They approved of Israel being a majority Jewish state and that was the intention. Apartheid is your word, not mind. The non-Jews who are Israeli citizens know that it is not an apartheid state. Non citizens pledged to the destruction of Israel characterize it that way to engender mushy headed support from mushy headed Americans who buy into that kind of bait.
Fox wrote. Apartheid is your word, not mind.
A Freudian slip is often honest.
Indeed, both the League of Nations's 1922 Mandate for Palestine as well the 1947 UN Partition Plan supported the aim of Zionism.
Yup. Those who have at least half a mind know that Israel is not an apartheid state.
Foxfyre wrote:Steve 41oo wrote:Quote:Why....is the idea of one tiny plot of ground designated as a haven for displaced Jews viewed as so threatening or objectionable?
Well how would you feel if it was your tiny plot of ground?
If the former owners of the plot of ground on which I reside presumed to take it back now, I would fight for my plot of ground...
And if it wasnt the former owners who came knocking at your door but aparantly their decendants 2000 years later? And they pointed out some references in their holy texts (which you reject anyway as a false religion) giving them rights to your property because some people who they claim were their ancestors lived there 2000 years ago? I think you would not only fight, but ensure your people produced generations of fighters. (Sorry terrorists)
Discrimination
Israel is a state with a predominantly Jewish majority; the Arab minority constitutes about 20% of its population. Although the 1948 Israeli Declaration of Independence [4] guarantees equality of political and social rights for all its citizens, irrespective of their race, religion or sex, the Declaration also contains multiple references to the Jewish nature of the state, resulting in some laws treating Jews and non-Jews differently. [5] In particular, the jus sanguinis law of the right of return which, despite Israel's otherwise restrictive immigration policies, grant every Jew in the world the right to settle in Israel. This is especially agitating for the many Palestinian refugees, who (or whose ancestors) used to live in the territory that is modern Israel, but are denied their wish to return, which they deem a right. Supporters of the law maintain that allowing a hostile majority that were adversaries in a war for Israel's independence to return would be tantamount to the political, demographic destruction of the Jewish character of Israel, and would endanger the Jewish population living there. [6] The Article 11 of the UNGA Resolution 194, upon which the Palestinian refugees usually base their claim of a "right of return," "[r]esolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property..." without naming Israel and specifying either Palestinian or Jewish refugees.
Many opponents of Zionism declare that Zionism is racist, and compare its continuation to the reform of Germany's former 'Blood Laws', which had allowed ethnic Germans to claim citizenship, even if they were nationals of another country. The defenders of the Law of Return point out that it is designed to serve as a safe haven for Jews fleeing persecution, and as a guarantor against possible genocide. They refer to violent history of anti-Semitism and the abundance of anti-Semitic propaganda in the Arab media as an indicator of plausibility of such scenario. They also note that many modern states implement immigration policies favoring certain groups.
According to the 2004 U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for Israel and the occupied territories, the Israeli government "did little to reduce institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country's Arab citizens."[7] It based this finding on studies by Haifa University, reports from Human Rights Watch, Israeli government reports to the UN, and rulings of the Supreme Court of Israel, among other sources. See Israeli Arabs for details.
Steve 41oo wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Steve 41oo wrote:Quote:Why....is the idea of one tiny plot of ground designated as a haven for displaced Jews viewed as so threatening or objectionable?
Well how would you feel if it was your tiny plot of ground?
If the former owners of the plot of ground on which I reside presumed to take it back now, I would fight for my plot of ground...
And if it wasnt the former owners who came knocking at your door but aparantly their decendants 2000 years later? And they pointed out some references in their holy texts (which you reject anyway as a false religion) giving them rights to your property because some people who they claim were their ancestors lived there 2000 years ago? I think you would not only fight, but ensure your people produced generations of fighters. (Sorry terrorists)
That isn't the way it was though. I understand that the Arabs resented the Jews being planted by the U.K. and the U.N. in their territory, but there were some Jews already there too. It wasn't like they had completely abandoned the area for 2000 years. I understand the Jews wanting the symbolic claiming of the land they believe God gave them more than 4000 years ago and having access to Jerusalem, the original City of David, King David's capital where the temple and the central focus of Judaism was placed. The Arabs have Mecca as their central focus point and should they lose that land, subsequent generations would certainly yearn for it.
The fact is that 60 years ago, the U.N. and U.K.--not the Jews--provided a tiny narrow strip of land for the use of the Jews. Was their conduct exemplary through all that? No.
Were the Arabs appropriate in their response to it? No.
There is plenty of blame to go around.
But it is now six decades later and most of the original settlers at that time have passed on. Most of the others can remember no other homeland or are more recent immigrants who went to Israel long after the ugliest history became past history. Modern Israelis can't be blamed for the actions of the original occupants any more than modern day Germans can be blamed for the activities of the Nazis of 60 or 70 years ago.
There should be plenty of room for everybody to live there peacefully now. And it is not the Israelis who are preventing that from happening.
Foxfyre wrote:...I understand that the Arabs resented the Jews being planted by the U.K. and the U.N. in their territory...
This is news to me. This is more like received history, nazi Brits trying to keep Jews out:-
Quote:Aboard the prison ship Runnymeade Park, Gruber photographed the refugees defiantly raising a Union Jack on which they had painted a swastika. Her photo became Life Magazine's "Picture of the Week." Crushed together on the sweltering ship, making their way back to Germany, the refugees sang "Hatikvah," the Hebrew song of hope, soon to become Israel's National Anthem.
Gruber's book Exodus 1947 about the DP's endurance would later provide Leon Uris with material for his book and screenplay, Exodus, which helped turn American public opinion in favor of Israel.
Of course just after the war, when Britain was exhausted, the Jewish zionist terrorists waged a vicious campaign against lawful British authority. We caught and hung quite a few of their leaders. But not enough to prevent the worst atrocity, at the King David Hotel, referenced by ci a few posts ago. Soon after British forces withdrew. Its all very well saying we should have stayed and defeated the zionist/terrorists, but after 2 world wars in 30 years we couldn't. Pity.
Steve 41oo wrote:Foxfyre wrote:...I understand that the Arabs resented the Jews being planted by the U.K. and the U.N. in their territory...
This is news to me. This is more like received history, nazi Brits trying to keep Jews out:-
Quote:Aboard the prison ship Runnymeade Park, Gruber photographed the refugees defiantly raising a Union Jack on which they had painted a swastika. Her photo became Life Magazine's "Picture of the Week." Crushed together on the sweltering ship, making their way back to Germany, the refugees sang "Hatikvah," the Hebrew song of hope, soon to become Israel's National Anthem.
Gruber's book Exodus 1947 about the DP's endurance would later provide Leon Uris with material for his book and screenplay, Exodus, which helped turn American public opinion in favor of Israel.
Of course just after the war, when Britain was exhausted, the Jewish zionist terrorists waged a vicious campaign against lawful British authority. We caught and hung quite a few of their leaders. But not enough to prevent the worst atrocity, at the King David Hotel, referenced by ci a few posts ago. Soon after British forces withdrew. Its all very well saying we should have stayed and defeated the zionist/terrorists, but after 2 world wars in 30 years we couldn't. Pity.
I don't condone the Zionist terrorism of the 40's and early 50's. But yes, the Arabs resented the U.K. 'dumping their Jews' into Arab territory rather than giving them a homeland out of other territory. That, however, because of the historical significance of Israel, would not have been acceptable to the Zionists or really to the ordinary Jews who just wanted some place where they could be Jews without being ostracized or punished for being Jews.
And I have no way to look into your heart, but your post suggests ill feelings among at least some Brits toward the Jews based on negative past history. (Is it similar to lingering resentment of the IRA?) I sort of accused George of some latent unintentional anti-semitism when he started defending the Palestinians after describing his poor impression of the Israelis when he was there. I can't look into his heart either, but it does at least suggest an explanation for favoring one side over another.
But in all things, nothing is ever as simple as we sometimes wish to make it. And we should not judge anybody purely because they see something differently than we see it or react to something emotionally in a way that we do not. We can judge actions as right or wrong, however, constructive or destructive.
I have found this whole discussion to be occasionally constructive and I have learned a lot. I can see valid criticism for the Israelis but knowing that we aren't privy to live in a clearly right vs wrong world without some shades of gray in there, I still defend the Israelis as being more far more on the right side than are their enemies.
All one-sided garbage. Jews this, Jews that, Jews, Jews, Jews, and more Jews; screw everybody else.
Foxfyre wrote:...your post suggests ill feelings among at least some Brits toward the Jews based on negative past history. (Is it similar to lingering resentment of the IRA?) ...
I suppose some Brits are anti semitic. I'm not one. I have no ill feelings towards "the Jews". I resent
some Jewish people - zionists - for effectively kicking this country when we were down, and at a time when we had just gone through 6 years of hell fighting the real anti-semites. Its their actions I resent, not their religion. Same with the IRA who were almost entirely from the Catholic community. Actually I had a great deal of sympathy for the civil rights struggle in NI. There was clearly an injustice against the minority in the north. I never supported or condoned their methods, but I was sympathetic to the political objectives of Sinn Fein.
Even now I would have absolutely no problems with united Ireland. But thats not what a majority of people in the North want. And until they do, it will have to wait. And I have no problems with that either. (The peace deal finally hammered out in NI is something that the peoples of these islands can be proud of. When I look at the problem of Palestine/Israel it reminds me of the worst days of the Northern Ireland "troubles" but magnified 100x, I dont see any cause for optimism).
Steve 41oo wrote:Foxfyre wrote:...your post suggests ill feelings among at least some Brits toward the Jews based on negative past history. (Is it similar to lingering resentment of the IRA?) ...
I suppose some Brits are anti semitic. I'm not one. I have no ill feelings towards "the Jews". I resent
some Jewish people - zionists - for effectively kicking this country when we were down, and at a time when we had just gone through 6 years of hell fighting the real anti-semites. Its their actions I resent, not their religion. Same with the IRA who were almost entirely from the Catholic community. Actually I had a great deal of sympathy for the civil rights struggle in NI. There was clearly an injustice against the minority in the north. I never supported or condoned their methods, but I was sympathetic to the political objectives of Sinn Fein.
Even now I would have absolutely no problems with united Ireland. But thats not what a majority of people in the North want. And until they do, it will have to wait. And I have no problems with that either. (The peace deal finally hammered out in NI is something that the peoples of these islands can be proud of. When I look at the problem of Palestine/Israel it reminds me of the worst days of the Northern Ireland "troubles" but magnified 100x, I dont see any cause for optimism).
A lot of folks are anti somebody and I suppose there is no reason to think we'll see that change a lot in our lifetimes.
I do appreciate your post though I remain perhaps a wee bit more optimistic than you. My rather eclectic life experience has allowed me to see the implausible become reality and some terrible problems find solutions. I know that the seemingly impossible is often not hopeless. The truly impossible problems do take longer to solve however.
Fox, What you say may be true for you, but many have lost lives and have injuries that will not heal during their lifetimes - including many of their family members and friends. Your optimism is misplaced at best.
Foxfyre wrote:I don't condone the Zionist terrorism of the 40's and early 50's. But yes, the Arabs resented the U.K. 'dumping their Jews' into Arab territory rather than giving them a homeland out of other territory. That, however, because of the historical significance of Israel, would not have been acceptable to the Zionists or really to the ordinary Jews who just wanted some place where they could be Jews without being ostracized or punished for being Jews.
It's really just an academical question anyways, but I wonder why it would be your opinion that any territory other than that surrounding Jerusalem would have been unacceptable to "ordinary Jews"....?
Many major religions seem to be able to follow their beliefs without living in the place of the most important historical locations. I'll assume that you, for example, are Christian. And according to the New Testament, the most important locations are Bethlehem and Jerusalem. So why do you think it'd be okay for you, as an "ordinary Christian", to live in New Mexico, while doing so would have been unacceptable for "ordinary Jews"?
(I can understand your point that it wouldn't have been acceptable to the Zionists. But everybody else....?)
old europe wrote:Foxfyre wrote:I don't condone the Zionist terrorism of the 40's and early 50's. But yes, the Arabs resented the U.K. 'dumping their Jews' into Arab territory rather than giving them a homeland out of other territory. That, however, because of the historical significance of Israel, would not have been acceptable to the Zionists or really to the ordinary Jews who just wanted some place where they could be Jews without being ostracized or punished for being Jews.
It's really just an academical question anyways, but I wonder why it would be your opinion that any territory other than that surrounding Jerusalem would have been unacceptable to "ordinary Jews"....?
Many major religions seem to be able to follow their beliefs without living in the place of the most important historical locations. I'll assume that you, for example, are Christian. And according to the New Testament, the most important locations are Bethlehem and Jerusalem. So why do you think it'd be okay for you, as an "ordinary Christian", to live in New Mexico, while doing so would have been unacceptable for "ordinary Jews"?
(I can understand your point that it wouldn't have been acceptable to the Zionists. But everybody else....?)
It was the Zionist who were pushing it. And there is a deep historical and emotional link for almost all Jews with Jerusalem. Many Christians as well. I would imagine if the land could not have been provided where it was, putting it somewhere else would have been far better than having no place at all. I doubt the Jews would have been amicable to accepting a plot of land from Nazi Germany, however, and I don't recall a lot of other Europeans offering the Jews a homeland either.
Britian controlled the land it ceded for a Jewish homeland. It seems rather odd to me that many fault the Jews for accepting it, but nobody seems to mind the UK having it to give away or the United Nations ordering it to be a homeland for the Jews. Am I the only one who thinks that is odd?
As some of you know the Iranian-American scholar Haleh Esfandiari has been arrested in Iran and charged with trying to topple their government.
Quote:The Intelligence Ministry announced, "Regarding Mrs. Haleh Esfandiari, too, we point out that she is the head and founder of the Middle East Program of Wilson Center in the United States, whose budget is allocated by the US Congress."
"That center is the connection ring between the Iranians and the US organizations and foundations whose main objective is fortifying the social trends that act in line with the interests of the aliens.
For instance, Ramin Jahanbeglou, who was one of the guests of this center, had been chosen by the NED Foundation, relying on the cooperation of other US foundations, theoretized the model of East Europe's collapse, matched it with the situation in Iran, and tried to pursue it as a project."
The Intelligence Ministry reiterated, "In conducted research Mrs. Esfandiari has pointed out that the center's activities and programs related to Iran were sponsored and financed by the famous Soros Foundation, that is a US foundation owned by George Soros that has played key roles in intrigues that have led to colorful revolutions in former USSR republics in recent years."
The Ministry's Public Relations has furthermore stressed, "Relying on cooperation of Mrs. Esfandiari the head and representative of the US based Soros Foundation in Iran was identified and an arrest warrant was issued for him, the complementary research about the matter still continues."
The Intelligence Ministry announced, "In primary interrogations, she reiterated that Soros Foundation has established an unofficial network with the potential of future broader expansion, whose main objective is overthrowing the system."
According to those elaborations, some of those foundations send invitations to Iranian thinkers to give lectures, participate at seminars, or to present research projects, allocating budgets to such activities... trying to choose active partners in our country and link them to the decision maker circles and organization in the United States.
"In this respect the unseen key role played by certain intelligence agents and undercover officials in pushing forth the objectives of such projects is to be noted."
The Intelligence Ministry reiterates, "Although the short term objectives of the above mentioned foundations are mainly lined to their apparent activities, their mid-term objectives include a type of culture making, foundation making, and network establishment in the country, and their expansion in the long run, that is seriously pursued."
At the end, the Intelligence Ministry points out, "The ultimate goal of those foundations, too, is to fortify those networks at fields that are of interest for them and reaping the fruits of such activities in due time, that is nothing but people's confrontation with the system. This US designed model with its hallucinating and chanting sign is aimed at soft overthrowing of the system."
http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/line-22/0705220331013754.htm
We have had right wingers on this thread claim Soros is pro-terrorist or at least pushing for a policy that will lead to defeat for America in their "War on Terrorism".
After reading this can we assume that these same anti-Soros right wingers are pro-Iran and do not want to see the established government of Iran toppled? Or, do they want to start a war with Iran for no other purpose than to create more instability, chaos that will strengthen the existing government in Iran?
Juan Cole points out that conservative David Horowitz and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have something in common. They want to supress free speech on college campus.
http://www.campusspeech.org:80/
For those who are interested in knowing what's happening in Labanon today this may help.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1820082.ece
Robert Fisk: A front-row seat for this Lebanese tragedy
Robert Fisk: A front-row seat for this Lebanese tragedy
Published: 22 May 2007
Independent UK
There is something obscene about watching the siege of Nahr el-Bared. The old Palestinian camp - home to 30,000 lost souls who will never go "home" - basks in the Mediterranean sunlight beyond a cluster of orange orchards. Soldiers of the Lebanese army, having retaken their positions on the main road north, idle their time aboard their old personnel carriers. And we - we representatives of the world's press - sit equally idly atop a half-built apartment block, basking in the little garden or sipping cups of scalding tea beside the satellite dishes where the titans of television stride by in their blue space suits and helmets.
And then comes the crackle-crackle of rifle fire and a shoal of bullets drifts out of the camp. A Lebanese army tank fires a shell in return and we feel the faint shock wave from the camp. How many are dead? We don't know. How many are wounded? The Red Cross cannot yet enter to find out. We are back at another of those tragic Lebanese stage shows: the siege of Palestinians.
Only this time, of course, we have Sunni Muslim fighters in the camp, in many cases shooting at Sunni Muslim soldiers who are standing in a Sunni Muslim village. It was a Lebanese colleague who seemed to put his finger on it all. "Syria is showing that Lebanon doesn't have to be Christians versus Muslims or Shia versus Sunnis," he said. "It can be Sunnis versus Sunnis. And the Lebanese army can't storm into Nahr el-Bared. That would be a step far greater than this government can take."
And there is the rub. To get at the Sunni Fatah al-Islam, the army has to enter the camp. So the group remains, as potent as it was on Sunday when it staged its mini-revolution in Tripoli and ended up with its dead fighters burning in blazing apartment blocks and 23 dead soldiers and policemen on the streets.
And yes, it is difficult not to feel Syria's hands these days. Fouad Siniora's government, surrounded in its little "green zone" in central Beirut, is being drained of power. The army is more and more running Lebanon, ever more tested because it, too, of course, contains Lebanon's Sunnis and Shia and Maronites and Druze. What fractures, what greater strains can be put on this little country as Siniora still pleads for a UN tribunal to try those who murdered ex-prime minister Rafik Hariri in 2005?
We read through the list of army dead. Most of the names appear to be Sunni. And we glance up to the fleecy clouds and across the mountain range to where the Syrian border lies scarcely 10 miles away. Not difficult to reach Nahr el-Barad from the frontier. Not difficult to resupply. The geography makes a kind of political sense up here. And just up the road is the Syrian frontier post.
The soldiers are polite, courteous with journalists. This must be one of the few countries in the world where soldiers treat journalists as old friends, where they blithely allow them to broadcast from in front of their positions, borrowing their newspapers, sharing cigarettes, chatting, believing that we have our job to do. But more and more we are wondering if we are not cataloguing the sad disintegration of this country. The Lebanese army is on the streets of Beirut to defend Siniora, on the streets of Sidon to prevent sectarian disturbances, on the roads of southern Lebanon watching the Israeli frontier and now, up here in the far north, besieging the poor and the beaten Palestinians of Nahr el-Bared and the dangerous little groupuscule which may - or may not - be taking its orders from Damascus.
The journey back to Beirut is now littered with checkpoints and even the capital has become dangerous once more. In Ashrafieh in the early hours, a bomb explosion - we could hear it all over the city - killed a Christian woman. No suspects, of course. There never are. Posters still demand the truth of Hariri's murder. Other posters demand the truth of an earlier prime ministerial murder, that of Rashid Karami. Several, just the down the road from our little roof proudly carry the portrait of Saddam Hussein. "Martyr of 'Al-Adha'," they proclaim, marking the date of his execution. So even Iraq's collapse now touches us all here in our Sunni village where the Sunni dictator of Iraq is honoured rather than loathed.
A flurry of rockets rumbled over the camp before dusk. The soldiers scarcely bothered to look. And across the orange orchards and the deserted tenement streets of Nahr el-Bared, the sea froths and sparkles as if we were all on holiday, as this nation trembles beneath our feet.
