Regarding Israel

[Abednego]

I would like to inquire the forum regarding the right of Israel to exist as a nation.

From what I understand, the movement toward a Jewish homeland (Zionism) began in the late 19th century (around 1890 or so). But the movement really gained momentum with the Balfour Declaration in Great Britain sometime in the 20th century (not sure of the exact date). Then after the atrocities committed against the Jews by Nazi Germany and the considering a history of anti-semitism throughout Europe the UN mandated the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 from partitioned lands. The Arab nations immediately declared war.

Now I realize that this partioned land had people living there when this occurred. But as far as I know Jewish people have lived there as long as anybody else has including the Palestinians. The Arabs nations, with the exception of Egypt, and the Palestinians have never denounced their intention of "pushing Israel into the sea" which they declared when Isreal was granted sovereignty.

Now it seems to me that if Israel has the right to exist then it has the right to defend itself. And if there is to be peace in the Middle East non-Jewish peoples have to recognize Israels right to exist. If they are unwilling then Israel has every right to retaliate every time it is attacked and keep any land they take in the process. If they knew that their neighbors were willing to accept their right to exist then I can see Israel making concessions of some of the land won in the 1967 war. If not then why should Israel put itself at greater risk?

If I am not correct in any of the facts I have mentioned please elaborate. But the question is ..... Does Israel have a right to exist?

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Does Israel have a right to exist?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes

I doubt there is a country today that is occupied by the same people throughout history. Migration, conquest etc. are a staple of history. We should focus on the real people who live in the world today, whereever they happen to live.

[nicky g]

"Now I realize that this partioned land had people living there when this occurred. But as far as I know Jewish people have lived there as long as anybody else has including the Palestinians."

Some, but not very many. The vast majority of the population had been Arabs for centuries.

"Now it seems to me that if Israel has the right to exist then it has the right to defend itself. And if there is to be peace in the Middle East non-Jewish peoples have to recognize Israels right to exist."

Egypt, Jordan and the Palsestinians recognise Israel. The only neighbours who don't are the Syrians, and that's because Israel still holds on to Syrian land. They have asked for peace talks in the past. Regardless Syria's relationship with ISrael should not impinge on their treatment of the Palestinians.

"If they are unwilling then Israel has every right to retaliate every time it is attacked and keep any land they take in the process."

A. Israel attacked in 1967, not the Arabs. B. If they keep that land, do they have the right to expal its indigenous inhabitants? Do they have the right to hold on to the land for 40 years while refusing to allow its inhabitants citizenship? Normally when a country takes over land in a war it gives it back or fully incorporates it; it doesn;t claim privileges over it and its resources over it while denying any sort of rights to its inhabitants.

[ACPlayer]

I believe that any nation founded on the principle of protecting or promoting a religious group is founded on a bad premise. This was true of Christian states in the past, muslim and hindu states today, and of Israel.

Whether or not Israel has a right to exist is moot. What is not moot is that their treatment of the people who have lived there for generations is criminal. There complete lack of desire for peace is obvious and this has caused many millions to be uprooted, transplanted and moved into Ghettos. By there actions they give Judaism a bad name and make Israel a target for the terrorists -- who at this point have nothing to loose.

[Gamblor]

Some, but not very many.

The cities of Tzfat, Jerusalem, Tiberya, and Hevron were majority Jewish until 1948, when the Jewish population of Hevron were expelled in Arab riots.

[Gamblor]

Rights of the Jewish People to a sovereign state in their own homeland (http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp507.htm)

[Gamblor]

If you believe that Judaism is best described as a religion, then you would be right. But secular Jews are still Jews.

In fact, Jewish prayer books describe Judaism not as a religion, but as a nationality. Same as German, American, etc. etc.

When you meet a guy named Theonis Kyritsis street, he's adopted America as his homeland, but you ask his nationality? Greek, he'll tell you. Same deal.

Only after they were exiled from Israel did Jews begin to adopt religion as their primary means of identification; It was necessitated by their desire to fit in to

But in every prayer service, no less than a dozen times, do Jews pray for the return to Zion, ingathering of exiles, and a rebuilding of the Jewish State.

No matter how hard we try, we're outsiders. Accepted as equals is fine and dandy, and I for one, given history, appreciate it more than you could imagine. Jews express this appreciation by the mitzvah of following the laws of the land you adopt as home. But it's not home.

[nicky g]

"The cities of Tzfat, Jerusalem, Tiberya, and Hevron were majority Jewish until 1948, when the Jewish population of Hevron were expelled in Arab riots."

Notice the b it where I said "for centuries," in response to the poster's question about Jews having "lived there as long as anybody else has". Jerusalem had become majority Jewish recently as part of the efforts to establish that state. I also understood we were talking about the country as a whole. By your logic Bradford could declare an independent Asian Muslim state in the north of England.

[Gamblor]

Jerusalem had become majority Jewish recently as part of the efforts to establish that state

Jerusalem was probably least affected by the Jewish return to Israel. Efforts to establish the state long anteceded the return of Jews - most were refugees fleeing pogroms, not idealogues who planned on building a State.

[nicky g]

"Greater Jersusalem, which was to be internationalized, included about 100,000 Jews and a larger number of Arabs."

This site claims the Arabs were in a majority prior to the partition in Jerusalem. But I accept it had a large Jewish population by 1948.

"An Anglo-American commission of inquiry in 1945 and 1946 examined the status of Palestine. No official census figures were available, as no census had been conducted in Palestine in 1940, so all their surmises and figures are based on extrapolations and surmises. According to the report, at the end of 1946, 1,269,000 Arabs and 608,000 Jews resided within the borders of Mandate Palestine. Jews had purchased 6 to 8 percent of the total land area of Palestine. This was about 20% of the land that could be settled and cultivated. About 46% of the land belonged to Arab owners living on the land or absentee owners, and about the same amount was government land. The partition borders were drawn to give the Jews a majority within the allotted area of the Jewish state, but the land conquered during the fighting included the populous Arab areas of the Galilee, as well as Arab towns such as Lod and Ramla. Greater Jersusalem, which was to be internationalized, included about 100,000 Jews and a larger number of Arabs ."

Population and Land Ownership prior to the UN Partition Resolution (http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm)

[Gamblor]

I'm happy to see you using a more impartial site than the ones Cyrus and Chris quote... mideastweb is decidedly left-leaning, but it also addresses the claims of both sides rather than lay the blame squarely on one.

electronicintifada.org? How on earth can he expect factual data and analysis?

More importantly, I don't know if you've ever been to Jerusalem, but it's basically exile. Only tourists go there. It exists in a bubble, socially-speaking. But I lost my virginity to a girl I met on Ben Yehuda st. after Shabbat so I have a particular fondness /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[andyfox]

"During the restoration of the Jewish presence in the Land of Israel, the overwhelming impression of Western visitors in the nineteenth century was that there were few Arab inhabitants."

Western visitors said that about every land that didn't fit their concept of civilization. The Spaniards said that California was sparsely populated, ignoring the 300,000 inhabitants because they were "primitive." The English found New England a "howling wilderness" because the natives did not build churches or fences. In short, the observations of western observors are culturally biased and usually of little value.

"The Restoration of Israel Was Not a Product of European Imperialism"

The restoration of Israel was seen by Herzl as an imperialist venture and he searched high and low for a European sponsor. He sold Zionism as an agency of western progress to be implanted in the midst of Arab backwardness. The Zionists always dealt with Britain while they were there, usually ignoring the Arabs.

Gamblor, there is much to inspire us in the establishment of a Jewish homeland. But the old orthodoxy, that it was a land without people for a people without a land, does not withstand serious inquiry.

[Gamblor]

What you've failed to realize andy, is that you (and ironically, pretty much all anti-Zionist bigots as well) have attached a monolithic quality to a diverse and broad ideology. Zionism was not one movement, but a collection of movements (specifically Religious, Labour, and Revisionist) that shared one overarching theme; return of exiled Jews to Israel - not on behalf of any specific Western power.

The restoration of Israel was seen by Herzl as an imperialist venture and he searched high and low for a European sponsor. He sold Zionism as an agency of western progress to be implanted in the midst of Arab backwardness.

Means to an end. He was not acting on behalf of any western agency, but rather to find someone to pay for it all. (What a schnorr!)

The Zionists made every effort to eject the British presence from Israel, including semi-terrorist activities (not attacking innocent civilians, mind you, but attacking centres of British imperialist administration; jails, the King David Hotel, etc.).

I would have thought it went without saying that national rejuvenation movements tend to contradict imperialist agendas.

[Felix_Nietsche]

I had to chuckle at the line about Israel's "criminal" treatment toward the Palestians and making themselves targets to terrorism.

Hmmmmm..... Lets see.... The Palestians hijack ships/planes killing their passengers, shoot up Israeli athletes at the Olympics, and kill unarmed men, women, and children every year ...

AND now the punchline!!!!....
THEY ACTUALLY ACT SURPRISED when the Israeli's soldiers don't treat them nicely at the check points. Then once a decade after a Palestian terrorist attack, an Israeli citizen grabs his Uzi, go berzerk, shoot up some Palestians. Then the Arabs run through the streets acting like victims asking the UN to pass another anti-Israel resolution. Nevermind the previous 100 terrorist attacks the made on the Israelis. It is almost comical that the Palestians don't see the connection between their terrorism and the Israeli response towards them. If anything the Israelis are too restrain in their responses.

Let me be up front and say, I have little respect for the Arab culture and especially the Palestians 'culture'. It started at the 1972 Munich Olmpics, then it was watching years of hijackings and murders on the news, then seeing the Palestians in Gaza dancing in celebration after the 9/11 attacks, and now these barbaric beheadings that are occuring currently.

In Thomas Friedman's book, "From Beirut to Jerusalem" he tells a story of an elderly Iranian man(Persian not Arab) who goes to Mecca for his pilgrimage. The Saudi Police asks him if he is Turk or Persian. The man knows if his lies and says he is a Turk, he will be allowed to pass unhindered. If he tells the truth, he will be beaten... So what does he do? He decides to take the beating... This story pretty much sums up the recurring theme of the Arab culture.

In short, Isrealis are civilized and the Arabs are not...

[mosta]

I was about to start a thread about a Hillel sign I saw on campus today, but this post is so remarkably apropos that I'll put it here:

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe that Judaism is best described as a religion, then you would be right. But secular Jews are still Jews.

In fact, Jewish prayer books describe Judaism not as a religion, but as a nationality. Same as German, American, etc. etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to figure out if you're making this misleading list on purpose or not. Jewishness is a nationality, like American, like German?? I think what you mean to say is "Jewishness is a race, like German, and unlike American". Now you could make the subtler point that the nation of Germany is rather like America in that is a modern invention conglomerating a hodge-podge of identities, that were until quite recently, and perhaps still are, in many ways distinct from if not inimical to each other. But I think ultimately the difference is what is overwhelming: (Has this even been repealed yet?)--despite a plurality of regional identities in Germany, one still may claim German citizenship based on having "German blood". (Doctor, I need a blood test. I want to be checked out for HIV, sickle cell anemia, cholesterol, and Germanism. (One of the things I find very interesting about the movie/story in Blade Runner on a conceptual level is the idea that a being can be human in appearance, action, behavior--in ever observable way--and yet lack some invisible essence to qualify as "truly" human. It is exactly the same as Nazi-ism.)) There is no concept of "American blood". The idea is preposterous in the extreme. America may in fact be dominated by whites, but "being American" in a philosophical sense is perfectly epitomized by a Chinese immigrant couple running a greasy spoon grill and breakfast counter, serving Mexican day laborers and Irish cops (a place I used to go to in Oakland).

Now where else can we find such a perverse and primitive, yay, barbaric, notion as a nation founded on race and (pseudo) blood identities? How about the Jews, and Israel? The sign I saw on campus today that I meant to make a post about was put up by Hillel. The title was "Birthright". Apparently if you are between 18 and 25 (or something), never been to Israel, and are Jewish you can go to this meeting and arrange to travel to Israel for cheap, if not for free (I don't know). Hmm. I thought about filing a complain with the university about allowing a club that runs programs based on racial discrimination and exclusion--what if I want to go to Israel? "Sorry, we don't allow Caucasians"--but I know better than to get myself into worlds of trouble for trying to make a point that I won't win. How long would it be before the Anti-Defamation League sent me threatening letters and started press releases?


[ QUOTE ]
When you meet a guy named Theonis Kyritsis [on the] street, he's adopted America as his homeland, but you ask his nationality? Greek, he'll tell you. Same deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not the "same deal" at all. The Greek guy is probably not going to marry a Greek woman. And if he does, his kids almost certainly won't. His "Greekness" is more like a hobby, comparable to his interest in TV football, or jogging. He's probably not going to sacrifice money and lives of family members for racial wars.

"Birthright", the sign was titled. What is a Birth-Right? As far as I know there are no birthrights. Or if there were, they should be universal, not for particular people, for particular places, to the exclusion of other particular people. Somehow it never did or would occur to me that I was owed or entitled to anything by birth--"This is yours why?" "Because I was born." "Ohhh, you were born? Okay. I didn't know that. Good job. Now it's all so clear." I'm perfectly willing to say that Israel is a better country, a better state, than any in that region. And that the Jews by and large tend to be morally well above the level of savagery, hatred, and violence that Islamists seem to enjoy. But ultimately I don't think it makes a difference, because anything that relies at any point on notions like birthrights, or Jewish blood, is essentially the same crude, primitive, stupid, violent, savage, idiotic, and disgusting way of living.

If I'd torn that fking Hillel "Birthright" sign down and thrown it in their fking idiot a**hole faces, who doubts that I'd be in jail right now?

[mosta]

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe that Judaism is best described as a religion, then you would be right. But secular Jews are still Jews.

In fact, Jewish prayer books describe Judaism not as a religion, but as a nationality. Same as German, American, etc. etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

Friends of mine whose parents grew up in Iran, Korea, Brazil, and various other far-off places, and who were born in the US and speak English natively, describe themselves as, and are considered, American. And so I guess you're telling me that if I moved to Israel with my pregnant wife and my child was born there and spoke Hebrew natively, that child would be, what? Isaeli? Jewish? And there wouldn't be any fking bullsht questions about what their mother was? Really??? Try again.

[Abednego]

Excellent excellent post. Absolutely irrefutable. Thank you sir for posting.

[Gamblor]

I'm under the impression that despite your use of the word "race", nationality requires a sort of common heritage of customs, language, etc. etc. and that certainly applies to Jews, as it does Germans, Irish, etc.

Now, I'd guess (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that you took offense because there's a degree of pretention in the idea of a birthright/entitlement, at the exclusion of others.

I believe in the concept of the "ethnic nation", but not in race as you apply it; Race implies a degree of competition. I'm of the opinion (having grown up in fairly liberal societies outside the US - Canada and Israel) that the "melting pot" culture in the US has eliminated the idea of "ethnic nationality" from the moral good. It demands that if you are "American" then you better damn well act "American". But in Canada and Israel, we have what is affectionately referred to as the "Mosaic"; the idea of what you'd call "race" is accepted. It's there. Invisible DNA or not, we are all different. Equal, but different, and we all live together. So for the particular case of Israel, as in Greece and Germany, there is an element of entitlement. Any Jew can immigrate. BUT: Any non-Jew can immigrate as well, using criteria similar to the United States.

On a related note, the Law of Return (allowing any Jew to automatically receive citizenship) has caused so many economic, social, and political problems it probably serves us right. On the Statue of Liberty it says "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses." You haven't seen anything like what's come knocking on the door at Ben Gurion. Hundreds of thousands of Russian Jewish refugees, Ethiopian Jewish refugees, Jewish refugees from Arab countries... all with little Hebrew knowledge, no money, and varying degrees of education. To say nothing of the non-Jewish refugees from India, Thailand, the Phillipines, and all over the Far East.

The intermarriage rate between Jews and non-Jews in the US is about 50%. So I suppose we are Greek as Mr. Kyritsis.

[Felix_Nietsche]

I can't tell if your being sarcastic or not.

The actions of Arabs over the last 30+ years speak louder than words. Intentionally killing civilians is a dishorable behavior. Since the majority of Arab culture embraces and condones these these tactics, I can't respect them or their culture... End-of-Story..

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
Since the majority of Arab culture embraces and condones these these tactics, I can't respect them or their culture...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm wondering where you got this information from, or formed this opinion. Was there a poll that you saw on CNN? Or did you spend some time in Arab nations informally investigating this? I'm just asking because I haven't seen a poll or any numeric representation of this claim. I'm not sure if it's correct or not. Certainly there have been a lot of terrorist acts perpetrated by Arabs and innocents killed by them. The media sure tends to emphasize this.

It's interesting to me that the right-wring crowd loves to attack the 'liberal media' for portraying so many other people unfairly, but generally tends to buy in to the media portrayal of Arabs, which is undeniably unfavorable to them. Again, I haven't investigated it thoroughly, I'd be happy to see some information.

NT

[Felix_Nietsche]

Lets see:

*It was common knowledge Sadaam Hussein gave $25,000 rewards to the families whose sons successfully killed Israelis via suicide attacks.
*In Saudi Arabia, they have telethons to raise money for Palestinians whose sons killed Israelis. I use to know a guy who lived in Saudi Arabia. He had some great stories. The best one was when Saudi's fly out of the country, all the women wear their burkas. When they leave Saudi airspace, the make an announcement over the intercom and all the women go to the restrooms to change. When the come out, their burkas are gone and their new outfits are rather revealing. To paraphrase him, "they wear outfits that would make Britney Spears blush" /images/graemlins/smile.gif

*Wall Street Journal has publish some very interesting articles regarding the "education" the takes place in Arab countries. There also have been some very interesting TV shows on Saudi schools and Pakistani schools. Some of the information their text books would make Josef Goebbels proud. If you bother to educate yourself on this subject, then you will realize that it is no surprise why these children grow up with such hatred. The taught to be this way. The funniest(or saddest) part of the article, is most of them graduate with a degree in "Islamic Studies" and they can't find employers in their own country who will hire them. But this makes sense, if an employer needs to hire a computer programmer, an employee with a degree in Islamic Studies degree won't get the job done.
*There have been several polls regarding Arab attititudes both towards the US and Israel. I just read one within the last two weeks. It was probably the WSJ but I don't remember.

*I have friends on my in Iraq now that I regularly communicate with. They have told me they're are Iraqis that actually believe that Jews kill Arab children, drain their blood, and use the blood to make bread. Why do they believe this? Because the "Walter Conkrite" of Arab TV actually says this on TV. Sorry I don't remember his name. My friends have also told lots of stories regarding the "rules" when an "infidel" is protected and when he is not. When he is not them he is subject to kidnapping and worse.
*Thomas Friedman has written some excellent books about the Middle East. I disagree with many of his conclusions, but his books are first rate.

*The Palestinians dancing after the 9/11 attacks was shown on several networks.
*National Geographic magazine has has numerous articles on various countries of the Middle East over the years. Their articles are excellent.

*You may have read that the beheading videos are best sellers in Iraq. Does that not speak volumes about the Arab culture?
*As for the 1972 Munich Olympics killings, I watch that on TV when I was a boy.

*If you wish to get a better understanding of todays Arab culture, I'd read some books about the Moors, Barbary States, Ottaman Turks, and Egypt under Saladin. From 1000 AD to about 1600 AD the Arabs were at their best with regard to literature and science.

*You can read about the attrocites and slavery that are still happening in Sudan today.
*In the news they have shown Palestinians dressing their 3 year old children in suicide bomber outfits. Call me judgemental, but I find that somewhat sick.

That is just for starters.... I'd rather not regurgitate(sp?) the 25 years of reading, watching the news, and talking to Arabs which led me to my opinions on this subject.

When I was in college I use to be a Palestinain supporter and Anti-Israel. Needless to say, I have changed my mind.

[nothumb]

Ok, thank you for all the unspecific anecdotes and examples, I was only asking for an unbiased, scientific poll or a survey that demonstrates your point. Apparently you read one recently but couldn't remember any numbers or questions or where you might be able to find it.

Still wondering how you ended up with that name. Was your Dad too poor to afford the 'Z' that goes between the 'T' and the 'S'?

NT

[Felix_Nietsche]

When I read a poll or news story, I don't make a habit of compiling a bibliograhy in case someone wants ask me about it. Go do your own homework or NOT. And believe what you want to believe... It matters not to me...

Your smart alek remarks, regarding the spelling of my great grandmothers maiden name, are getting a little old. It might be time for some new material...

[Gamblor]

if your TV keeps showing this stuff, you're going to go in circles.

Palestinian Media Watch (http://www.pmw.org.il)

Middle East Media Research Institute (http://www.memri.org)

[MMMMMM]

Isreal has a right to exist.

The Arabs can't stomach even 1/900th or so of the total Arab land mass being Israel. Well too bad. If the Arabs (and the Russians, and the Europeans) had not so severely oppressed the Jews, Israel would not have been necessary in the first place. So the Arabs are at fault for having contributed to oppression of the Jews which forced the creation of Israel in the first place.

Also, if the other Arab states had an amount of compassion for their brethren in Palestine that was anywhere near the amount of their of hatred for the Jews, they could have long ago aided the Palestinians in resettlement--heck Jordan has an enormous Palestinian population anyway. But the Arabs would rather use their brothers cynically as pawns against Israel, rather than helping them move on with their lives and existences. So much for Arab unity--it is only unity when they have an outsider to hate. And apparently they would rather hate than move on.

Relatively few of the Palestinians who were displaced originally are still living. Few today have ever set foot in Israel. Yet their descendants have all been accorded permanent "refugee status". Not one other group of people displaced throughout history has had their perpetual descendants classified as refugees. This classification is not only extended to their immediate offspring, but to all their descendants as well and any future generations. This U.N. classification of grandchildren etc. as refugees helps perpetuate the victimhood mentality, and helps create a mindset of having to fight Israel rather than to get on with their lives. No other group throughout history has been so insistent on fighting for what was once their grandfather's homes or land--much to their own detriment.

The originally displaced Palestinians did get some financial compensation for their homes I believe although I don't know the details.

Anyway it is past high time that the Palestinians and Arabs as a whole look to the future instead of the past. Heck they don't need to be poor but their backwardness in politics and ideology keeps them that way instead of moving onward and upward.

Is there a phrase in Arabic that means "Time To Move On"? Sheesh.

[nicky g]

"The Arabs can't stomach even 1/900th or so of the total Arab land mass being Israel. Well too bad. If the Arabs (and the Russians, and the Europeans) had not so severely oppressed the Jews, Israel would not have been necessary in the first place. So the Arabs are at fault for having contributed to oppression of the Jews which forced the creation of Israel in the first place."

It's not about land masses; it's about the fact that of the 800,000 Palestinians who lived there in 1948, 700,000 were kicked out, an the fact that the populations of the West Bank and Gaza strip have lived under Israeli military occupation for nearly 40 years with no legal right over their own land our resources.

"The originally displaced Palestinians did get some financial compensation for their homes I believe although I don't know the details."

They were offered derisiory compensation in return for recognising Israel and giving up all their rights to return, ove rtheir property etc. Naturally they refused it.

"Is there a phrase in Arabic that means "Time To Move On"? Sheesh. "

And what about the people in the occupied territories? How are they to move on while the occupation continues?

[Gamblor]

And what about the people in the occupied territories? How are they to move on while the occupation continues?

What the hell are you talking about?

The citizens of Nablus, Jenin, Bethlehem, Ramallah, Tulkarm, Kalkilya, and Jericho lived occupation-free, without even the slightest glimpse of an Israeli soldier, from the end of the first intifada until the start of the second. There were no IDF raids, there was nothing until Arafat returned from the failed Camp David talks, and suddenly, the terrorism began again.

Only when that began, did the soldiers return. Israeli settlement was done on uninhabited land, outside of cities and Arab farms. Only when the intifada started up again did Israel begin to appropriate Arab lands to build checkpoints and raze orchards to eliminate the cover used by terrorist gunmen to fire on Israeli roads. All of these "Crimes" are responses to the Palestinian terror that turned this into a non-conventional war.

[andyfox]

I noticed an article in the L.A. Times recently that indicated more and more Palestinians look on the Intifada as a failure that has served only to impoverish them. They now prefer an accommodation and also new leadership.

I hope they get both. But new leadership in Israel is also needed to get the first.

[Felix_Nietsche]

These links show that Arab hate factories are running at 100% capacity. After raising 5 generations of Arab children with this hatred, I doubt it is even possible to rationalize with these people anymore. You can't call this anti-Arab propaganda since information comes from the Arabs themselves. This is another example why I have ZERO respect for the modern Arab culture. I find it fascinating that 500 years ago, the Arabs were leaders in science and culture. They have been on a death spiral since then and they they're STILL sinking. Its almost as if they're trying to self destruct intentionally.... If they didn't have oil, they would be struggling to beat Haiti's GNP.

Check out www.brain-terminal.com (http://www.brain-terminal.com) for some great videos of anti-Israel rallies at college campuses. The videos are excellent.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt it is even possible to rationalize with these people anymore...This is another example why I have ZERO respect for the modern Arab culture

[/ QUOTE ]

Statements like these make me doubt whether it is even possible to rationalize with people like you.

[nicky g]

Living without citizenship of a nation, with effectively no legal rights, no ultimate authority to have recourse too, with no national control over airspace, borders, resources, foreign policy etc etc is not living occupation free.

"Israeli settlement was done on uninhabited land, outside of cities and Arab farms. Only when the intifada started up again did Israel begin to appropriate Arab lands to build checkpoints and raze orchards to eliminate the cover used by terrorist gunmen to fire on Israeli roads."

Bollocks. I suppose they only started building bypass roads and using local water resources to fill their pools and water their lawns at a rate of ten times the amount locaas got in response to the intifada too?

"Israeli roads"

Israeli roads? How were they firing on ISraeli roads from within the occupied territories? Do you mean racist bypass roads, perhaps?

[MMMMMM]

"It's not about land masses; it's about the fact that of the 800,000 Palestinians who lived there in 1948, 700,000 were kicked out,..."

Most of those Palestinians are now deceased. And a lot of the other Arab states' positions are indeed about land masses and keeping Arab lands "pure" so to speak. They hate the idea of the tiniest Jewish state anywhere on "Arab" lands.


"an the fact that the populations of the West Bank and Gaza strip have lived under Israeli military occupation for nearly 40 years with no legal right over their own land our resources."

Don't know about that. Why are they staying in that hellhole, anyway, then?


"And what about the people in the occupied territories? How are they to move on while the occupation continues?"

What would you do, Nicky, if you were a Palestinian there: stay or move away?

The Vietnamese got on BOATS and risked their lives trying to get to America. Non-refugees around the world try to get to better places at any cost or risk, to try to start new lives there. Why don't a lot of Palestinians do this?

I daresay a lot of oppressed peoples or refugees have had things considerably worse than the Palestinians--but instead of fighting a suicidal unwinnable battle, they redirected their energies and focused on trying to make things better. If that meant leaving, they did so and started new lives in better places. That's actually a pretty common theme throughout history, and the people that did so generally ended up a lot better off than the Palestinians today.

Israel isn't forcing them to stay.

I'll tell you one thing--if my grandfather had had his house stolen, I wouldn't waste my entire life (and my children's lives) trying to get it back. Nor do I think would you.

There is also another way the Palestinians could "make things better". The Palestinians could stop trying to regain Israel and focus instead on building and growing an economy, studying and learning and producing--instead of hating and fighting. If they did enough of that, hey, they WOULD be better off even right where they are.

[Gamblor]

Living without citizenship of a nation, with effectively no legal rights, no ultimate authority to have recourse too, with no national control over airspace, borders, resources, foreign policy etc etc is not living occupation free.

At every negotiation interval they were offered self-government, as well as barak's offer of statehood if AND ONLY IF they would dismantle the terrorist groups. All the PA had to do was arrest anyone who had participated in a murder (not collateral damage) on Isreali civilians.

If Palestinian terrorists were firing on soldiers in combat and Israeli civilians were bystanders, I'd be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I suppose they only started building bypass roads and using local water resources to fill their pools and water their lawns at a rate of ten times the amount locaas got in response to the intifada too?

And what happened to the billions in foreign aid that was supposed to accomplish the same task for the Palestinians?

[Gamblor]

The Hebrew equivalent of "Go to hell" is "Tilech l'Aza"

"Go to Gaza!"

[MMMMMM]

Felix Nietsche is going overboard somewhat here, but overall he makes more sense than the gibbering Arafat, the psychopathic suicide bombers, or the imams who call Jews pigs and monkeys and pray to Allah for their destruction.

[arabie]

Israel attacked in 67 on provoked reasons. This is only following the Yom Kippur war where Saddat said his intention was to destroy Israel. The land taken was also to secure safe passage in the canal so Israel could recieve imports from Africa, and to take strategic military points to defend the dot on the map it is against the many many large nations surrounding it who consistantly were coalating to destory it. The fact is the partion in 48 offered the Palestinians a home land and part of Jerseulum and they basically gave Israel the finger. The palestinians should be fighting Egypt and Jordon who refuse to accept them. The fact is that islam says that all of arabiya (including israel) can only be habituated by muslisms, therefore, they kill namely Jews and Israeli's who are considerd invaders of their lands. Why do we need another islamic state to add to the many that exist while there is one, very small, Jewish state. Extremist Islamist are trying to take over Chechniya, Israel, Sudan, and the list goes on. Not to mention their "peaceful" methods of doing so... i.e. blowing up kids, nurseries, discos, buses, shooting school kids..

[arabie]

any nation founded on the principles of protecting a religeon is bad? That is terribly bold statement that may generally apply, but not to specifics. Are you forgeting that Israel was created in 1948, 1945 was the end of the HOLOCAUST if you're forgetting. This is where Jews had their money, land, right, and lives taken away from them. The survivors had no family, no money and needed a safe haven where they wer excepeted. All of Europe had just attempted to exterminate their race. Israel offers many programs for Holocaust victims and is highly populated by them because they are given safe passage. Israel is obviously mistreating the palestanians, but not out of hate and not out of religeous animosity. They are doing it because they have no other choice. You forget, israel's occupation did not cause terrorism, terrorism caused the occupation. When you walk out and get blown up for going on a public bus, going to university, sending your kids to school, or whatever, what you do is you take whatever means necessary to make it stop. There are no terrorist groups within israel's border, and Israel becomes more dangerous the closer you get to Gaza or the West Bank. Considering you have only bombs coming from there, in those places you have families donating their houses to build tunnels and smuggle weapons, you have communities funding and supporting the terrorism, what you do is block them out. Build a wall, and the bombs virtualy stop. That is the evidence, that is the fact, and that is the lack of choice. Israel spends a huge percent of its money on anti-terrosim not because it doesn't want to fund health care and schools and such, because it HAS NO CHOICE.

[Felix_Nietsche]

LOL....you should be a reporter. I least be honest enough to quote me in context.

I was referring to the links showing what materials that Arabs use to teach their children. If these teaching materials are examples of what RATIONAL people create...then Gee Whiz...I guess I'm not rational.

I DOUBT you have even bothered to look at these links because that would actually require some effort.

When you don't have the ammo to attack a persons arguments, then the most RATIONAL course of action is to attack the person... Right?

[Abednego]

I am not being sarcastic .... You have expressed my exact same sentiments. I sincerely thank you for your post.

[Cyrus]

"I had to chuckle at the line about Israel's "criminal" treatment toward the Palestians and making themselves targets to terrorism."

You have a lot of catching up to do in your knowledge of (recent) History. If you are really interested in learning, as opposed in "winning an argument", you should read up on how eminent Jewish historians, scholars and analysts view the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

In case you are interested in learning, you could be directed towards their academically impeccable (and much maligned in Israel) works.

[Felix_Nietsche]

of Knowledge...and have been quenched...

Definitions:
1. eminent = an adjective used to describe people who re-inforce my pre conceived biases.
2. Academically Impecable = An oxymoron

Sorry...but what qualifications do you have which grants you the power to determine who has a "lot of catching up to do" with regard to their knowledge of recent history.

LOL....In my foolish college years, I was anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian. BUT....the combination of these damn persistent facts and the willingness to admit I'm wrong resulted a 180 turn.... As Nietzsche wrote, the most common lies in the world is the ones we tell ourselves.... I was fooling myself back in college but there comes a time when one has to stop playing make believe and see reality... Anyway....

Give an argument to support your position (whatever it is) and let the strength of the argument determine whether your point is valid. Cherry picking few PhDs who may share your opinions is not a compelling argument.

[nicky g]

"Don't know about that. Why are they staying in that hellhole, anyway, then?"

This from the man constantly harping on about the absolute right to property, how giving up even your wallet to a mugger is the most abject of cowardice, how everyione should carry an antitank misile everywhere they go for fear someone might so much as steal a button from their shirt; but have the guts to resist people trying to make you give up your home, your entire country, is stupidity; to be willingly ethnically cleansed is admirable. You are blinded by something on this issue, I don;t know what it is.

[nicky g]

"At every negotiation interval they were offered self-government, as well as barak's offer of statehood if AND ONLY IF they would dismantle the terrorist groups. "

Theyu were offered precisely nothing until 33 years into the occupation, including for over 20 years when next to no violence was coming out of the West Bank, and even then nothing was formalised, nothing was written down on paper, nothing was promised about concrete issues such as what would happen to the settlements, the bypass roads, no real sovereignty over things such as borders, airspace, water ( acrucial issue in the area), the Jordan valley, was offered, and all that was allegedly offered was promptly withdrawn when the elections approached.

"And what happened to the billions in foreign aid that was supposed to accomplish the same task for the Palestinians? "

What were they going to do with it, resteal the water the Israelis were pumping into the settlements and Israel?

[nicky g]

"The Hebrew equivalent of "Go to hell" is "Tilech l'Aza"

"Go to Gaza!" "

A hell made by the Israeli occupation that has turned the place into a large internment camp.

[nicky g]

"Israel attacked in 67 on provoked reasons. This is only following the Yom Kippur war where Saddat said his intention was to destroy Israel."

Er the Yom Kippur was happened 6 years after the 77 war, and came when Israel was occupying not only the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights but also the Sinai Peninsula.

"The fact is the partion in 48 offered the Palestinians a home land and part of Jerseulum and they basically gave Israel the finger."

Imiagine if an influx of foreigners came to your country and told you you could have half of it - what would you tell them?

[nicky g]

"You forget, israel's occupation did not cause terrorism, terrorism caused the occupation. When you walk out and get blown up for going on a public bus, going to university, sending your kids to school, or whatever, what you do is you take whatever means necessary to make it stop."

I think you'll find that the occupation preceeded the big bombing campaigns in ISrael by a good 25 years.

[MMMMMM]

"but have the guts to resist people trying to make you give up your home, your entire country, is stupidity".

Nicky, my grandfather's property is not my property.

The children of the children of the Palestinians who were displaced over half-a-century ago, are not fighting for their homes. Those homes and land were never theirs in the first place. Get it? They aren't fighting for their country because it was never their country in the first place. They never set foot there. They never owned a thing there.

I wouldn't too much blame the original displaced Palestinians for fighting back for a while. But their kids and grandkids who are fighting, aren't fighting for anything that was even theirs in the first place. They are instead wasting their lives on a suicidal battle.

Why do you think the Jews became, for a long time, the "Wandering Jews"? They wouldn't have if generation after generation of them acted so stupidly as to keep fighting their oppressors, and fighting those who drove them out of their homes. They wouldn't have been "wandering" because they would have been dead. Instead, they were smart enough to make lemonade out of lemons, and sell it--and for centuries did quite well through study, hard work and diligence, even in strange lands, and often oppressed in those lands too.

[jcx]

[ QUOTE ]
"I had to chuckle at the line about Israel's "criminal" treatment toward the Palestians and making themselves targets to terrorism."

You have a lot of catching up to do in your knowledge of (recent) History. If you are really interested in learning, as opposed in "winning an argument", you should read up on how eminent Jewish historians, scholars and analysts view the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

In case you are interested in learning, you could be directed towards their academically impeccable (and much maligned in Israel) works.

[/ QUOTE ]

The musings of self hating Jews do not interest me.

[ACPlayer]

Why did the Jews not give up and simply become christians, after all that was the religion of their grandfather and in some countries they ware not allowed to practice their religion for generations.

Besides I suspect that you consider your grandfather's property to be rightfully yours when he and your parents pass on and pass down that property. If you had olive groves in palestine you would be on the other side. However, being just Muslims they should give up assimilate somewhere else and "move on".

[Gamblor]

Imiagine if an influx of foreigners came to your country and told you you could have half of it - what would you tell them?

You keep starting from this baseline assumption, that is FALSE.

There was no country there. There was no political entity there. Each town had its own government; therefore, if you claimed the Jews immigrated in the 19th century to towns and then tried to push the civic government out, you would have a point. But the Jews purchased land from Arab landowners and established new cities. Like Tel Aviv.

Other cities, as we've discussed, already had a Jewish majority (although I conceded Jerusalem didn't, but my imagination would further an explanation for that phenomenon).

BUT THERE NEVER WAS A POLITICAL ENTITY THAT DESCRIBED THE WHOLE OF THE ARAB POPULATION IN PALESTINE.

[Gamblor]

If you are really interested in learning, as opposed in "winning an argument", you should read up on how eminent Jewish historians, scholars and analysts view the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

The authors you describe (most likely can hardly be described as dati. They are, in fact, lo dati, meaning they do NOT observe any of the laws of Judaism.

Evidence: Cyrus has conceded that those authors have an quality that makes them Jewish that does not require them to be religious.

Conclusion: Judaism must not be a religion.

Extrapolated hypothesis: Judaism must be a nationality. Like Greek. Or German, and thus, a state for the people of the nation is a right and a just solution to their millenia of exile.

[Gamblor]

I think you'll find that the occupation preceeded the big bombing campaigns in ISrael by a good 25 years

I think you'll find that the terrorism by Arabs on Israelis preceeded the big bombing campaigns by a good 75 years.

[Gamblor]

You continue to proceed from the false assumption that the land there somehow belonged to people who viewed themselves as a contiguous national group before the Zionists began their statehood plans.

[MMMMMM]

"Besides I suspect that you consider your grandfather's property to be rightfully yours when he and your parents pass on and pass down that property."

Would you actually waste your entire life fighting for what you might one day have inherited from your grandfather?


"If you had olive groves in palestine you would be on the other side. However, being just Muslims they should give up assimilate somewhere else and "move on"."

Historically, every displaced group I can think of has "moved on" or "gotten on with their lives" after a certain period during which it became obvious that fighting was futile--with the exception of the Palestinians--and the Palestinians are the ones suffering most for their stubbornness and for being unwilling to relinquish hatred.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Answer: Who Cares

Going past 1948 is a waste of time. The Palestians had their chance for a country in 1948. They didn't like the deal so they went to war and they lost... They are like a poker player who goes all in on an inside str8 draw, misses, and blames everyone else for their bad decision. It always easier to blame someone else for your bad decisions.....Is it not? The alternative is to blame the person in the mirror...

Based on their tactics of deliberately killing civilians (aka terrorism), I'm glad they lost that war. The result of the 1948 war was there is one less psychopathic country in this world.

Building a wall around Israel is the smartest thing Israel has done. Reason has not work. Building a wall will force the Arabs to rely more on themselves. If they fail, they will then have to look in the mirror and perhaps see who is really the source of their problems...

[Cyrus]

"The musings of self hating Jews do not interest me."

Among those historians, analysts and scholars are Jews who have served, and some risked their lives, in the Israeli Defence Forces. To call them "self-hating" is similar to insulting the French people (for not following the idiotic Iraqi policy of the US) at the same time that French soldiers are risking their lives fighting alongside Americans in Afghanistan. An indication of fanaticism and willful ignorance of facts.

But this is not a new attitude! Fanatic Zionists have been calling honest & decent Jews "self-hating" and all gentile critics of Israeli policies "anti-semites" for decades now.

[Cyrus]

"What qualifications do you have which grants you the power to determine who has a "lot of catching up to do" with regard to their knowledge of recent history?"

Your own post gives me that "qualification".

Claiming (and believing) that Israel is the victim of Palestinian terrorism i[]and that the matter stops there[/i] is indicative of historical ignorance, illogical thinking and a severe case of closed mindedness. Even a cursory appraisal of the balance of power in this "game" should do the trick for ya.

"Cherry picking few PhDs who may share your opinions is not a compelling argument."

You say you have graduated from college but it appears that you are still thinking in terms of college! Fear not, this "knowledge" I am referring to does not come from "PhDs" or anything so "insignificant" as your tone implies. (PhDs are not insignificant of course, I'm just following your logic here.)

To learn about History one must read, first and foremost, about facts, before reading critiques of those facts. And because all historians are, to varying degress, biased, one must read more than one version of story-telling and fact-telling, in fact as many as possible.

So, I have read all sides's version of events and facts, in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. And I was humbly suggesting we all do, and you do, the same. But your dismissal of the "other side" is probably indicative of your open mind --- and my propensity to waste time. Yours and mine.

"The most common lies in the world is [sic] the ones we tell ourselves."

And as an appetizer to such lies, I guess you offered us the lie that Israel has always been the victim and not the aggressor.

(I guess, as one random example, invoking General Moshe Dayan's flat out refutation of that lie, in the plainest of terms, in an interview granted to a Jewish journalist and published in an Israeli newspaper, would qualify as me "cherry picking PhDs again". Way to go.)

[Cyrus]

Your post does not make sense.

Even if the reader was to adopt your convoluted sense of logic, it does not make sense. Par for the course, if not better.

[nicky g]

I was referring to the people in the occupied territories who you suggested should leave.

[nicky g]

"BUT THERE NEVER WAS A POLITICAL ENTITY THAT DESCRIBED THE WHOLE OF THE ARAB POPULATION IN PALESTINE. "

As I have said many times before, this is irrelevant By this logic any group could large establish communities, and eventually a state in any imperial territory anywhere in the world. Are you telling me it would have been appropriate for large numbers of a given community to mass emigrate to Ireland in the late 19th century and demand they get half of it when enough of them had turned up and the locals took umbrage because it was part of the British Empire rather than being an independent political entity?

[nicky g]

And vice versa but that's not the point. The Israelis held on to the occupied terrotories for decades when there was next to no terrorism emerguing from them. Now they say the reason for occupying is because of the terrorism. It doesn't make sense, regardless of the fact that it is unjustifiable to hold on to territory for that long without according any national rights to the inhabitants (never mind expelling and urdering large numbers of them).

[elscorcho768]

It is clear that both sides of the conflict have some flaws in their argument. But the Palestinian side has far greater flaws that supercede any critique of Israeli actions. The Palestinians are using terrorism to achieve their ends. After 9/11 i thought we all agreed that terrorism is unacceptable. Except in Israel? I feel that too many that speak out against Israel apply some double standard to Israel that they dont to other instances. So many other nations, including our own country, have gained land and thus expelled current inhabitants. Israel is actually one of the few that did not instigate a war (I believe israel did not start the 67 war, esp. not for a land grab, rather reacted to Arab hostilities)and gained land in the process. In order for the Palestinians to achieve a homeland, they must first renounce terrorism. And I mean really renounce it. When the PLO govt is caught smuggling in arms from Iran in order to support terrorism, this is not renouncing it. Just like America was given world approval to invade Afghanistan, Israel must also be given approval to solve their terrorism problem. Fortunately, Israel is not listening to much of the world that opposes it. Much of this opposition stems from Muslim anti-Semitism and natural feeling of supporting the Palestinians and Europe bowing to its large Arab populations. Only through an end to terrorism can we expect Israel to fully withdraw from the territories.

One other example of a double standard: The recent Chechnyan tragedy received world-wide condemnation, as it should be. Chechnyan Muslims have used terrorism much like the Palestinians, yet you have not heard the left come out for Chechnyan independence. Likewise the left has not been vocal in condemnation of Russia. But in Israel, it is a major talking point of the left. Makes you think.

[nicky g]

" The Palestinians are using terrorism to achieve their ends. After 9/11 i thought we all agreed that terrorism is unacceptable. Except in Israel?"

It isn;t acceptable. Nor is 40 years of occupation, ethnic cleansing and mass murder.

"So many other nations, including our own country, have gained land and thus expelled current inhabitants. "

Oh well that makes it alright then! "Many nations have committed genocide; many nations have murdered civilians; many nations have sponsored terrorism; they must be OK too."

"srael is actually one of the few that did not instigate a war (I believe israel did not start the 67 war, esp. not for a land grab, rather reacted to Arab hostilities)"

Israel did start the 67 war, regardless of what you believe.


"One other example of a double standard: The recent Chechnyan tragedy received world-wide condemnation, as it should be. Chechnyan Muslims have used terrorism much like the Palestinians, yet you have not heard the left come out for Chechnyan independence. Likewise the left has not been vocal in condemnation of Russia. But in Israel, it is a major talking point of the left. Makes you think. "

Rubbish. The left and human rights group have consistently denounced Russian atrocities in Chechnya and supported self-determination for the Chechens. You don't hear about it because the media doesn't care about somewhere obscure like Chechnya and there is no concerted Russian lobby in the West connstantly arguing with them and defending the Russian army. Outside of times whrere there has been a recent terrorist atrocity I could post condemnations of what is happening in CHechnya lall day and noone would raise an eyebrow at them. Criticise Israeli abuses and you get a barrage of responses leaping to their defence. It is also worth pointing out hat the Chechens at least have always had legal rights as Russian citizens. Cold comfort now to the victims of the Russian army, but better than living for decades in a stateless no man's land.

[elscorcho768]

It isn;t acceptable. Nor is 40 years of occupation, ethnic cleansing and mass murder.

At first I thought you were simply misguided. Nut now i know what your problem is. You are an idiot. What ethnic cleansing? What mass murder? You wanna talk ethnic cleansing, then talk about ethnic cleansing in Arab nations. Don't single out Israel, especially when it doesnt even engage in it. Also, for you to say that a Jewish state is committing mass murder is disgustingly ignorant. Even still, you are completely ignoring the lessons of 9/11. Terrorism is not acceptable. For Israel to fully withdraw from the territories, the Palestinians must actually try to stop terrorism and fully renounce it. I garauntee that if they do that, Israel will fully withdraw.

Oh well that makes it alright then! "Many nations have committed genocide; many nations have murdered civilians; many nations have sponsored terrorism; they must be OK too."

Clearly, my point flew over your head. I am saying that there is a double standard of criticizing Israel. Why do you only critique Israel when so many other nations have gained land through a war and actually used real barbarism to expell the inhabitants. Oh, and just to give you some perspective. After Israel took control of all of Jerusalem, they ordered that all mosques and symbols of Arab culture be preserved. Also, Israel does not sponsor terrorism, the PLO does. They do not murder civilians. In fact, there are countless examples of the Israeli army going out of its way to limit civilian casualties, such as in Jenin when they went house to house instead of bombing the entire area. Those genocidal maniacs!

Why don't you prove to me how Israel was not provoked in the 67 war.

It is also worth pointing out hat the Chechens at least have always had legal rights as Russian citizens.

In case u didnt know, Arabs have legal rights in Israel, provided they are Israeli citizens. These Arabs hold seats in the Knessest and have the freedom of speech. The same cannot be said for Arabs in countries such as Iran and Syria.

[nicky g]

"At first I thought you were simply misguided. Nut now i know what your problem is. You are an idiot. What ethnic cleansing? What mass murder?"

There has been no ethnic cleansing in Israel's history? Noone expelled from their lands? No mass murders in Qibya, Deir Yassin, Khan Younis, Sabra and Chatila?

"You wanna talk ethnic cleansing, then talk about ethnic cleansing in Arab nations."

I'm pefectly happy to discuss and condemn both. The likes of you on the other hand only like it one way.

"Also, for you to say that a Jewish state is committing mass murder is disgustingly ignorant. "

Why? Are Jewish states innately superior to other states? Is there some metaphysical law that states they can do no wrong? Regardless I am not saying it is committing it - rather it is merely strangling the economy and taking the odd potshot at innocents while denying the inhabitants their national and legal rights as things stand at the moment - I am saying it has committed it and that it has as much to answer for as anyone else.

"Clearly, my point flew over your head. I am saying that there is a double standard of criticizing Israel. Why do you only critique Israel when so many other nations have gained land through a war and actually used real barbarism to expell the inhabitants. "

That was not your point. I do criticise and have criticised other states. Israel has used real barbarism to expel inhabitants.

"They do not murder civilians. In fact, there are countless examples of the Israeli army going out of its way to limit civilian casualties, such as in Jenin when they went house to house instead of bombing the entire area. Those genocidal maniacs!"

Crap. They sent military bulldozers into Jenin and flattened every house in the centre of the camp without giving the inhabitants any warning to leave, as testified to by one of the drivers of the bulldozers.


"still, you are completely ignoring the lessons of 9/11. Terrorism is not acceptable."

Unlike you, I did not need 9/11 to teach me that killing innocents is wrong. The principle lesson you seem to have drawn from it is that if anyone engages in terrorism their entire country must suffer for it and you should boneheadedly do whateer it takes to antagonise the terrorists regardless of the rights and wrongs of the matter. Not only that but you ignore the fact that Israel was founded on the back of a sustained campaing of acts of terrorism agains the local population, the British and international observers, and has continued to commit clandestine acts of terrorism ever since.

"For Israel to fully withdraw from the territories, the Palestinians must actually try to stop terrorism and fully renounce it. I garauntee that if they do that, Israel will fully withdraw."

So why did they hold on to them for 25 years when there was no terrorism coming from them? WHy did they build and why do they continue to build large settlements to ensure a permanent Israeli population and infrastructure there?

""Why don't you prove to me how Israel was not provoked in the 67 war."


Why don;t you prove to me it was. Israel attacked first, it's as simple as that. Furthermore in the run up it had repeatedly provoked the Arabs before that by launching incursions into Jordan and the West Bank and destroying villages there, and was planning more incursions into Syria at the time (not to mention having invaded Egypt ten years previously). Closing the straits of Tiran was a legitimate response to those provocations and did not threaten Israel's existence nor remotely compare to repeated Israeli incursions into Arab territory. The US at the time advised ISrael that Egypt had no intent of attacking first, not to mention that it had orders not to fire on vessels accompanied by the Israeli navy entering Tiran. Some act of war.

"In case u didnt know, Arabs have legal rights in Israel, provided they are Israeli citizens. These Arabs hold seats in the Knessest and have the freedom of speech. The same cannot be said for Arabs in countries such as Iran and Syria. "

In case you didn't know, Arab Israelis are massively discriminated against. But regardless, I was referring to the inhabitants of the Occupied Territories.

[elscorcho768]

Israel has contributed more money to Palestinian humanitarian aid than any other Arab nation. Palestinians are taught that Israel does not exist and that it is their job to drive the Jews to the sea. Palestinian children are taught to hate Jews. Arab nations have done nothing to help Palestinian refugees since 1948, with limited exceptions. The nations could have absorbed these refugees easily, much like Israel absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jews expelled from Arab lands. Arab nations continuously use the Palestinians as a way to delegitamize Israel but has extorted money directed to Palestinian aid to their own regimes. The PLO is tremendously corrupt and has stolen millions from their own people. Israel has consistently offered up land to the Palestinians in exchange for peace. In other words, Israel agrees to give up land so that they wont get blown up. They clearly are not imperialists. The Palestinians were offered just about all of the post 1967 borders, which would have given them a homeland, thus ending all the suffering they have gone through. The offer was rejected. Bottom line is that Israel is the only free society in the middle east. It is the Jewish homeland. I do not believe you want the destruction of the Jewish state, but I do believe your attitudes towards Israel are views that would destroy it.

Also, any time you want to criticize Israel's human rights "violations", please include the fact that compared to the rest of the middle east, they have a far better record. i would put them up their as one of the most conscious of others human rights, but i know you could not give Israel any compliment.

[MMMMMM]

Sorry for the confusion (probably on my part).

[nicky g]

You haven't responded to a single point in my post.

"Arab nations have done nothing to help Palestinian refugees since 1948, with limited exceptions. The nations could have absorbed these refugees easily, much like Israel absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jews expelled from Arab lands."
Yah by expelling most of the Arabs. Maybe Lebanon should expel half of its population so it can absorb 1mn Palestinian refugees.

Regardless most of the Arab Jews were not forcibly expelled, they left of their own accord. They were mistreated insome of the countries and when they did leave made to sign illegal and unfair documents giving up their property rights in many cases, but their departure had more to do with the attractiveness of Israel (not to mention massive ISraeli pressure and scaremongering) to them than any forcible expulsion. Many Arab countries had laws against them leaving until they caved into pressure from Israel and the West. Comparing that to situations where ISraeli troops went through towns and villages in 48 and 67 and told that if the people didn;t leave for Jordan they would be shot like many others were is absurd.

"Israel has consistently offered up land to the Palestinians in exchange for peace. In other words, Israel agrees to give up land so that they wont get blown up. They clearly are not imperialists. "

Israel made absolutely no such offer until George Bush Snr dragged them kicking and screaming into the peace process in the the 1990s (partly because prior to then they were not being blown up any way) and even then it was an entirely theoretical one.

"The Palestinians were offered just about all of the post 1967 borders, which would have given them a homeland, thus ending all the suffering they have gone through. The offer was rejected."

This is a myth. Barak offered a vague unspecific deal under which no commitments regarding the settlements, the Jordan valley etc were made; plus the calculated insult of offering the Palestinians a village outside East Jerusalem that they could rename Al Quds (Arabic for Jerusalem) while the Israelis took the Arab-dominated East Jerusalem, outside of the 1967 borders, for themselves. No offer was ever made on paper and the Palestinians were asked to totally commit themselves to giving up all aspirations and further demands in return for a series of alternately vague and absurd offers that could have led to a completely unviable state, split in 4 and with no national sovereignty over airspace, water resources, borders, foreign policy etc, with genuinely Palestinian control of only 55-60% of the territories under some estimates. The Palestinians had already seen how little they got in after Oslo when they signed away a host of their rights in return for vague mumblings about a possible unspecified future state and they would have been idiots to submit to a total end of the conflict and any future resurrection of demands in return for vague promises not even written down on paper. They repeatedly asked for clarifaction of the Israeli proposals which was not made avalibale, and Barak eventually withdrew his nebulous offer before a decision had been taken by anyone because of upcoming elections.

"Also, any time you want to criticize Israel's human rights "violations", please include the fact that compared to the rest of the middle east, they have a far better record. "

Treating their own people, they have a comparatively good record, with the exception of large scale discrimination against the Arab minority. Treating the people they have lorded over illegally for 40 years in the occupied territories, not to mention the people of the countries such as Lebanon which they invaded, they have an atrocious and criminal record.

"It is the Jewish homeland"

This is not an argument, it's a slogan.

"do not believe you want the destruction of the Jewish state, but I do believe your attitudes towards Israel are views that would destroy it. "

And what about Palestinain national rights? There's no danger of their state being destroyed, because Israel consitently refuses to let them have one. The Israelis have a state; it's about time they let the Palestinians have some sort of national rights before they hypocritically bleat about their state being "destroyed."

[elscorcho768]

How many more lies do you want to spout?

Have you ever even looked at a map of the mideast? the refugees could easily be absorbed but they wont because the arab nations will continue to use them as a pawn in this conflict. I also love how you say jews were "mistreated in some countries ( a gross understatement) and then say how genocide has been committed against arabs in israel ( a gross overstatement) besides the fact that jews were forced to move out of arab nations, they were more than happy to come to israel, but then u say it was through fear that they came to israel. what is the matter with you? israel literally cannot do anything right in your view.

"Comparing that to situations where ISraeli troops went through towns and villages in 48 and 67 and told that if the people didn;t leave for Jordan they would be shot like many others were is absurd."

Where do you come up with this stuff? Do you really think Israeli soldiers just went around like gestapo during that time? i would love to hear how you read an eyewitness account in some Edward Said book about how israeli soldiers lined up some arabs and shot them dead. seriously i have never heard so many outright lies about the conflict in my life. israelis not being blown up before the 90s? israel was the constant victim of plo terrorism? what bout munich? oh wait, they werent blown up, they were just kidnapped and murdered.

my jewish homeland statement is an argument. for centuries, jews have been oppressed and it continues to this day. the jewish homeland is what prevents another holocaust. in your world, every time there is a terrorist attack, we must blame the victims and view it as a response to crimes committed against the arab world. thank god most people do not share this view. now we can go on trading posts but it clearly wont get anywhere. but i take back what i said before, you are not an idiot and it was idiotic of me to say so. ill let you get the last word on this issue.

[nicky g]

" also love how you say jews were "mistreated in some countries ( a gross understatement) and then say how genocide has been committed against arabs in israel ( a gross overstatement) besides the fact that jews were forced to move out of arab nations, they were more than happy to come to israel, but then u say it was through fear that they came to israel. what is the matter with you? israel literally cannot do anything right in your view. "

Jews were mistreated in Arab lands. In the vast majority of cases weren't forcibly expelled as the Palestinians were, and Israel played a leading role in trying to get them to come to Israel. There is a difference between discrimination and forcible expulsion. Clear enough? I did not say that the Israelis committed genocide in Palestine, although some who define genocide as trying to destroy an ethnic identity would say they did. Ethnic cleansing ie forcible expulsion is the term I used.

"Where do you come up with this stuff? Do you really think Israeli soldiers just went around like gestapo during that time? i would love to hear how you read an eyewitness account in some Edward Said book about how israeli soldiers lined up some arabs and shot them dead."


Yitzakh Rabin himself described (and tried to justify) forcing Palestinians to leave Palestine. Good enough for you? There is incontrovertible evidence that Israeli troops forced Palestinians to leave their homes on a large scale in 48 and 67, not to mention that they refused to let anyone return.

"Israelis not being blown up before the 90s? israel was the constant victim of plo terrorism? what bout munich? oh wait, they werent blown up, they were just kidnapped and murdered. "

There was Palestinian terrorism before the 1990s but it came almost exclusively from the refugee community around the Arab world. You are trying to justify the occupation on the grounds of terrorism, but there was no significant terrorist campaign being waged by Palestinians from the occupied territories against targets inside Israel for the first two and a half decades of the occupation.

[Gamblor]

Are you telling me it would have been appropriate for large numbers of a given community to mass emigrate to Ireland in the late 19th century and demand they get half of it when enough of them had turned up and the locals took umbrage because it was part of the British Empire rather than being an independent political entity?

This does not accurately describe what the Zionists did. You are describing a situation whereby first the Zionists demanded a state, then moved in to take over. That is not the case.

You'll recall, what happened is that the mass immigration into Israel was separate and distinct from the Zionists' statehood movement; that is, the immigrants from Russia who comprised the first aliya were refugees and not ideological immigrants. Only after a large Jewish population had settled in Israel did the Zionist movement really begin to push for independence from Great Britain.

[nicky g]

It makes little difference which came first. If it had have stopped with the refugees that would have one thing. It was the pushing for the state that was the problem. And don't tell me that was soleyl because the Jews needed protection from Palestinian terror attacks, the roots of ideological Zionism had nothing to do with that. The Russian refugees may not have sought the establishment of a state but the early Zionists did, and well before a significant conflict had taken hold. The point is it was not unreasonable for the Palestinians to reject the formation of a state largely populated by foreigners on the land they had lived on for centuries in 1948, and more importantly that it is absurd to argue that they should still be paying for that now by the refusal to let them establish a state on even less land than they were offered then or have any kind of national rights at all.

[Gamblor]

Israelis held on to the occupied terrotories for decades when there was next to no terrorism emerguing from them

There was constant terrorism, if on a smaller scale so as not to alert the world media.

But the more important issue, is that you seem to have this idea in your head that the land is somehow a ball, or a toy that I have and you can't use. The land was shared. Israel used what it required to handle explosive population growth and military security, and the Arabs could have used what they needed to find their own aquifers, for example. But they focused on terrorism and genocide instead.

[Gamblor]

I'll hold your hand through this.

You called some post-Zionist authors - and I can only assume you are referring to names like Morris and Shlaim, who are secular to the core - Jewish. You called them Jews, but they don't keep the Sabbath!

It follows that to be Jewish, you do not have to be religious.

If being Jewish does not require religious affiliation, then it requires another form of affiliation; a national heritage, shared traditions.

In other words, members of a nation; like Greek. Or Italian, or Irish. Sure; there are Jews who live in Greece or Jews who live in Italy, but they are still in the Galut: exile, whether they as individuals care or not.

The homeland of the Jewish people is what is now (and in the past) Israel. Therefore, you have unwittingly admitted that the Zionist movement was a re-assertion of its inalienable right to a homeland, and by definition not imperialist in nature.

[Gamblor]

Nor is...mass murder

Either you are so incredibly ignorant, or you are so incredibly blind the the truth you will stop at nothing to convince someone of your beliefs.

If it's the latter, you are a terrible human being.

[nicky g]

"There was constant terrorism, if on a smaller scale so as not to alert the world media."

Certainly not a scale to justify 25 years of occupation.


"But the more important issue, is that you seem to have this idea in your head that the land is somehow a ball, or a toy that I have and you can't use. The land was shared. Israel used what it required to handle explosive population growth and military security, and the Arabs could have used what they needed to find their own aquifers, for example. But they focused on terrorism and genocide instead. "

Lol! "Shared" usually requires some sort of agreement from both sides. The Israelis were simply taking what they wanted. Did this "sharing" extend to diverting resources in the Israel proper to the territories? Does piping ten times the water, from Palestinian aquifers, to the settlers as the local get qualify as "sharing" too?

[nicky g]

If you think Israeli troops have never participated in mass murder you are the one blinding yourself.

"If it's the latter, you are a terrible human being. "

I take no lessons in morality from someone who has condoned and justified the terrorist bombing of civilian marketplaces on these very forums.

[Gamblor]

If you think Israeli troops have never participated in mass murder you are the one blinding yourself.

IF any Israeli troops participated in mass murder they were dealt with in the confines of a fair and honourable justice system.

The fact is IF it happened, they were individuals acting on their own behalf outside the laws of the country and the doctrine of the army.

Compare that to a overall Arab strategy and policy of violence upon innocent men, women, and children as a means of influencing Israeli public opinion, with the purpose of inducing the electorate to pressure their government into giving concessions in negotiations.

Likewise, regarding I take no lessons in morality from someone who has condoned and justified the terrorist bombing of civilian marketplaces on these very forums.

I don't justify or condone; but I do point out (again) that the Jewish acts of terrorism were isolated instances within the context of an irregular war between two sides who were equally willing to target each others' civilians.

Nowadays, most of the earth is enlightened. We live in a world where such methods of warfare are frowned upon. Yet, the Arabs continue to live in a world where no innocent man, woman, or child is beyond the reach of a well placed road bomb, sniper, or dynamite vest.

[nicky g]

"The fact is IF it happened, they were individuals acting on their own behalf outside the laws of the country and the doctrine of the army"

Funny how such people seem to regularly turn up as leading politicians and prime ministers. Who was punished for Khan Younis, or Lydda and Ramle (led by Rabin), or Qibya (Sharon), Sabra and Chatila (ditto)?

"I don't justify or condone; but I do point out (again) that the Jewish acts of terrorism were isolated instances within the context of an irregular war between two sides who were equally willing to target each others' civilians. "

You specifically said you defended it, in the context of the survval and foundation of Israel. Anyone could just as easily turn those arguments around and defend similar tactics for Hamas on the grounds that they are necessary for the survival of the Palestinians and the establuishment of a Palestinian state.

"I don't justify or condone; but I do point out (again) that the Jewish acts of terrorism were isolated instances within the context of an irregular war between two sides who were equally willing to target each others' civilians. "

So two wrongs make a right? And each side was as bad as the other? Is that it?

"Nowadays, most of the earth is enlightened. We live in a world where such methods of warfare are frowned upon. Yet, the Arabs continue to live in a world where no innocent man, woman, or child is beyond the reach of a well placed road bomb, sniper, or dynamite vest. "

Yes it was regarded as perfectly legitimate to place bombs in marketplaces back then.

You live now, so why can;t you condemn it?

[nicky g]

Just in case there is any confusion about what we are talking about here, this is what happneded. Chris Alger asked Gamblor about Zionist terrorists who orchestrated a bombing campaign prior to the foundation of Israel.
Gamblor tired to evade it, arguing on a technicality that they weren;t terrorists as they didn;t have a political aim, just revenge and deterrence for attacks on Jews.

Chris quoted the following describing some of the bombs:

"On July 6, 1938, a member of the Irgun, disguised as an Arab porter, went into the Arab market in Haifa, placed a large parcel beside one of the barrows in the center of the market and left. Shortly afterwards there was a heavy explosion, which killed 21 Arabs and injured more than 50. A week later a similar incident took place in Jerusalem. A member of the Irgun concealed an electric mine in the Arab market in the Old City. It exploded shortly after the end of the prayer service in the mosque, when a large crowd had emerged onto the street. Eight Arabs were killed and more than 30 injured. "

Gamblor continued to argue that it didn't count as terrorism (justifying it as "warfare", so I asked him:

"Let's be clear. Do you condone the deliberate killing of civilians in these instances? Yes or no"

"In the pre-state case, I defend it as necessary to the survival of the people of the Yishuv."

Yet it is Chris and me who are accused as apologists for terrorism.

"The pre-state case". Mmmm. I wonder who that could apply to?

[Gamblor]

Who was punished for Khan Younis, or Lydda and Ramle (led by Rabin), or Qibya (Sharon), Sabra and Chatila (ditto)?

None of the perpetrators were ever tried. Sharon didn't pull a single trigger, and he still lost his job and his political career.

It shows the degree of pervasiveness of Arab mass murder that Israelis felt the need to elect the man President, despite his international reputation.

Is indirect responsibility the best you can come up with?

You know what the best part is? You see fit to attack democratically-elected leaders, when the biggest murderer of all terrorizes his own population and maintains power by force.

[Gamblor]

Let us examine the incidents that led up to that bombing.

- Anti-Jewish Riots in 1920-21, which was characterized by the brutal murder in Jaffa of the prominent Jewish author Y. Brenner

- 'Disturbances' of 1929, which included the massacre of the entire Jewish community in Hebron

- Many incidents of anti-Jewish violence during the Arab Revolt of 1936-39

- On the eve of the UN Partition Resolution of November 1947, Arab terrorism against Jewish targets steadily rose until it led to the joint Arab invasion of 1948-9.

You have cited 3 incidents of Jewish terrorism.

Let us now examine whether or not terrorism is the result of occupation:

Pre-1967 terrorism by Arabs against Israelis:
Major Arab Terrorist Attacks against Israelis Prior to the 1967 Six-Day War

Jan 1, 1952 - Seven armed terrorists attacked and killed a nineteen year-old girl in her home, in the neighborhood of Beit Yisrael, in Jerusalem.

Apr 14, 1953 - Terrorists tried for the first time to infiltrate Israel by sea, but were unsuccessful. One of the boats was intercepted and the other boat escaped.

June 7, 1953 - A youngster was killed and three others were wounded, in shooting attacks on residential areas in southern Jerusalem.

June 9, 1953 - Terrorists attacked a farming community near Lod, and killed one of the residents. The terrorists threw hand grenades and sprayed gunfire in all directions. On the same night, another group of terrorists attacked a house in the town of Hadera. This occurred a day after Israel and Jordan signed an agreement, with UN mediation, in which Jordan undertook to prevent terrorists from crossing into Israel from Jordanian territory.

June 10, 1953 - Terrorists infiltrating from Jordan destroyed a house in the farming village of Mishmar Ayalon.

June 11, 1953 - Terrorists attacked a young couple in their home in Kfar Hess, and shot them to death.

Sept 2, 1953 - Terrorists infiltrated from Jordan, and reached the neighborhood of Katamon, in the heart of Jerusalem. They threw hand grenades in all directions. Miraculously, no one was hurt.

Mar 17, 1954 - Terrorists ambushed a bus traveling from Eilat to Tel Aviv, and opened fire at short range when the bus reached the area of Maale Akrabim in the northern Negev. In the initial ambush, the terrorists killed the driver and wounded most of the passengers. The terrorists then boarded the bus, and shot each passenger, one by one. Eleven passengers were murdered. Survivors recounted how the murderers spat on the bodies and abused them. The terrorists could clearly be traced back to the Jordanian border, some 20 km from the site of the terrorist attack.

Jan 2, 1955 - Terrorists killed two hikers in the Judean Desert.

Mar 24, 1955 - Terrorists threw hand grenades and opened fire on a crowd at a wedding in the farming community of Patish, in the Negev. A young woman was killed, and eighteen people were wounded in the attack.

Apr 7, 1956 - A resident of Ashkelon was killed in her home, when terrorists threw three hand grenades into her house.
Two members of Kibbutz Givat Chaim were killed, when terrorists opened fire on their car, on the road from Plugot Junction to Mishmar Hanegev.
There were further hand grenade and shooting attacks on homes and cars, in areas such as Nitzanim and Ketziot. One person was killed and three others wounded.

Apr 11, 1956 - Terrorists opened fire on a synagogue full of children and teenagers, in the farming community of Shafrir. Three children and a youth worker were killed on the spot, and five were wounded, including three seriously.

Apr 29, 1956 - Egyptians killed Roi Rotenberg, 21 years of age, from Nahal Oz.

Sept 12, 1956 - Terrorists killed three Druze guards at Ein Ofarim, in the Arava region.

Sept 23, 1956 - Terrorists opened fire from a Jordanian position, and killed four archaeologists, and wounded sixteen others, near Kibbutz Ramat Rachel.

Sept 24, 1956 - Terrorists killed a girl in the fields of the farming community of Aminadav, near Jerusalem.

Oct 4, 1956 - Five Israeli workers were killed in Sdom.

Oct 9, 1956 - Two workers were killed in an orchard of the youth village, Neve Hadassah, in the Sharon region.

Nov 8, 1956 - Terrorists opened fire on a train, attacked cars and blew up wells, in the North and Center of Israel. Six Israelis were wounded.

Feb 18, 1957 - Two civilians were killed by terrorist landmines, next to Nir Yitzhak, on the southern border of the Gaza Strip.

Mar 8, 1957 - A shepherd from Kibbutz Beit Govrin was killed by terrorists in a field near the Kibbutz.

Apr 16, 1957 - Terrorists infiltrated from Jordan, and killed two guards at Kibbutz Mesilot.

May 20, 1957 - A terrorist opened fire on a truck in the Arava region, killing a worker.

May 29, 1957 - A tractor driver was killed and two others wounded, when the vehicle struck a landmine, next to Kibbutz Kisufim.

June 23, 1957 - Israelis were wounded by landmines, close to the Gaza Strip.

Aug 23, 1957 - Two guards of the Israeli Mekorot water company were killed near Kibbutz Beit Govrin.

Dec 21, 1957 - A member of Kibbutz Gadot was killed in the Kibbutz fields.

Feb 11, 1958 - Terrorists killed a resident of Moshav Yanov who was on his way to Kfar Yona, in the Sharon area.

Apr 5, 1958 - Terrorists lying in ambush shot and killed two people near Tel Lachish.

Apr 22, 1958 - Jordanian soldiers shot and killed two fishermen near Aqaba.

May 26, 1958 - Four Israeli police officers were killed in a Jordanian attack on Mt. Scopus, in Jerusalem.

Nov 17, 1958 - Syrian terrorists killed the wife of the British air attache in Israel, who was staying at the guesthouse of the Italian Convent on the Mt. of the Beatitudes.

Dec 3, 1958- A shepherd was killed at Kibbutz Gonen. In the artillery attack that followed, 31 civilians were wounded.

Jan 23, 1959 - A shepherd from Kibbutz Lehavot Habashan was killed.

Feb 1, 1959 - Three civilians were killed by a terrorist landmine near Moshav Zavdiel.

Apr 15, 1959 - A guard was killed at Kibbutz Ramat Rahel.

Apr 27, 1959 - Two hikers were shot at close range and killed near Massada.

Sept 6, 1959 - Bedouin terrorists killed a paratroop reconnaissance officer near Nitzana.

Sept 8, 1959 - Bedouins opened fire on an army bivouac in the Negev, killing an IDF officer, Captain Yair Peled.

Oct 3, 1959 - A shepherd from Kibbutz Heftziba was killed near Kibbutz Yad Hana.

Apr 26, 1960 - Terrorists killed a resident of Ashkelon south of the city.

Apr 12, 1962 - Terrorists fired on an Egged bus on the way to Eilat; one passenger was wounded.

Sept 30, 1962 - Two terrorists attacked an Egged bus on the way to Eilat. No one was wounded.

Jan 1, 1965 - Palestinian terrorists attempted to bomb the National Water Carrier. This was the first attack carried out by the PLO's Fatah faction.

May 31, 1965 - Jordanian Legionnaires fired on the neighborhood of Musrara in Jerusalem, killing two civilians and wounding four.

June 1, 1965 - Terrorists attack a house in Kibbutz Yiftach.

July 5, 1965 - A Fatah cell planted explosives at Mitzpe Massua, near Beit Guvrin; and on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem near Kafr Battir.

Aug 26, 1965 - A waterline was sabotaged at Kibbutz Manara, in the Upper Galilee.

Sept 29, 1965 - A terrorist was killed as he attempted to attack Moshav Amatzia.

Nov 7, 1965 - A Fatah cell that infiltrated from Jordan blew up a house in Moshav Givat Yeshayahu, south of Beit Shemesh. The house was destroyed, but the inhabitants were miraculously unhurt.

Apr 25, 1966 - Explosions placed by terrorists wounded two civilians and damaged three houses in Moshav Beit Yosef, in the Beit Shean Valley.

May 16, 1966 - Two Israelis were killed when their jeep hit a terrorist landmine, north of the Sea of Galilee and south of Almagor. Tracks led into Syria.

July 13, 1966 - Two soldiers and a civilian were killed near Almagor, when their truck struck a terrorist landmine.

July 14, 1966 - Terrorists attacked a house in Kfar Yuval, in the North.

July 19, 1966 - Terrorists infiltrated into Moshav Margaliot on the northern border and planted nine explosive charges.

Oct 27, 1966 - A civilian was wounded by an explosive charge on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem.

Now, given all of this, how can you deny that isolated incidents were absolutely necessary to defend the Yishuv, given that Arab terrorists met and planned attacks in that same market? In fact, is it possible that the bombing was actually an assassination of an arab terrorist leader in which there was collateral damage?

[spamuell]

[ QUOTE ]
No matter how hard we try, we're outsiders. Accepted as equals is fine and dandy, and I for one, given history, appreciate it more than you could imagine. Jews express this appreciation by the mitzvah of following the laws of the land you adopt as home. But it's not home.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speak for yourself. What gives you the right to speak for Jews?

I'm a Jew and I feel far more at home in London than I do in Israel.

[Gamblor]

Speak for yourself. What gives you the right to speak for Jews?

You've missed my point. I can't speak for you, or anyone other than myself. I'm my own preacher.

I saw a movie once called "The Believer". It's about an American Jew, a Yeshiva bocher, who leaves the Yeshiva to join a neo-nazi group made up of the cream of NYC society; all closet Nazis.

The hold a meeting where they discuss how they'll get rid of all the Jews. The kid gets up and in front of the crowd and explains his plan: They'll ignore them. He's realized that all of the anti-semitism and violence and discrimination made them join together and get stronger and work harder.

But if they accept them, treat them well, show them that they have nothing to prove, they'll simply assimilate and forget all about synagogue and being Jewish and simply melt into society. And the world will forget they ever existed.

So; whether or not you happen to feel at home in Israel, there are a shitload of people who haven't enjoyed the same comfort level and freedom that you have and need a place like Israel where they don't have to worry about that.

[spamuell]

[ QUOTE ]
The hold a meeting where they discuss how they'll get rid of all the Jews. The kid gets up and in front of the crowd and explains his plan: They'll ignore them. He's realized that all of the anti-semitism and violence and discrimination made them join together and get stronger and work harder.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what about after that when the reporter says to him, "If the Jews are strengthened by hate, then wouldn't this destruction that you speak of, whether it's by love or any other means, wouldn't that make them more powerful than they are already?" and then Danny replies, "Yes, infinitely more, they would become as God. It's the Jew's destiny to be annihilated so they can be deified," and then talks about Jesus.

I think the point of the film here is that this is Danny's realisation that his own endeavour to destroy the Jews must prove fruitless because it would be destroying part of himself which is so integral that he cannot change it. I think it's meant to reflect specifically on Danny's own personality and it doesn't demonstrate that the Jews are indestructible.

But if they accept them, treat them well, show them that they have nothing to prove, they'll simply assimilate and forget all about synagogue and being Jewish and simply melt into society. And the world will forget they ever existed.

I've thought about this a lot before, it's something that they taught me years ago in Bnei Akiva in London. I think it might be true, but I'm not convinced. I don't really care if it is true, though. I mean, almost by definition, if all Jews assimilate then we don't care about losing our Jewish identity.

[Gamblor]

Ok, so you've seen it; /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Danny's internal conflict notwithstanding, what I found most compelling is the sidebar about his girlfriend; how the second she began to understand she fell in love with the religion.

But I digress. I mention this problem simply because Jews aren't indestructible; after all, there would be no Israel if Jews were indestructible.

(Further, a Jew's goal shouldn't be to be deified. In fact, it's anathema to the religious aspects of Judaism. Bnei Akiva was probably the most fun I ever had as a kid - particularly Shabbatons.)

Whether Danny spits in his shtreimel or not isn't the point.

How does Tommy Lapid calls himself a Jew, but is the Leader of the one Party (Shinui) that demands an absolute halt to any religious involvement in State affairs? Whether or not you agree with that policy, you can not ignore the fact that to Lapid, being Jewish is not the same as practicing Judaism; which was my original point, if the movie didn't support it as well as I would like.

Judaism is a nationality, an ethnicity that is not mutually exclusive with other ethnicities. There are black, brown, yellow, and white Jews. And since it is indeed a nationality (albeit with associated religious aspects) the re-establishment of the State of Israel is necessarily an expression of the nation's inalienable right to self-government.

[spamuell]

Danny's internal conflict notwithstanding, what I found most compelling is the sidebar about his girlfriend; how the second she began to understand she fell in love with the religion.

Or maybe she didn't understand. Maybe it was exactly the incomprehensibility which she loved, that she could submit and place ultimate trust in something for absolutely no reason. I think this is best reflected when Danny asks her if she wants a punch in the face, and she replies "OK" and then during the same scene Danny says "you can submit and be crushed," and she responds, "maybe that's the best feeling you can have."

Yeah, I've seen it lots of times, it may well be my favourite film, it covers so many issues which I hold a strong interest in. Add in a scene where Danny loses the Torah that he stole with nines full of aces and it's perfect. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

You're right that the film is not the point.

being Jewish is not the same as practicing Judaism

This is certainly true from the point of view of an orthodox Jew and from the vast majority of secular Jews, but not all of them.

I suppose it really depends who gets to define what ethnicity someone is. I don't know who does.

[Gamblor]

Chag sameach, Good Yontev, and Happy Sukkot.

One of the walls of my sukkah fell down yesterday. It was interesting eating with the neighbours staring at us through their windows. But we got a park bench to hold up the wall.

I'm kinda surprised you went through Bnei Akiva but still are posting today.

All I know is I can't wait for Simchat Torah so I can get plowed and dance til 3am.

[spamuell]

Chag Sameach to you too, good shabbos in the UK actually.

You got a park bench to hold up a wall? That sounds pretty hilarious.

About Bnei Akiva, people change, I suppose. And I wasn't as religious as my family as a kid, even if I was as observant. But I could ask you the same question.

Yeah, Simchat Torah is second only to Purim in terms of drunken Jewish fun. I can't wait either.

[Cyrus]

"I'll hold your hand through this."

You mean you'd lower your hand down from the salute long enough?

"You called [many of the revisionist Jewish historians] Jews, but they don't keep the Sabbath!"

Many Americans do not keep a number of national holidays, and some of them do not even salute tha flag. They still Americans, mind you. Many Christians do not keep a number of religious holidays, and some of them keep none. They still Christians, mind you.

"It follows that to be Jewish, you do not have to be religious."

That's what yer official line is. "Come one, come all", we need yer birthrates!..

"The homeland of the Jewish people is what is now (and in the past) Israel."

It was in the very distant past and it is now, yes, by right of conquest. The many false claims and myths surrounding the idea of the Jewish homeland, the denial of the Palestinian nationhood, and the many consequences of that distorted state of affairs have been revealed by the (descpicable to ya!) crowd of eminent Jewish scholars, historians and analysts you are now (again) trying to smear and silence.

(Note that by proceeding on your claims, to "homeland" etc, on the basis of conqueror's rights, you invite responses in kind from those that oppose the process. Ergo, the strictly conquering nature and policies of Reformed Zionism legitimise the responses in kind of their opponents! Nice hole, councilor.)

"Therefore, you have unwittingly admitted that the Zionist movement was a re-assertion of its inalienable right to a homeland, and by definition not imperialist in nature."

Shouldn't you be competing in the long jump or something in the Olympics? You missed your calling. Such leaps in logic one rarely sees. But at least we have your "footage". /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Mayhap]

Yes

[arabie]

what is your evidence for calling such things a myth? The oslo accord was clear cut and beyond fair and, unforutnately for the palestinain people, arafat mistakenly rejected the offer. Similarily, when they chose to go to war instead of accepting a state from the beginning, the middle east would be a lot less problamatic. It seems as though you are indenial about believing that the reasons for hatred for Israel are not fundemenatlly dimplomatic or systematical, but are intrinsically religeous and cultural. The fact is they do not want to accept a Jewish state and have been open in saying this and is, therefore, indesputable. Justifying the types of terrorist acts that occur based on political matters do not match up to any of Israel's most exaggerated mistreatements. I do not know your sources, but i have friends of families in the palestinian terratories and cousins in the Israeli army. Life in Palestinian terratories is rough and no one denies that, however, i find it hard to believe Israel is soley responsible when the government is run by warlords who launder all their charity money and supports and attempts to justify terrorism by religeous means. Arafat has always been a terrorist and has been the only one who ever had any serious power over the terratories and, therfore, is solely responsible for his people's misfortune fore he is the reason Israel is reluctant to negotiate or donate power.

[Cyrus]

"If you believe that Judaism is best described as a religion, then you would be right. But secular Jews are still Jews."

Nice to see you plowing, once again, into the muddy, dark red waters of extreme nationalist indoctrination.

"In fact, Jewish prayer books describe Judaism not as a religion, but as a nationality. Same as German, American, etc. etc."

(aside to the audience:) Psst. Gamblor here exhibits his ignorance of the many historical instances of religion feeding back on national identity and vice versa.

"When you meet a guy named Theonis Kyritsis [in the] street, he's adopted America as his homeland, but you ask his nationality? Greek, he'll tell you. Same deal."

Really? Same deal? You are either laughably ignorant of the distinctions between nationality, ethnicity, race and religion --- or you are being intentionally misleading. Tempted as I am to go for the latter, I can't help but choose the obvious, on the basis of your past performance.

"No matter how hard we try, we [Jews] are outsiders."

That's the basis for most assertions of nationalism, i.e. the notions of persecution, isolation and uniqueness. The notion of irredentism is next. And the notion of supremacy is but one step further down the road.

(The very basis for a state that is meant for "Jews only" is a gross anachronism in the 21st century. The most extreme form of nationalist supremacy of the 20th century, National Socialism in Germany, was actually dreaming of and scheming for such a place!)

"Jews express this appreciation by the mitzvah of following the laws of the land you adopt as home. But it's not home."

Well, I remember reading on some wall (not a Holy Wall but it'll do) that Home Is Where The Heart Is. I much prefer that old, tattered statement than anything you'd care to throw up.

[Gamblor]

The notion of irredentism is next. And the notion of supremacy is but one step further down the road.

Those are steps I don't care to take.

The very basis for a state that is meant for "Jews only" is a gross anachronism in the 21st century.

Perhaps in sunny America, but the rest of the world isn't quite there yet.

[Gamblor]

But I could ask you the same question.

Same answer.

[Cyrus]

Samples from the webmaster's bio :

"...Evan's introduction to conservative philosophy came from listening to talk radio"

"...spent his early adolescence learning how to program computers, much to the detriment of his teenage popularity"

"...worked for two consecutive companies that went out of business within a year of each other"

"...rode the dot-com wave from boom to bust"

"...to make up for the lack of daytime social interaction Evan turned Starbucks into his office"

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
"The notion of irredentism is next. And the notion of supremacy is but one step further down the road."

Those are steps I don't care to take.

[/ QUOTE ]

The claims of supremacy I don't expect you to openly acknowledge any more. You've made that PR mistake too many times already! (I recall that last time you took to "making a distinction" between "supreme" and "chosen"...)

But irredentism, you either ingore or pretend to ignore the meaning of the term: The many lands of The Holy Land that were "liberated" (while many parts of it are currently in danger of being "enslaved" again!) attest to irredentism in action in Reformed Zionism.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The very basis for a state that is meant for "Jews only" is a gross anachronism in the 21st century.

Perhaps in sunny America, but the rest of the world isn't quite there yet.

[/ QUOTE ]


Exactly, yet Nicky G. thinks I am wrong when I say the rest of the world, including Europe, is still somewhat backwards compared to the U.S. ;-)

[Cyrus]

"Any nation founded on the principles of protecting a religion is bad?"

Yes. Be that religion Judaism, Christianity, Islam or Zoroastrism. The religion-states are more old hat than nation-states. And the latter are already an anachronism.

"All of Europe had just attempted to exterminate their race."

You are misinformed (although you shouldn't feel bad, this is endemic in this forum). It was Nazi Germany that tried to exterminate the Jews, and not "all of Europe". Even fascist Italy did not attempt anything like that.

"Israel offers many programs for Holocaust victims and is highly populated by them because they are given safe passage."

How old are you? What kind of prose is that? You are not coherent.

Israel is "highly populated by Jews"?! Israel is populated by an overwhelming majority of Jews! And who gives "safe passage"? The countries of origin. And why do you think there is still "safe passage" [sic] granted by countries such as the USA to Israel? You think the Jews are persecuted in the USA? You are being absurd.

"Israel is obviously mistreating the Palestinians."

Mistreating is doing minor harm. Killing, maiming and ethnic cleansing is genocide -- not "mistreatment". you are confusing misdemeanours with crimes.

"Israel's occupation did not cause terrorism, terrorism caused the occupation."

Chronologically and as a matter of causality, Palestinian resistance, including its terrorist phase, started after Israel declared its unilateral independence (without awaiting the UN confirmation, if you must know) in 1948, and intensified after the 1967 war. The whole world, the US included calls the Israeli occupation of the land won in that war jsut that, ocuupation. Since that time. the indigenous natives ("non-people" to Israel) started resisting the occupation and demanding the satisfaction of their own nationalist aspirations, i.e. independence.

After many defeats, and for many years now, the Arabs, including the Palestinians, have been ready for peace -- even a "dishonourable" peace. (You wouldn't know this if you prefer to feed yourself with pro-Israel slop.)

But the Israeli leadership wants land and war, not peace. Israel wants to rule supreme over the region, not just to "live in peace" with its neighbors. Subjugation and supremacy is the name of the game, baby. I'm not saying that, the Reformed Zionist ideologues say that -- and they are have been in charge for decades in Israel.

"Build a wall, and the bombs virtually stop."

Sure, BUILD A WALL. And have checkpoints. Then name one of the Checkpoint Charlie -- then the anachronism will be complete.

...The whole of Israel is a wretched throwback to what was worse about the 20th century -- religious fanaticisms, nationalist obsessions, intolerance, mass crimes, ethnic cleansing, distorting propaganda and arrogant belligerence.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus,

The wall is necessary because of suicide-bombing Palestinians. The wall has been tremendously effective where built, too.

If the Palestinians can't or won't control their terrorist orgs, and won't stop sending suicide bombers, f'em. Build ten walls if need be. Israel is under no obligation to maintain open borders to those who come for her destruction.

Also, saying the Palestinians and Arabs have long been ready for peace with Israel is the biggest load of horsesh!t I've read on this board in a long time.

[Gamblor]

The claims of supremacy I don't expect you to openly acknowledge any more. You've made that PR mistake too many times already! (I recall that last time you took to "making a distinction" between "supreme" and "chosen"...)

Of course I consider my political and moral values better than yours, otherwise I'd have adopted yours long ago (god forbid).

By definition, you believe your way of life is supreme over all others because that is the life you have chosen above all others. You shout about morality but I haven't seen you do anything yet beyond talk a lot of big game.

But part of my superior moral stucture requires me to tolerate you, because that is what I believe to be of higher moral character. And, at the same time, to treat all people, whether Jewish or not, with equal respect.

It's funny; your definition of supremacist includes necessary subjugation of all others. Mine doesn't.

Sorry bout that. Tough one.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus, if you are so opposed to supremacism, why don't you focus your attention for a minute on where the most blatant and widespread supremacism is practiced and legal: Arab lands. Yes, Arab/Islamic supremacism is far more engrained, widespread, and long-standing than even the most Zionist of supremacisms.

Dating back to Mohammed's time, when the Prophet conveyed the word of Allah instructing Muslims to subjugate all others under Islam (or to convert or kill them)--to Mohammed's armies, whom he rewarded with the spoils and women and children of the conquered peoples as personal slaves--to the laws today in Arab lands which prohibit the public practice of any religions other than Islam--where it is a criminal offense to proselytize a Muslim (but Muslims are of course free to proselytize others)--to Arab countries where Jews today cannot become citizens--to the killing fields of Sudan, where Arab Muslims engage in the genocidal slaughter and enslavement of non-Arabs: you are missing the much bigger picture.

Focusing your attention on a small grove, you are indeed ignoring the forest.

The forest is the many centuries-old tradition of Arab/Islamic supremacism, writ large in the letters of their laws, and practiced ruthlessly against all non-Muslims (and especially against the Jews).

You want to bitch about supremacism, Cyrus, fine--I hate supremacism too--but realize that most Jews are not supremacists, nor does Israel hold a candle in the supremacism department when compared with the long and brutal history of Arab/Muslim supremacism--which exists in widespread form yet today.

You have landed on the wrong side, my friend. The Arabs and Muslims have been, and still are, the grand supremacists: far, far more so than the Jews or Israelis.

This is not to say ANY supremacism is acceptable--but for heaven's sake, look where it is most practiced--then try to apportion your criticisms appropriately.

[Gamblor]

Certainly not a scale to justify 25 years of occupation.

As far as I'm concerned, one act of terrorism is enough to justify 25 yrs.

[ACPlayer]

you believe your way of life is supreme over all others because that is the life you have chosen above all others.

Most Jews (and other religious types) dont choose to be what they are they are born into it and have that alleged supremacy of that particular way of thinking hammered into their heads from day 1 to the point that like good little soldiers they can parrot the lines from their little books and talk about their alleged and moral supremacy.

No doubt you were Muslim before you converted.

[ACPlayer]

You may want to study up on the history, ethics and moral supremacy of collective punishment.

Or you can continue to live in your "morally superior" but generally ignorant life.

[Gamblor]

Most Jews (and other religious types) dont choose to be what they are they are born into it and have that alleged supremacy of that particular way of thinking hammered into their heads from day 1 to the point that like good little soldiers they can parrot the lines from their little books and talk about their alleged and moral supremacy.

Looks like you're the biggest supremacist of them all; The secular-supremacist. "I got to choose, therefore I'm better."

Nobody forced me or anyone to be Jewish or anything else. We make choices because that's what we think is the best way to live our lives.

[Gamblor]

You may want to study up on the history, ethics and moral supremacy of collective punishment.

You continue to call it collective punishment because you are biased against Israel.

I continue to call IDF operations anti-terror activities necessary to protect the citizens of Israel. Which is the job of an army.

[ACPlayer]

Heck no. I was just pointing out the fallacy in what you said about choosing your moral supreme path. It is the same fallacy that most fascists have followed.

[Gamblor]

I was just pointing out the fallacy in what you said about choosing your moral supreme path. It is the same fallacy that most fascists have followed.

The difference is fascists try to control other people's choices.

I don't. I didn't say that if you're not Jewish then you'll go to hell, you have the right to decide whatever lifestyle you want to live. Coercion is anathema to Judaism, which fascists consider part-and-parcel of the government's role.

I chose what I believe to be the "supreme" manner to live my life, not yours. The only thing I hope for other people (even as misguided as you /images/graemlins/grin.gif) is a big fat smile on your face, and to leave me alone to take care of my business.

If you want to know what Jews ask of non-Jews, go to
http://www.jewfaq.org/gentiles.htm

[Felix_Nietsche]

A racist believes they're superior because of their DNA.

For myself, I'm a culturalist. I believe certain cultures are superior to others.

With regard to the Jews and the Palestinians, the Jews have a superior culture. Great cultures are always great builders. Jews are builders and creators. Palestinians know only violence and destruction.

Building the wall around Israel will not only protect Isreal but also keep the Palestinian "culture" away from the Jews. Without goverment interference, natural cultural "Darwinism" should be allowed to take place. Artificially proping up the Palestinians via the UN and money from other Arab nations is only prelonging the eventally collapse of the Palestinians..... Of course if the Jews decide to get political correct with regard to the Palestinians, then natural cultural Darwinism will not take place. The battle is between the 'fruitcakes' in the labor party versus the Likud(sp?) party. The interesting aspect is their political battle is it mirrors the political battles in the US.

By the way, one interesting paradox of the Jewish culture is that the Jews have a habit ticking people off (hence anti-semitism), and yet this same anti-semitism makes the Jewish culture stronger by uniting them. One rabbi in the US made the comment that that Jewish culture was dying in the US. He said the Jewish culture was getting killed by kindness (acceptance, intermarriage, etc...) One could argue that a certain amount of anti-semitism is necessary to keep the Jewish culture strong. The German philospher Nietzsche made this point as well.

[ACPlayer]

I chose what I believe to be the "supreme" manner to live my life, not yours.

See, as usual you are missing the point. You did not choose this manner as being "supreme". This manner of life was indoctrinated into you head from the first day of your life, each ceremony just made it more "supreme" to your brainwashed mind. You are defending the actions not from reason but becuase that is what has been taught to you from the youngest days.

It is irrelevant what Jews ask of others. It is their actions in Israel that tell the story of their trying to control other people's choices by deadly indiscrimiate force-- fascist thinking.

Now, if you had actually converted to Judaism after due thought then sure you chose it.