'Israel should dismantle nuclear weapons' US Army War Colleg

And how would a compassionate person assess their chances?

InfraBlue, I was born in USSR and lived there for the first 15 years of my life. I never heard of Americans there, surely it'ld make a lot of noise and a great showcase for Soviet propaganda! Russian Ashkenazi nationalism in Stalin's epoch. People were afraid to emit a sound, let alone - come up with an idea not approved by the Commies.

And how did the Ashkenazi nationalism look like? I'm trying to imagine but can't come up with ideas.

They probably preached those racist Hungarian ideas.

Actually, I assumed you know all this stuff since you have such strong opinions about the subject - and you didn't even hear about Uganda then?

Borrowing your favourite expression, you have created a straw-man argument. But thank you for showing that I am consistent in what I state.

And..?

If they "weren't looking for any spot", were they able to "take proposals seriously"? Did I say "all Zionists"?

A strange interpretation. Like you caught me on something. The Jewish Territorialist Organization at the time of the proposal were Zionists as well, weren't they?

And - if these proposals were investigated on the Zionist congresses, there weren't so insignificant, right?

temporary, emergency measures

Hey, I didn't mean Earth.

Even in the Middle East it is nothing special.

"It is a crux because it is a crux". Sounds like you have no idea how to prove it.

Could you expand on that statement - "it is the crux of the conflict between the Middle East and the West."
This seems to be the crux of your beliefs and I do not understand why.

Based on that learned statement I guess the installation of the Shah in Iran by the US and his subsequent removal and the embassy hostages was the result of the Jewish State. Or the marines being killed in Beirut was or Saddam coming to power was or Saddam"s killing and torture was or The Russians invading Afghanistan was or the Iraq/Iran war or the civil war in Lebanon was or, or or. Iam sure you get the picture and I am just as sure you will not see it thru the fog of your bias.

The conflict stems from a clash of cultures and religion.

JIHADI TERRORISM: RIDICULOUS EXPLANATIONS, COMPLEX SOLUTIONS

http://www.middleeastinfo.org/commentary.php?id=2133

Communists, Nazis, and Fascists resorted to terrorism. They differed from Islamic terrorism in that they were motivated by political agenda.

I've been caught using superlatives by some of the sharp posters here on A2K, and since have tried to avoid their use. Having said that, I continue to hold to the belief that the Israel/Palestine Conflict is the crux of the conflict between the Middle East and the West.

Quote:

Even in the Middle East it is nothing special.

"It is a crux because it is a crux". Sounds like you have no idea how to prove it.

Moishe wrote:

Could you expand on that statement - "it is the crux of the conflict between the Middle East and the West."
This seems to be the crux of your beliefs and I do not understand why.

The Israel/Palestine Conflict is the crux of the conflict between the Middle East and the West because, as I have already said, it imposed a bigoted, ethnocetric state in the Middle East.

Accepting that Israel is a "bigoted, ethnocentric state," how is it different from the rest of the "bigoted, ethnocentric states" in the Middle East and beyond. The Arab / racial mix is the same - either Sephardi Jew or Muslims. However, in the event that you are targeting those that are of European dissent as the "crux," do you have the same problem with other large immigrant populations in other countries in the Middle East? Do you have the same problem with other large scale immigrant populations to any other country in the world? Is is a "crux" of conflicts in Greece or Turkey; in France; England; Pakistan; India; the United States? The European Jewish immigration to Israel is far smaller both proportionally and in fact than the Twentieth Century immigrant population to all of those countries. And, although I do not know this, I suspect it is smaller than almost any immigration to almost any country.
But perhaps your "crux" is one of religion.
The same would apply. Even more so, as the majority of the Jews in the State of Israel are not religious.
What would be helpful is to somehow quantify this "bigoted, ethocentricity" in a way that could be understood as a causitive effect.
Comparisons would do this.
Comparative incidents of "bigoted, ethnocentricity" with the surrounding countries, including the Arabs called Palestinians would be useful.
Otherwise, you are simply stating your opinion that you don't like Israel by tacking a couple of prejorative adjectives in front of it. Big whoop. We already know that you don't like Israel.

This state was imposed externally by Westerners. As such it is a colony of the West in the Middle East.

I wish you would inform Europe of this belief. They don't seem to hold it with the same fervor as you do.
Again. Comparisons. What other states in the region were "imposed externally by Westerners?"
And are they too colonies of the West?
If not, why not?

As Alan Dershowitz alluded to in a talk he gave at UCLA on his book, The Case for Israel, "By the way, I meet a lot of Europeans who are more critical of Israel in public than they are in private. There are Europeans, center left and center right, who privately are glad that Israel is there keeping democracy alive and radical Islam in check. But they are not ready to say that in public."

http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=5071

Now, I take issue with the idea of Israel being "democratic" per se. Israel itself doesn't say it is "democratic." Israel says it is a "Jewish Democracy." That is tantamount to the US declaring itself a "Protestant/Anglo Democracy." The idea of an ethnocentic designation along with the word "democracy" in a country that is multi-ethnic is an oxymoron and absurd. And I also take issue with the idea that Israel is there keeping radical Islam in check.

I have no real disagreement with what you or Mr. Dershowitz have written above. I would say both points of view are valid.

I think what is closer to the truth is that the presence of Israel, a Western bigoted, ethnocentric state, in the Middle East is an inciter of Islamic radicalism against the West.

Yes. We know that's what you think. I still do not understand why you think this. Again, the adjectives do not make a case. They simply say that you hate Israel.
Nonetheless, "incitement" is a rather loaded term. And it is quite different than "crux." OBL the Putrefying was "incited" by the US being on Saudi Arabian soil - which, according to both Sharia and Hadith, is totally innocuous and without cause for hatred. But, he was "incited." Or do you believe that incitement and crux and synonomous?

The point to referring to what Dershowitz says is that the West sees Israel as a front against the Middle East.

Galilite wrote:

And how would a compassionate person assess their chances?

A compassionate person would asses their chances as close to one hundred percent as possible, as Gandhi did.

Your experiences in the USSR noted, according to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast's website it was through Soviet propaganda that American Jews and Zionists in Palestine migrated there.

The Wikipedia page also states that the idea was brought up by Ashkenazi "Commies." I doubt either site is joking.

It was the result of Stalin's nationality policy... it was also a response to two supposed threats to the Soviet state: Judaism, which ran counter to official state policy of atheism; and Zionism, which countered Soviet views of nationalism... Another important goal of the Birobidzhan project was to increase settlement in the remote Soviet Far East, especially along the vulnerable border with China.

The Ashkenazi nationalism, Zionism, looked a lot like the other European Nationalisms of the times.

Quote:

And..?

If they "weren't looking for any spot", were they able to "take proposals seriously"? Did I say "all Zionists"?

And you misrepresent the aim of Zionism--the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. A minority of Zionists took seriously the proposal fro a Jewish homeland anywhere else.

The proposals--only proposed to the sixth Zionist Congress by Herzl as

Quote:

temporary, emergency measures

--were significant and controversial enough to prove "very divisive, and widespread opposition to the plan was fueled by a walkout led by the Russian Jewish delegation to the Congress," as the Wikipedia page states.

Having said that, I continue to hold to the belief that the Israel/Palestine Conflict is the crux of the conflict between the Middle East and the West.
...
The point to referring to what Dershowitz says is that the West sees Israel as a front against the Middle East.

oralloy wrote:

The trait of the Nazis which most stands out is genocide. So long as Israel isn't trying to commit genocide, they can't be anything like the Nazis.

That Israel isn't trying to commit genocide doesn't negate the fact that both Nazism and Zionism are both informed by 19th century European nationalism. In that they are something like the Nazis.

oralloy wrote:

That is incorrect. Barak offered them 95% of the West Bank, in one contiguous block, a capital in Jerusalem, and a limited Right of Return.

Here is a map of what Barak offered in the West Bank (the Palestinians would have got everything that is grey; the Israelis would have kept what is in Blue):



High resolution: http://www.fmep.org/maps/map_data/redeployment/final_status_map_taba.pdf

As the map illustrates, the territory offered wasn't exactly contiguous, it was broken into a patchwork of areas specifically designated "Palestinian Autonomous Areas" within the area described as "Palestinian Sovereignty." The reason for that distinction is that Israel planned to effectively control those areas designated "Palestinian Sovereignty" because of the Zionist settlements in those areas that Israel never intended to dismantle.

Hello and sorry for the delay in replying --- has the question been answered, if not I'll come back with links next week. Meanwhile I wish a very happy 2006 to everyone here.

Accepting that Israel is a "bigoted, ethnocentric state," how is it different from the rest of the "bigoted, ethnocentric states" in the Middle East and beyond.

Do you have the same problem with other large scale immigrant populations to any other country in the world? Is is a "crux" of conflicts in Greece or Turkey; in France; England; Pakistan; India; the United States? The European Jewish immigration to Israel is far smaller both proportionally and in fact than the Twentieth Century immigrant population to all of those countries. And, although I do not know this, I suspect it is smaller than almost any immigration to almost any country.

What would be helpful is to somehow quantify this "bigoted, ethocentricity" in a way that could be understood as a causitive effect.

Comparative incidents of "bigoted, ethnocentricity" with the surrounding countries, including the Arabs called Palestinians would be useful.

I wish you would inform Europe of this belief. They don't seem to hold it with the same fervor as you do.
Again. Comparisons. What other states in the region were "imposed externally by Westerners?"
And are they too colonies of the West?
If not, why not?

Yes. We know that's what you think. I still do not understand why you think this. Again, the adjectives do not make a case. They simply say that you hate Israel.

Nonetheless, "incitement" is a rather loaded term. And it is quite different than "crux." OBL the Putrefying was "incited" by the US being on Saudi Arabian soil - which, according to both Sharia and Hadith, is totally innocuous and without cause for hatred. But, he was "incited." Or do you believe that incitement and crux and synonomous?

But, as hard as I try, I cannot read anything into the above that demonstrates in any way whatsoever that the "Israel/Palestine Conflict is the crux of the conflict between the Middle East and the West."

Maybe you should tell this to Chechens and all the other small peoples - just another 1000-2000 years, and they have an independent state.

InfraBlue wrote:

Your experiences in the USSR noted, according to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast's website it was through Soviet propaganda that American Jews and Zionists in Palestine migrated there.

I didn't find it in Wikipedia, but after a thorough search in Google I found some text mentioning some Americans that settled there and were repressed later during the 1930s. I suppose that was the reason they didn't want to spread this information.

The fact of revival of a sovereign Jewish territory, though far away from the actual ancestral Motherland and as an autonomy, actuated afflux of immigrants abroad. They sincerely believed that the Soviet Union was a democratic people's state. With such ideas almost 700 people from Argentina, Lithuania, France, Latvia, Germany, Belgium, the USA, Poland and even from Palestine arrived there.

Thus Birobidzhan was important for propaganda purposes as an argument against Zionism which was a rival ideology to Marxism among left-wing Jews. The propaganda impact was so effective that several thousand Jews immigrated to Birobidzhan from outside of the Soviet Union, including several hundred from Palestine who had become disillusioned with the Zionist experience.

InfraBlue wrote:

The Wikipedia page also states that the idea was brought up by Ashkenazi "Commies." I doubt either site is joking.

Galilite wrote:

Not according to Wikipedia unless you believe Stalin was Jewish:

Wikipedia wrote:

It was the result of Stalin's nationality policy... it was also a response to two supposed threats to the Soviet state: Judaism, which ran counter to official state policy of atheism; and Zionism, which countered Soviet views of nationalism... Another important goal of the Birobidzhan project was to increase settlement in the remote Soviet Far East, especially along the vulnerable border with China.

Stalin's theory on the National Question held that a group could only be a nation if they had a territory, and since there was no Jewish territory, per se, the Jews were not a nation and did not have national rights. Jewish Communists argued that the way to solve this ideological dilemma was by creating a Jewish territory, hence the ideological motivation for the Jewish Autonomous Oblast. Politically, it was also considered desirable to create a Soviet Jewish homeland as an ideological alternative to Zionism and the theory put forward by Socialist Zionists such as Ber Borochov that the Jewish Question could be resolved by creating a Jewish territory in Palestine.

InfraBlue wrote:

The Ashkenazi nationalism, Zionism, looked a lot like the other European Nationalisms of the times.

And we're talking about 1920-1930s here. Look, I understand that you are very far from this stuff. But then, why insist on something you don't really know?

InfraBlue wrote:

Having said that, I continue to hold to the belief that the Israel/Palestine Conflict is the crux of the conflict between the Middle East and the West.
...
The point to referring to what Dershowitz says is that the West sees Israel as a front against the Middle East.

Thank you for at last answering my question. But we (I at least) are talking about the Middle Eastern point of view, not the Western one.

Just one more about "the crux". Let's take a look at the following:

Iraq - is even one of the fighting factions somehow connected to Israel / Palestinians?
Syria - what bothers them more, problems in Lebanon or Israel?
Lebanon - what bothers them more, Syrian presence or Israel?
Egypt - are they more bothered by Muslim Brothers and economical problems or Israel, who, by the way, is their major trade partner?
Sudan - what is their first immediate problem, the slaughter in the south or Israel?
Were the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia threatened more by Israel or Iraq?
Algeria - are they more bothered by territorial disputes with Morocco, extremists or Israel?
Morocco - are they more bother by territorial disputes or Israel?

Where is the crux? Is there a crux at all? It is a bit like "center of the universe". Of course, if the Middle East is perceived as one fat dot on the map, then it makes sense. From CNN coverages, indeed, Middle East and Israel may seem nearly synonymous.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

The trait of the Nazis which most stands out is genocide. So long as Israel isn't trying to commit genocide, they can't be anything like the Nazis.

That Israel isn't trying to commit genocide doesn't negate the fact that both Nazism and Zionism are both informed by 19th century European nationalism. In that they are something like the Nazis.

The Nazis breathed oxygen. So do you and I.

I don't think it is fair to say that someone is "something like the Nazis" unless they are committing genocide or are trying to commit genocide.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Here is a map of what Barak offered in the West Bank (the Palestinians would have got everything that is grey; the Israelis would have kept what is in Blue):



High resolution: http://www.fmep.org/maps/map_data/redeployment/final_status_map_taba.pdf

As the map illustrates, the territory offered wasn't exactly contiguous, it was broken into a patchwork of areas specifically designated "Palestinian Autonomous Areas" within the area described as "Palestinian Sovereignty." The reason for that distinction is that Israel planned to effectively control those areas designated "Palestinian Sovereignty" because of the Zionist settlements in those areas that Israel never intended to dismantle.

That is incorrect. The Palestinian Autonomous Areas are the places the Palestinians already control.

"Palestinian Sovereignty" is the area that would have been turned over to them had they accepted the offer. All the settlements in a gray area would have been dismantled.

That would have given them 95% of the West Bank, in one contiguous block.

Pardon me, specifically, the information about Jewish American immigration to the Oblast was from the Jewish Autonomous Oblast webpage: http://www.able2know.com/forums/posting.php?mode=quote&p=1755834

Galilite wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

The Ashkenazi nationalism, Zionism, looked a lot like the other European Nationalisms of the times.

And we're talking about 1920-1930s here. Look, I understand that you are very far from this stuff. But then, why insist on something you don't really know?

What are you talking about? Zionism was very much a product of Nineteenth Century European nationalism as much as any other European nationalist group was, and they proceeded together accordingly.

The reason I quoted Dershowitz quoting Europeans was to confirm the Middle Eastern point of view that Israel is a Western colony because that is how Westerners see Israel.

Galilite wrote:

Just one more about "the crux". Let's take a look at the following...

Where is the crux? ..

Just for you, Galilite, I will repeat my statement...

The imposition of the ethnocentric Zionist state in Palestine is the crux of the conflict between the Middle East and the West.

It isn't the center of the universe; it is the center of the conflict between the Middle East and the West.

I don't think that it would be fair to say that someone is something like the Nazis if it was unqualified.

I clearly qualified my comparison.

Your claim is incorrect. The Israelis weren't going to dismantle all of the settlements. Barak had intended to dismantle 15 of the 42 settlements established in the West Bank. After pressure from the Council of Jewish Settlements he reduced the number to be dismantled to 12. Israel intended to retain control of the remaining settlements by the maintenance of bypass roads and military checkpoints.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/barakot.html
http://gush-shalom.org/archives/offers.doc

Moishe wrote:

Accepting that Israel is a "bigoted, ethnocentric state," how is it different from the rest of the "bigoted, ethnocentric states" in the Middle East and beyond.

It was imposed by the West for Westerners.

Quote:

Do you have the same problem with other large scale immigrant populations to any other country in the world? Is is a "crux" of conflicts in Greece or Turkey; in France; England; Pakistan; India; the United States? The European Jewish immigration to Israel is far smaller both proportionally and in fact than the Twentieth Century immigrant population to all of those countries. And, although I do not know this, I suspect it is smaller than almost any immigration to almost any country.

The issue isn't immigration, the issue is the creation of a Western ethnocentically bigoted state in the Middle East.

Quote:

What would be helpful is to somehow quantify this "bigoted, ethocentricity" in a way that could be understood as a causitive effect.

Maybe you can run a poll as to how many Israelis would support the granting the Right of Return to the Palestinians, or, run a poll as to how many Israelis would support abandoning Israel's directive to maintain a "Jewish character." You can further quantify the responses along ethnic lines.

Quote:

Comparative incidents of "bigoted, ethnocentricity" with the surrounding countries, including the Arabs called Palestinians would be useful.

A comparison would be an argumentum ad populum fallacy as well as a red-herring, because while the surrounding countries may be as, or more, bigoted and, or ethnocentric does not negate the fact that Israel is bigoted and ethnocentric, and that its bigotry and ethnocentrism are a European construct, and that it was imposed by Westerners, and that this is the reason that it is the crux of the conflict between the West and the Middle East.

Quote:

I wish you would inform Europe of this belief. They don't seem to hold it with the same fervor as you do.
Again. Comparisons. What other states in the region were "imposed externally by Westerners?"
And are they too colonies of the West?
If not, why not?

The states in the region were created by Westerners to further Western interests.

The other states are not colonies of the West because their populations were and are, by and large, made up of peoples from the area.

Israel was created expressly for Westerners, Ashkenazi Westerners

Quote:

Yes. We know that's what you think. I still do not understand why you think this. Again, the adjectives do not make a case. They simply say that you hate Israel.

Describing what Israel is is not a statement of hatred. It is a statement of fact. Israel is Western, bigoted and ethnocentric.

Quote:

Nonetheless, "incitement" is a rather loaded term. And it is quite different than "crux." OBL the Putrefying was "incited" by the US being on Saudi Arabian soil - which, according to both Sharia and Hadith, is totally innocuous and without cause for hatred. But, he was "incited." Or do you believe that incitement and crux and synonomous?

Peoples interpret their religions to suit their ends.

I do not believe that the words "incitement" and "crux" are synonomous.

Quote:

But, as hard as I try, I cannot read anything into the above that demonstrates in any way whatsoever that the "Israel/Palestine Conflict is the crux of the conflict between the Middle East and the West."

I'm at a loss of trying to explain it to you

Heller
You seem to forget or at least ignore the fact that approximately 20% of the population of Israel is Palestinian. They as you seem to indicate are notbeing expelled. In addition as you have bee so kind to point out the Jews have been expelled through the centuries from nation after nation. And that was when they were not being murdered out right. And why? Because they did not have a land they could call their own.
The state of Israel is now that land and haven from the whims of our oppressors. And hopefully it will remain so into perpetuity. Never again should we turn the other cheek and go to our deaths like sheep to slaughter.
Whatever it takes to assure the ongoing sovereignty of Israel is fair game. And I do mean no matter what it takes.

Moishe

You appear to be an educated and thoughtful person so I also must join others here in expressing utmost astonishment at the fact you cannot see self-evident (not to say blindingly obvious) facts:

Sadly my erudition on matters of judaism is quasi-nil but I also will try to explain the problem to you following the most elementary rules of logic:

Isabella of Spain, assorted Czars of All Russias, any number of other European potentates over the millenia have all said "the Jews must leave this area" --- remember the Roman Empire?? it said the same thing on its own controlled lands and those particular lands weren't even in Europe!!

So: if that was racist, and maybe (probably) it was, how is the converse, to wit establishment of a "Jewish state" NOT RACIST?????

Kindly understand I mean no offense, simply presenting a perfect mirror image logically speaking .......Thank you for disregarding for a moment whatever religious intolerance may be afflicting your sight and trying to view this from a standpoint of pure mathematical logic

InfraBlue wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Pardon me, specifically, the information about Jewish American immigration to the Oblast was from the Jewish Autonomous Oblast webpage: http://www.able2know.com/forums/posting.php?mode=quote&p=1755834

Try using your link... But I don't have reasons to doubt your words here.

I don't see how a Westerner's (Dershowitz's or European) point of view becomes Middle Eastern point of view.

However, if you look into each one of the listed conflicts (except Sudan) you'll see that the roots are in colonian policy of European states - especially territorial disputes. Ever wondered why the borders of the Arab states are so geometrically perfect?

By the way, in your reply to Oralloy you quote a source from 1999, I believe he was talking about 2000 - 2001 offers...

I don't think such qualified comparisons are fair.

Even qualified comparisons strike me as attempts to smear the target of the comparison with the odium of being associated with the people who carried out the Holocaust.

InfraBlue wrote:

http://www.able2know.com/go/?a2kjump=http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/barakot.html
http://www.able2know.com/go/?a2kjump=http://gush-shalom.org/archives/offers.doc

Those links are not related to what Barak offered at Taba.