that occasion.
Interesting.
Perhaps you look up the 1980
Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Protocol III. (The USA signed Protocols I and II on March 24, 1995 [and the amended article II on May 24, 1999] and later Protocols III, IV, and V, on January 21, 2009.)
Mustard gas was legal in WWI?
