15
   

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

 
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2007 11:34 am
foxfyre said
Quote:
The one undeniable difference between Israel and most of the others is that Israel is not on the record as denying the others the right to exist. Israel has not pledged the extermination or removal from the area of any others.

really?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2007 11:57 am
georgeob1 wrote:

...
A cogently stated argument, but one that involves more than a little sophistry.

The question , "Does Israel as a nation have a right to exist?" is loaded with unstated associations that are critical to a meaningful answer. This alone is the key source of the fallacies in the argument that follows.
...
Many Americans have for a long time (centuries) identified their own historical struggle to create a new civilization and political order in the New World with the Biblical struggles of the Jews to create Israel - and even to eventually recreate it in the modern world. This goes back to the images of the founding colonists, in the Massachusetts colony, and to a large degree it persists today. However, this association ignores a fundamental element in our development of a successful political system and culture, namely a tolerant and non-sectarian society promising freedom and equal treatment for all. William Bradford the Massachusetts colony governor, who wrote of the "shining city on a hill" they were creating in American, in fact headed a colonial government that tolerated neither atheist, Jew, Catholic nor other variety of Protestant. -- A fact that directly led to the creation of the breakaway colony of Rhode Island by Roger Smith and others. It was only later during our revolution and the following two centuries of our development that we refined and (however imperfectly) widely applied the principles of equality, freedom and democracy.

Israel has yet to face and deal with these issues. While it may, in many ways, be like the Massachusetts colony it, is fundamentally unlike the United States of America. It represents a primitive and even regressive (for many of its citizens) stage of political development, hardly different, except for its relatively greater economic efficiency, from that of its Middle Eastern neighbors. We have no transcendent right, need, or obligation to prefer its interests to those of its neighbors.
...

Yes we do have "a transcendent right, need, or obligation to prefer [Israel's] interests to those of its neighbors." It's neigbor's are controlled/influenced/driven by those who are so intolerant of those with whom they disagree that they mass murder the non-murderers among them. Those same neighbors are just as intolerant of America.

Yes,I agree. While Israel may, in many ways, be like the Massachusetts colony it, is fundamentally unlike the United States of America. After America won its war of independence, the Massachusetts colony had to cope with only a relatively few native Americans (none of whom were suicidal mass murderers of non-murderers) trying to exterminate the colony. While Israel ever since it won its war of independence in 1948, has had to continually cope with a relatively large group of non-native Palestinians (e.g., Arabs whose forbearers conquered Palestine in the 7thcentury) repeatedly trying to exterminate Israel.

The test for Israel is not its ability to emulate the evolution of the Massachusetts colony. Rather, the test for Israel is its ability to survive let alone evolve in the midst of the horrors it has had to cope with.

You appear to want to blame on Israel, Israel's 59 year failure to adequately emulate America's 265 year evolution (1789 to 1954) to the civil rights guarantees of 1954.

While Israel is due blame for its lack of perfection, the great preponderance of blame for Israel's inadequate emulation of America is deservedly placed on Israel's neighbors. Except for the short war of 1812, America has had to cope with few threats to its existence from its neighbors for the 76 years it took America to evolve to end slavery in 1865. Fortunately, while some of Israel's neighbors practice/practiced slavery to some degree, Israel since its declaration of independence has not practiced slavery to any degree, despite the many continual threats to its existence by some of its neighbors.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2007 12:01 pm
George, congratulations! You went to considerable lengths in making your points, and succeeded in showing yourself to be an A-1 foe of Israel. It is hilarious that you accuse another of being sophistic.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2007 01:18 pm
I am not a foe of Israel. Quite the contrary.

It would be very hard to make the case that what is usually considered to be "pro-Israel" policies on the part of Americans, or those of Israeli Zionists have, in any way been successful. The present situation of Israel is hardly secure and promising. The policies of the Likud Zionists have led Israel into a corner from which there well may be no escape. Sadly our too unthinking support of their worst impulses has helped get them there.

I believe the argument I offered was reasoned and clear. No sophistry there.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2007 03:26 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
I am not a foe of Israel. Quite the contrary.

It would be very hard to make the case that what is usually considered to be "pro-Israel" policies on the part of Americans, or those of Israeli Zionists have, in any way been successful. The present situation of Israel is hardly secure and promising. The policies of the Likud Zionists have led Israel into a corner from which there well may be no escape. Sadly our too unthinking support of their worst impulses has helped get them there.

I believe the argument I offered was reasoned and clear. No sophistry there.

Yes, your argument was reasoned and clear. But in it you presumed Israel could solve its problems by granting equal rights to all law abiding Palestinian Arabs who may wish to become full citizens of Israel. That presumption in the face of strong evidence to the contrary is at the heart of the perceived sophistry in your argument.

However, let's examine your presumption in detail. What do you think Israel must do NOW to escape its corner, and validate your presumption, while controlling its risk if your presumption were to be wrong? Israel in its corner is the target of an alleged minority of Palestinian Arabs who are are dedicated to Israel's extermination, and who are allegedly intimidating a majority of Palestinian Arabs into silence.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Apr, 2007 01:50 am
That is a question for Israel to decide, not me and not the United States.

However, as long as the reflexive, bipartisan U.S. security guarantee for Israel lasts there will be no incentive for Israelis to find a solution to the problems they have largely created for themselves since 1948. The security situation of Israel has gotten worse in the last 30 years, not better. There is every reason to believe it will decline further. Moreover Israeli birthrates are far lower than those of their neighbors, and there are no more crumbling Soviet Empires to provide them the immigrants needed to stave off the inevitable demographic decline. The path they are on now isn't getting them what they need -- time to find a new one.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Apr, 2007 05:38 am
Return Of The Sub-Humans. Coming soon to drive-in theatres across America.

Michael Ledeen
Quote:
And Nobody Cares...

...about chemical weapons, do they? For the ninth time in recent weeks WMDs are used by the terrorists in Iraq:

BAGHDAD - A suspected al-Qaida in Iraq suicide bomber smashed a truck loaded with TNT and toxic chlorine gas into a police checkpoint in Ramadi on Friday, killing at least 27 people -- the ninth such attack since the group's first known use of a chemical weapon in January.
But, just like women stoned to death in Iran, or the mass starvation of the people of Zimbabwe, these horrors are greeted with the silence that racists reserve for the less-than-humans who behave in an uncivilized way. Their unspoken attitude is, well, what can you expect of these untermenschen?


Glenn Reynolds agrees with Ledeen...
Quote:
"UNTERMENSCHEN:" He's right. That's how they seem to think.


Glenn Reynolds five months ago...
Quote:
STILL MORE: A reader who prefers anonymity emails: . . .
The ball is in the Iraqis' court. We took away the obstacle to their freedom. If they choose to embrace death, corruption, incompetence, lethal religious mania, and stone-age tribalism, then at least we'll finally know the limitations of the people in that part of the world. The experiment had to be made. . . .
Hmm. Some support for this notion -- and for the idea that attrition is running in the U.S.'s favor -- can be found in this analysis. . . . . .

On the other hand, it's also true that if democracy can't work in Iraq, then we should probably adopt a "more rubble, less trouble" approach to other countries in the region that threaten us. If a comparatively wealthy and secular Arab country can't make it as a democratic republic, then what hope is there for places that are less wealthy, or less secular?


Marty Peretz...
Quote:
"Even the bare rudiments of civilization will not soon come back to the banks of the Tigris and the Euphrates."


And, finally, John Podhoretz...
Quote:
What if the tactical mistake we made in Iraq was that we didn't kill enough Sunnis in the early going to intimidate them and make them so afraid of us they would go along with anything? Wasn't the survival of Sunni men between the ages of 15 and 35 the reason there was an insurgency and the basic cause of the sectarian violence now?

All quotes and links to be found here... http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/07/authoritarianism/
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Apr, 2007 06:45 am
georgeob1 wrote:
That is a question for Israel to decide, not me and not the United States.

However, as long as the reflexive, bipartisan U.S. security guarantee for Israel lasts there will be no incentive for Israelis to find a solution to the problems they have largely created for themselves since 1948. The security situation of Israel has gotten worse in the last 30 years, not better. There is every reason to believe it will decline further. Moreover Israeli birthrates are far lower than those of their neighbors, and there are no more crumbling Soviet Empires to provide them the immigrants needed to stave off the inevitable demographic decline. The path they are on now isn't getting them what they need -- time to find a new one.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Apr, 2007 07:41 am
Re: ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?
Foxfyre wrote:
What do you think?
Some commentators have said WWWIII is underway.

Do you agree?

No.
It ENDED on Christmas Eve of 1991.


Quote:
Who struck the first blow?

Stalin.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Apr, 2007 12:26 pm
ican's comments]
georgeob1 wrote:
That is a question for Israel to decide, not me and not the United States.

I asked you:
ican711nm wrote:
What do you think Israel must do NOW to escape its corner, and validate your presumption, while controlling its risk if your presumption were to be wrong?
I asked you what do you think! I did not ask you to "decide" anything. You all along, without anyone prompting you, repeatedly decided to be critical of Israel's behavior. Absent any ideas from you about what Israel must do NOW, those repeated decisions of yours have little merit.[/b]

However, as long as the reflexive, bipartisan U.S. security guarantee for Israel lasts there will be no incentive for Israelis to find a solution to the problems they have largely created for themselves since 1948.
...


Five points:
(1) From the moment of Israel's creation, the objective of Israel's neighbors was Israel's extermination;

(2) Surely you comprehend that such a circumstance discourages Israel from risking being neighborly in any sense of that word;

(3) Absent a clear alternative likely to eventually achieve their security, it is quite reasonable for Israel to resort to those defensive tactics that at least postpone their future extermination;

(4) Eventual solution of Israel's problem requires the Palestinian Arab leadership and its followers to cease trying to exterminate Israel and to begin the creation of a neighboring, peaceful Palestinian Arab state like the UN in 1947 had in mind;

(5) Perpetual failure of the Palestinian Arab leadership and its followers to decide it is in their best interest to focus on creation of a neigboring, peaceful Palestinian Arab state like the UN in 1947 had in mind, will itself eventually justify the extermination of that leadership and its followers.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Apr, 2007 03:40 pm
The leaders of the Zionist movement of the 1930s and subsequent were determined to create an authentic Jewish state that would inevitably provide unequal treatment for non-Jews. That is a matter of historical record. Sectarian disputes and even fighting or occasional riots between Jews and palestinians were a fact of life even in the late 1920s in Palestine.

Until the rise of Nazism the flow of European Jews to Palestine was fairly small - an overall social and economic impact that could (assuming wise leadership on both sides) have readily been accommodated in an evolutionary way. However, even then, the extreme elements on both sides were determined to pursue their conflicting sectarian goals.

The mass influx of Jews, displaced (and worse) from their homes during WWII, to Palestine was more than enough to disrupt an already difficult situation. No one can reasonably fault the motives of the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees and emigrants who fled Europe immediately after WWII. At the same time, no reasonable person can fault the indignation of the Palestinians and the Arab leadership of the region who had been promised independence and autonomy by the British in return for their aid in overthrowing Ottoman rule during WWI, and who now saw their land and political power slipping away to the hands of yet another group of Europeans -- whose troubles they had not created. (Never mind the fact that almost simultaneously the same British government made a contradictory assurance to the early Zionist leaders, in return for their financial support.)

The situation in 1948 may not have permitted a peaceful solution no matter what choices the leaders of the conflicting parties made. However, the unilateral move of the Zionists to declare the creation of a Jewish state, certainly ended whatever peaceful potential might have remained.

However it was primarily in the events that followed that - at least in my view - the seeds for permanent, unresolvable conflict were sown. The Israelis themselves chose to declare the new state forever open to immigration and settlement by Jews everywhere (indeed even to declare the moral obligation of Jews to do so), and, at the same time to declare the new state permanently closed to those who had fled or been driven out by the Zionists in the struggle surrounding the creation of the new state. Thus a permanently disaffected population of implaccably hostile refugees was created - their anger and hostility has fueled the struggle ever since.

A second decisive moment came after the stunning success of the IDF in the Six Day War of 1967 (hostilities that began with surprise, simultaneous Israeli attacks on Egypt, Jordan, and Syria). Israel very quickly announced its intent to forever keep an Israeli security perimeter around the West Bank territory, and immediately began the construction of fortified settlements in the West bank around Jerusalem and on the heights overlooking the Jordan valley. At the same time they began a military occupation of the West Bank, that has continued now for 40 years. In addition they (with our assistance) quickly began an organized effort to recruit Jewish settlers from the Soviet Union to populate additional Jewish settlements on the West bank territory of the Palestinians Throughout all this the Israelis permitted no political or fundamental human rights for the Palestinian inhabitants of the land they now controlled. They were treated as conquered people with no inherent rights or freedoms.

I believe these two events were moral and strategic errors of historic proportions. Peace and harmony between the Jewish settlers of the Middle East and the Palestinians who had long lived there was already a problematic matter. However these two sets of actions on the part of Israel - actions taken at moments in which Israel's power and initiative were at relatively high points - were alone sufficient to crush any subsequent possibility of peace.

Israeli protagonists have become very proficient in the use of often pithy, but basically misleading and deceptive description of what is going on in the Mideast. Examples include; "Israel, a land without a people for a people without a land"; "What can Israel do with neighbors who deny her right to exist?"; and so on. However, these statements distort the reality of the matter and block out the critical actions that Israel took at its own initiative, and at moments of great relative power when they could safely have taken a wiser course, that have alone been more than enough to create a problem without a solution other than the elimination of one side or the other in this unhappy conflict.

I don't know if there is a safe path forwatd for Israel if it takes a more moderate and just stance with respect to the Palestinians. I doubt very much if there is a safe future for Israel on their present course, and that is the real issue here.

I wasn't consulted in the choices Israel made in 1948 and 1967, and the intolerant, aquisitive strategy they have pursued since then, and I have no obligation to offer one now.

There have been many instances of the persecution of many groups of people in the world. None of them have been permanent - including the persecution of Jews.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Apr, 2007 05:10 pm
George, you certainly waste a lot of time giving us another dose of lies and distortions.

For instance, you show Israel as the agressor in the '67 war. The opposite is true. Just a slight bit of research will show you this.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Apr, 2007 05:22 pm
georgeob1 wrote:

...
I don't know if there is a safe path forwatd for Israel if it takes a more moderate and just stance with respect to the Palestinians. I doubt very much if there is a safe future for Israel on their present course, and that is the real issue here.

I wasn't consulted in the choices Israel made in 1948 and 1967, and the intolerant, aquisitive strategy they have pursued since then, and I have no obligation to offer one now.

There have been many instances of the persecution of many groups of people in the world. None of them have been permanent - including the persecution of Jews.

I think your rendition of the 1930s-on history of the Jews relative to Palestine is accurate enough for what it says, but inaccurate for what it leaves out. I think your last three paragraphs exerpted above are what is relevant NOW. However, I'll include a little of what I think you left out so you'll know what I mean.

BRITANNICA wrote:

1918: Ottoman Empire Ends Control of Palestine. British Protectorate of Palestine Begins.

1920: 5 Jews killed 200 wounded in anti-zionist riots in Palestine.

1921: 46 Jews killed 146 wounded in anti-zionist riots in Palestine.

1929: 133 Jews killed 339 wounded 116 Arabs killed 232 wounded.

1936-1939: 329 Jews killed 857 wounded. 3,112 Arabs killed 1,775 wounded; 135 Brits killed 386 wounded; 110 Arabs hanged 5,679 jailed.

1947: UN resolution partitions Palestine into a Jewish State and into an Arab State.

1948: Jews declare independence and establish the State of Israel.

1948: War breaks out between Jews defending Israel and Arabs attempting to invade Israel. State of Israel successfully defends itself and
conquers part of Arab Palestine.


I think it fair to say that the Jews had suffered enough pogroms in Europe (pre-war and during WWII) to justify their intolerance of any more pogroms in Palestine. Yet the Arabs who had allied themselves with Hitler during WWII, were unable in 1948 to muster the tolerance they owed the Jews under these circustances. The Arabs themselves continued to practice to death their form of exclusivity and intolerance of those who thought differently.

But enough of this blame game.

What can be done by all the non-Jewish and non-Arab blamers to help begin to rectify the Palestinian situation? I think it obvious what they can do to help. Knock off the blaming and begin to look for solutions. That will at least set a good example for all the blamers among the Jews and Arabs, and induce some of them to knock off the blaming and begin to look for solutions, too.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Apr, 2007 10:23 pm
ican711nm wrote:
I think your rendition of the 1930s-on history of the Jews relative to Palestine is accurate enough for what it says, but inaccurate for what it leaves out. I think your last three paragraphs exerpted above are what is relevant NOW. However, I'll include a little of what I think you left out so you'll know what I mean.

BRITANNICA wrote:

1918: Ottoman Empire Ends Control of Palestine. British Protectorate of Palestine Begins.

1920: 5 Jews killed 200 wounded in anti-zionist riots in Palestine.

1921: 46 Jews killed 146 wounded in anti-zionist riots in Palestine.

1929: 133 Jews killed 339 wounded 116 Arabs killed 232 wounded.

1936-1939: 329 Jews killed 857 wounded. 3,112 Arabs killed 1,775 wounded; 135 Brits killed 386 wounded; 110 Arabs hanged 5,679 jailed.

1947: UN resolution partitions Palestine into a Jewish State and into an Arab State.

1948: Jews declare independence and establish the State of Israel.

1948: War breaks out between Jews defending Israel and Arabs attempting to invade Israel. State of Israel successfully defends itself and
conquers part of Arab Palestine.

What did I leave out? The only comparative data you have added is for Jewish & Arab deaths in 1929 (133 Jews & 116 Arabs) and 1936 - 1939 (329 Jews & 3,112 Arabs). If anything this indicates that in the pre war period it was Jews killing Arabs in a ratio of 9.5 to one.

ican711nm wrote:
I think it fair to say that the Jews had suffered enough pogroms in Europe (pre-war and during WWII) to justify their intolerance of any more pogroms in Palestine. Yet the Arabs who had allied themselves with Hitler during WWII, were unable in 1948 to muster the tolerance they owed the Jews under these circustances. The Arabs themselves continued to practice to death their form of exclusivity and intolerance of those who thought differently.
You are distorting the truth of the matter. The fact that the Jewish settlers in Palestine in the pre WWII years had been victims of progroms in Russia, anti Semitism in France and (after 1934) Nazi anti Semitism in Germany, does not in any way justify their intolerance towards the Palestinians whose land they were taking, usually by legal means, but increasingly by seizure. The Palestinians were not conducting progroms on the Jews: they were reacting (often intemperately, sometimes violently) to the sudden influx of an alien people from another land whose declared intent was to found an exclusive state for themselves on what had been Palestinian land. This is hardly the same thing. That the Jews had been oppressed by Europeans does not justify Jewish oppression of Palestinians.

ican711nm wrote:
But enough of this blame game.

What can be done by all the non-Jewish and non-Arab blamers to help begin to rectify the Palestinian situation? I think it obvious what they can do to help. Knock off the blaming and begin to look for solutions. That will at least set a good example for all the blamers among the Jews and Arabs, and induce some of them to knock off the blaming and begin to look for solutions, too.
While I agree that is is long past time for the Jewish and Arab "blamers", as you call them to get past their excuses, rationalizations and hatreds, I do not buy your references to others, particularly as they may apply to Americans. We have foolishly bought in to the illusion of perpetual Zionist victimhood, and thereby unwittingly made ourselves the guarantor of the worst, most misguided, and oppressive elements in Israel. This has distorted the political debate within Israel; contributed to the prolonged and increasingly dangerous stalemate in the Mideast; and jeapordized the security on interests of our own country. It is time for America to let go of the illusions we have fostered, and limit our appetite for the propaganda of expansionist Zionists who are a danger to ourselves and the people of Israel & Palestine.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2007 06:24 am
As a friendly rebuttal to George's excellent posts that eloquently argue the anti-Zionist point of view, I offer the following with recognition that it comes from a pro-Israel point of view and I infer no opinion as to its accuracy other than it follows what I have come to understand as the Israeli reality and says it better than I could: (emphasis mine)

European anti-Zionism prevails again
25.07. 2006
http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000177.html
Zionism & Israel Center http://zionism-israel.com

As a result of the current crisis/war in Lebanon anti-Zionist sentiments prevail again, as they did in 2002 following the Israeli reoccupation of Jenin and the siege of the Muqata (see also Sever Plocker's excellent column). At an anti-Israel demonstration in Amsterdam, organized by the Green Party, the Socialist Party and several Palestinian and Arab organizations, people shouted in Arab: "Jews, the army of the prophet is coming". Others yelled: "Bush, Blair, Bot (Dutch minister of foreign affairs) terrorists". The leader of the Green Party, an otherwise sensible, reasonable and smart woman, explained on the radio that she saw no problem in these kind of slogans, and that they were not aggressive. I wonder what she would say if right-extremists would shout: "Muslims, watch out, the army of the crusaders is coming". At an anti-Israel demonstration in Australia, Gaza and Lebanon were called "Israel's Holocaust". I read more than once in recent weeks articles by people explaining that the creation of Israel was a crime against the Palestinians, that it happened with cunning and deceit, that the Jews wanted to expel all the Palestinians from the start to make room for their exclusivist Jewish state.

Many of these people don't call themselves anti-Zionist though, and hold that they are willing to accept Israel's existence as an accomplished fact, but Israel should be grateful for that 'acceptance' according to those people, and keep a low profile, as Israel's mere existence is an injustice to the Palestinians and hence Israel is in debt to them by definition. This view is commonplace among much of the European left and explains why every Israeli act of violence is condemned, while Palestinian/Arab violence is trivialized as acts of despair or even excused as legitimate resistance. 'The occupation is the cause of all the violence, and if Israel withdraws from all Palestinian territories there will be peace', is one of their mantras, as well as the allegation that before Zionism all people in the Middle East lived happily and in harmony. It is also widely believed that Israel was created because of the Holocaust, and Zionism is viewed as an European invention. After the Holocaust we Europeans redeemed our guilt by giving land that wasn't ours to the Jews, and so we made the Palestinians bleed for our sins. This 'progressive' line is echoed by none other than Iranian President Ahmadinejad, the reactionary head of a theocratic state.

These people also like to tell the Jews that they are safer outside Israel than within Israel. They only want the best for Israel and the Jews, they claim, but those stubborn Israelis don't see this and don't follow their well meaning advice.

Needless to say that there are some appalling blind spots in these views and also in the coverage of the history of the Israeli-Arab conflict in much of the European press. A rebuttal list of the most important European myths:

Jews and Arabs did NOT live harmoniously and happily together until those evil Zionists came. Jews were second class citizens, were treated with contempt, had to pay extra taxes, and were not allowed to have weapons. A very common practice in many Arab countries was 'Ada', stone throwing at Jews. There was relative 'harmony' because the Jews accepted their subordinated position.

Zionism is not a European invention, and Jews were a nation long before the emergence of political Zionism. Most of their holy days have also a national meaning, and at Pesach they wish each other 'next year in Jerusalem'. Jews have had a physical and spiritual tie to the land of Israel throughout the centuries.

Zionism was a largely secular movement, inspired by socialist ideals about equality, and achieving freedom and self fulfillment by working and developing the land with their own hands (Jews were forbidden to possess land in most countries most of the time). It was not aimed at creating an exclusivist Jewish state where all Arabs would be expelled, nor was it based on the Biblical promise of God to the Jewish people. Actually, most religious Jews were initially anti-Zionist because they believed only the Messiah could lead the Jewish people to the Promised Land. Zionists aimed at restoration of the Jewish people in their ancient homeland, and thought this was the only way to solve the problem of persecution, discrimination and humiliation they suffered as a minority in other countries.

Zionists thought to achieve a Jewish majority by mass immigration, not by expelling Arabs. They envisioned mass immigration of Russian Jews, of which there were several millions, and other European Jews as well as Jews from Arab countries. Russian Jews were however not allowed to emigrate after the Communist Revolution, and in the 1930's immigration to Palestine was increasingly restricted by the British authorities, in breach with the mandate given by the League of Nations, precisely because the British understood that creating a Jewish majority was unacceptable to the Arabs.


Israel/Palestine was not exactly given to the Jews on a golden tray. They settled and built up the country against all odds since before the beginning of the last century. The League of Nations granted a mandate for creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine over two decades before the Holocaust. The British mandate was paid for by Jewish tax money, and all land the Jews settled before the creation of the state was bought and paid for with their own money. Europe or the UN did not give away what was not theirs, but allowed Jews to settle on a part of their ancient homeland, and later granted them the right to self determination on part of a part of this land, giving away most of it to the Arabs. This decision was not enforced in any way after the Arabs rejected it, and many believed the Jews were not able to defend it successfully anyway.

The expulsion and flight of about 700.000 Palestinian Arabs during the 1948 war happened after the Arabs made it very clear that their goal was to expel the Jews. They started a war because they did not accept the 1947 partition plan. The most important Palestinian leader, Haj Amin al Husseini, was a Nazi collaborator and fled the Nuremberg trials. He explained to the British that he wanted to implement Hitler's solution to the Jewish problem in Palestine. Before he had instigated several Arab revolts, some resulting in pogroms in which many Jews were killed. He also had many moderate Arab leaders killed.

Arab anti-Semitism is not a reaction to 'Zionist violence' or the occupation. In March of 1921, Musa Kazim El Husseini, deposed as Mayor of Jerusalem because of his part in riots earlier that year, told Winston Churchill:

The Jews have been amongst the most active advocates of destruction in many lands... It is well known that the disintegration of Russia was wholly or in great part brought about by the Jews, and a large proportion of the defeat of Germany and Austria must also be put at their door.
(Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, Knopf 1999 Page 99)


King Saud told the British in 1937:

Today we and our subjects are deeply troubled over this Palestine question, and the cause of our disquiet and anxiety is the strange attitude of your British Government, and the still more strange hypnotic influence which the Jews, a race accursed by God according to His Holy Book, and destined to final destruction and eternal damnation hereafter, appear to wield over them and the English people generally.



Arab anti-Semitism is one of the root causes, not a result, of the Israeli-Arab conflict and it still plays a big and nasty role in it. Hundreds of millions of Arabs are being flooded with the most disgusting anti-Semitic propaganda on a daily basis, like Holocaust denial, Israelis injecting Palestinian kids with the AIDS virus, Jews killing Christian children to bake Matzo's, Jews stealing the organs of Palestinian children, Jews controlling all of the western media and aiming to rule the world, denial of the Jewish ties to Jerusalem, and so on and so on. No wonder people believe some of this crap and think Israel is an exclusivist Jewish state with concentration camps for Palestinians in it, and hence feel it should be destroyed.


The sad thing is, that in our free European press there is little attention to this, and on the contrary, some of it is echoed in a less extreme way in some of the European press, and people who expose Arab anti-Semitism are often accused of being islamophobes who fan the flames of the conflict and of the tensions between Arabs and Europeans.

It is about time we European progressives stop being judgemental towards Israel, and become more humble in our criticism of its policies. The Jews have enough reason to distrust European intentions regarding their country and their wellbeing.

Ratna Pelle
SOURCE
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2007 07:38 am
Actually, the above quotation is originally from Radna Pelle's (Dutch, online in Dutch and English) Zionist blog.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2007 07:46 am
Quote:


From Sept 2001
http://www.kingfeatures.com/features/columns/creese/aboutMaina.htm
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2007 08:53 am
georgeob and zingu, You guys always impress me with your knowledge on so many topics on a2k, but especially about Israel. I can only say ¨THANK YOU!¨
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2007 10:58 am
Foxfyre wrote:
As a friendly rebuttal to George's excellent posts that eloquently argue the anti-Zionist point of view, I offer the following with recognition that it comes from a pro-Israel point of view and I infer no opinion as to its accuracy other than it follows what I have come to understand as the Israeli reality and says it better than I could: (emphasis mine)
.


I'm not so sure that the article you pasted is actually "The Israeli reality" so much as it is the Israeli defense of a reality they would like us all to accept. It is a very well-stated and persuasive argument. However its most significant and persuasive elements consist of facts omitted from the story and unwarranted inferences about the motives of their critics. It is mere sophistry and propaganda.

It is certainly true that intolerance in many forms was, and continues to be, a fact of life in the Moslem world. That intolerance, however, is not particularly directed at Jews, but rather at all non-Moslems, Christian, Jew, Druze and others. The added taxes to which the author referred were paid in Ottoman times by all non-Moslems, not just Jews. (However what was omitted from the story was the fact that in return for the added taxes the various minority groups were given a degree of autonomy in the governance of their own affairs. This was a very old Ottoman practice, and, though it was unfair by our standards, it was no worse than the episodic oppression visited on Moslems, Jews and Christian minorities across Europe over the preceding centuries.)

It is also true that, irrespective of Israel and Zionists, the Modern, Western world faces a major confrontation with an aroused, angry, poorly governed and backward Moslem world, that never experienced an Enlightenment, and which appears to be stuck in a stagnant, inward-looking sullen state in which the illusion of an armed attack on the modern world (i.e. the West) appears to many to be the surest way of reestablishing glories that are long past, but fondly remembered.

The causes of this confrontation can be found in historical defects and the current backwardness of Moslem culture; some poor choices of its leaders over past centuries; the imperialism and colonialism of Western European Powers over the past two centuries; the contemporary Zionist Imperialism and the support for it offered by European and, more importantly, American political and military power. The latter, external factors have in addition, provided Moslem zealots with the external excuses they need to deny and shove aside their own role in creating their unhappy situations.

Unfortunately Zionist apologists frequently paint themselves as mere victims of Moslem backwardness, denying altogether their own contribution to the greater problem, and - equally importantly - the injustice of their own actions towards their Palestinian victims. They have significantly worsened an already difficult situation, impeding progress both for themselves and others.

Zionists portray the potential for Israel to be an outpost of superior Western values in the Middle East - one that will contribute to the modernization and transformation of backward Moslem culture and its modern economic development. Unfortunately that potential has not been realized. Indeed exactly the opposite has occurred -- the greatest progress in the development of modern political and economic systems in the Moslem world have occurred in its parts most distant and remote from Israel. Beyond the intrinsic injustice of its actions, Israel has solidified the conviction among Moslems that there is no progress or justice to be had in imitating or accommodating the West, and that the cause of their own backwardness is exclusively to be found in the exploitation and implacable hostility of their western enemies.

Israeli policies are not only perpetuating the injustice and suffering of the immediate Middle east, they are inhibiting the forces of progress and modernization in the Moslem world and inflaming an already dangerous confrontation between it and the West. This is the real truth of Israel.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2007 11:21 am
georgeob1 writes
Quote:
However its most significant and persuasive elements consist of facts omitted from the story and unwarranted inferences about the motives of their critics. It is mere sophistry and propaganda.


For we on the side making an apology for Israel, that has been the primary problem we have too, my friend. As we see it, in their zeal to criticize Israel for her sins, Israel's critics too often leave out extenuating circumstances that might change the perception that Israel is the bad guy.

For instance, the accusation that Israel was the aggressor in the 1967 war frequently leaves out the fact that Israel had excellent reason to believe that attack was imminent from several fronts and only by a swift, unexpected, and efficient first strike did Israel have any chance to defend herself.

Those that criticize Israel for shabby treatment of the Palestinians rarely if ever give any weight to the fact that in the recent decades, such shabby treatment followed terrorist attacks that any civilized country would consider cruel, barbaric, unconscionable, and intolerable. Accusations of discrimination against Palestinians does not acknowledge that the same Palestinians give allegiance to a government on the record as wanting Israelis dead and Israel gone.

We all know better than to argue that a wrong justifies a wrong. Those of us defending Israel are wise to acknowledge that Israel is not always the absolute paragon of virtue and nobility (what country can say that they are?) and it is not helpful to the debate when we present them that way. Conversely, it is important that those apologists for the Palestinians acknowledge their sins as well or we don't get past schoolyard taunts and throwing rocks.

I think we've gotten closer to realities in recent exchanges, however, and perhaps that will start a trend.

We can always hope. Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 01/15/2025 at 12:49:53