Why do people love israel so much?? [Archive]

MMMMMM

10-27-2005, 07:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Israel was created only 60 years ago, and yet many people talk about itas if it has always existed. The terms of it's inception are similar to the Indians taking back a chunk of the US because they lived there once. Why do the Jews deserve their own state at all? The Palestinians dont have their own state, the Catholics dont have their own state, the kurds dont have their own state, etc. What makes the Jews sospecial that they get their own country adn allowed to rule over a people who were already living there. Makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the United States were STILL TODAY gravely mistreating Native Americans, then I would think that Native Americans would deserve the option to have their own state or more. Similarly for American blacks. Thankfully, neither group is systematically being mistreated today.

Much of the world--Europe, Russia, and the Middle East-- mistreated the Jews and discriminated against them for many centuries. After the holocaust, the U.N. came to the arrangement that the Jews would get land for a state. Both Jews and Arabs lived on that land at the time.

If the world didn't long mistreat the Jews so severely, I would not think they would need their own state. But the world did so mistreat them, and so too did the Arabs. And a great many Arabs and Persians still today hold vast prejudice against the Jews, and would mistreat them OR WORSE given the chance. The Jews need a place of their own as a refuge or sanctuary from the ignorant, stupid, brutal and aggressive world outside--which in many places wants to systematically mistreat, subjugate, and eliminate the Jews--or at minimum to treat them legally as second-class citizens (much of the Middle East has laws that Jews and Gentiles do not get the same rights that Muslims do, and do not get full legal status as human beings; but their deepest hatreds are reserved for the Jews).

Yes, it must have sucked to be a displaced Palestinian originally, but they should have moved on by now--just like every other displaced people throughout history has moved on. It IS possible to move on and eventually make lemonade out of lemoins, you know. Israel was created legally according to the U.N., and you can blame the other Arab countries for not helping their own brethren assimilate, and for instead using them cynically as pawns against the hated Jews.

Creating Israel was not a perfect solution, but neither would it have been a perfect solution to leave the Jews out in the cold, to be predated upon by the world, using every form of discriminatory hatred, and legally codified second-class status. It's a cruel world out there and the ignorant elements of the world picked on the Jews for so long and so hard that the more civilized world finally woke up after the holocaust and said, "Hey, these guys could really use a place of their own, a refuge--let's see what we can come up with along those lines."

That's what happened and that's why Israel, in my opinion.

The Palestinian plight, which the Palestinians themselves have exacerbated immensely and tragically, might require another thread.

mikech

10-27-2005, 07:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The terms of it's inception are similar to the Indians taking back a chunk of the US because they lived there once.

[/ QUOTE ]
i'm glad you took up my example. if they're able to do it, good for them! if an indian nation were established, in 60 yrs would you still be calling for its destruction?

[ QUOTE ]
Why do people love israel so much??

[/ QUOTE ]
el barto touched on it: people root for the underdog. in the holocaust, not just a huge number, but a huge percentage of jews was exterminated, and today they're still targeted to be "wiped out," an island surrounded by enemies. plus, they kicked the arabs' asses in multiple wars, while being greatly outnumbered. so yeah, jews rock.

ansky451

10-28-2005, 10:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, why do people have such strong feelings towards Israel?

Israel was created only 60 years ago, and yet many people talk about itas if it has always existed. The terms of it's inception are similar to the Indians taking back a chunk of the US because they lived there once. Why do the Jews deserve their own state at all? The Palestinians dont have their own state, the Catholics dont have their own state, the kurds dont have their own state, etc. What makes the Jews sospecial that they get their own country adn allowed to rule over a people who were already living there. Makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like you have no idea of the context with which Israel was created. Catholics not having their own state is a horrid analogy. After thousands of years of being treated as second class citizens throughout ancient times, to the middle ages and the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the pograms in eastern europe, the ghettoization of European Jews in the 1800s etc, and obviously culminating in the Holocaust, it was made clear that Jews needed a homeland. Even in the 20th century, long after enlightenment, and in one of the most civilized nations in the world, the Holocaust showed how unsafe Jews were in their respective countries throughout Europe.

Your question, is absurd, because its simply not true. People don't love Israel, people hate it. The majority of the Arab world, as well as the rest of the Muslim world, do not beleive that Israel should exist.

10-28-2005, 10:44 AM

Why does everybody hate the Jews so much? Historically, they were persecuted in Europe leading all the way to the Holocaust. Now in the Middle East every Arab/Muslim country want the Jews to die. Why?

TomCollins

10-28-2005, 10:51 AM

Read about 15 of Gamblor's posts and you might understand have a start.

twowords

10-28-2005, 11:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Now in the Middle East every Arab/Muslim country want the Jews to die. Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

See the last 60 years.

Meech

10-28-2005, 11:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, why do people have such strong feelings towards Israel?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps because it's a little tiny pocket of civility amongst barbarians?

10-28-2005, 11:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now in the Middle East every Arab/Muslim country want the Jews to die. Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

See the last 60 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Distilling this issue down to "the last 60 years" shows how little you understand about it. Do yourself a favor and familiarize yourself with the plight of the Jews for, say, the last 2000 years. Reasonable people can have problems with the State of Israel. But to insinuate that the reason the world "hates" the Jews, or the reason many Arabs want to eradicate Israel and the Jews, is because of events of the past 60 years, is incredibly naive.

10-28-2005, 11:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Read about 15 of Gamblor's posts and you might understand have a start.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's ironic. We Jews just took an hour away from controlling the media and the world's banking institutions, and we held an election. Gamblor was voted "King Jew". He now speaks for all of us, around the world.

vulturesrow

10-28-2005, 11:38 AM

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
Read about 15 of Gamblor's posts and you might understand have a start.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's ironic. We Jews just took an hour away from controlling the media and the world's banking institutions, and we held an election. Gamblor was voted "King Jew". He now speaks for all of us, around the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nicely done. /images/graemlins/smile.gif And to clarify my one contribution to this thread (besides this post): I am very much for existence of Israel and believe strongly in our support of Israel. My only objection is to some of the actions of the leaders of Israel.

10-28-2005, 11:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Read about 15 of Gamblor's posts and you might understand have a start.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's ironic. We Jews just took an hour away from controlling the media and the world's banking institutions, and we held an election. Gamblor was voted "King Jew". He now speaks for all of us, around the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nicely done. /images/graemlins/smile.gif And to clarify my one contribution to this thread (besides this post): I am very much for existence of Israel and believe strongly in our support of Israel. My only objection is to some of the actions of the leaders of Israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said. I feel the same way as you, completely. Particularly the part where you praise me.

vulturesrow

10-28-2005, 11:48 AM

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
Read about 15 of Gamblor's posts and you might understand have a start.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's ironic. We Jews just took an hour away from controlling the media and the world's banking institutions, and we held an election. Gamblor was voted "King Jew". He now speaks for all of us, around the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nicely done. /images/graemlins/smile.gif And to clarify my one contribution to this thread (besides this post): I am very much for existence of Israel and believe strongly in our support of Israel. My only objection is to some of the actions of the leaders of Israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said. I feel the same way as you, completely. Particularly the part where you praise me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll be more than happy to be your campaign manager for your push to unseat Gamblor as "King Jew". I just need to figure out whose side the media is going to be on. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

nicky g

10-28-2005, 11:57 AM

"People don't love Israel, people hate it."

People do both. It polarises opinion. It arouses strong opinions, but in both directions.

twowords

10-28-2005, 12:12 PM

There has been a lot of revisionist history in this thread and here's a few examples.

1. That Jews and Arabs had been living in Palestine, until finally the UN decided to give the Jews their own state.

This fails to recognize that in the Early 20th Century, Palestine was a British-controled territory consisting of a vast Arab majority. The Zionist movement convinced the British to allow huge numbers of Jewish immigrants against the will of almost the entire "Palestinian" population, while at the same promising the Arabs independence which they would never recieve.

2. It was clear that the Jews needed their own state.

Certainly not, in fact many traditional Jews did not want this and opposed the Zionist movement. The idea had support from the US leadership, but this came from sympathy for the holocost and from the domestic political boost which came from supporting a Jewish state. It did not come from a need and a calculation of the viability of such a state. Fianlly, the Jewish state was placed in a location where all its neighbors opposed it, and no reparations or agreements were ever made with those who were displaced.

3. The UN partition was fair or reasonable.

Jews, less than 1/3 of the population and owning 6% of the land, recieved 50% of Palestine including a significant % of the most fertile land. The partition vote was opposed by the rest of the region, but the vote was won through intense US lobbying, which included threats of the suspension of aide (privately by senators, justices, etc, not officially) to certain UN Security Council heads of state. The partition needed military force to impose given the fighting and terror that was already occuring, but neither Britain (who had declared it would leave Palestine to the UN) nor the US were willing to use military force to enforce it. The vote did give legitimacy in declaring Israel in 1948, and various poorly orgainized Arab states invaded to take back control of Palestine. The vote was made knowing the Arabs would never accept it and the declaration of Israel was made knowing this would prompt an Arab attack.

4. The Palestinians were displaced.

Incidents such as the Deir Yassin masscre were the efforts of Israeli terror groups (with the tacit support of the Zionist leadership) to force million of Palestinians to flee their homes as Israel took control of most of Palestine, doubling its size allotted by the UN partision. Millions of refugees were never allowed back into their homes since that would ruin the purity of Israel. Sadly, the Arab states saw the acceptance of said refugees as acceptance of Israel and refused to allow them citizenship.

5. Israel was attacked in numerous wars in last 60 years.

The major wars, 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973, two began with a calculated Israeli attack, 1956 and 1967. In 1956, the US forced Israel to give up its gains taken from Egypt. In 1967, Israel occupied vast regions and it has maintained a military occupation of the West Bank (the rest of Palestine) until this day and again not allowing refugees back. The rest of the territory was given back in return for agreements of non-beligerency.

5. Israel is and has been the underdog.

Population-wise sure. But Israel had always posessed superior weapons and tactics from its western sponsors (France, and then the US). By the 1960s, Israel was the superpower of the area and US intelliegence predicted it would win in a war versus all of its neighbors. Since then it has steadily increased its military superiority. The underdogs of the last 50 years have been the Palestinians.

Anyhoo, support Israel all you want (and we, the US, certainly do) but history is history and you can't change it.

ansky451

10-28-2005, 12:25 PM

All your points are "valid," however there are some key factual errors. There are millions of Palestinians today, but at the time of the creation of Israel the number was several hundred thousand. They multiplied. To say that millions were displaced from their homes, is a lie.

Not all Palestinians were forced to leave. In fact, a large portion were encouraged to leave by the prospect of a full out Arab invasion which they assumed would be successful, and then they could return to "their" land.

twowords

10-28-2005, 12:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now in the Middle East every Arab/Muslim country want the Jews to die. Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

See the last 60 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Distilling this issue down to "the last 60 years" shows how little you understand about it. Do yourself a favor and familiarize yourself with the plight of the Jews for, say, the last 2000 years. Reasonable people can have problems with the State of Israel. But to insinuate that the reason the world "hates" the Jews, or the reason many Arabs want to eradicate Israel and the Jews, is because of events of the past 60 years, is incredibly naive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Truly not a comprehensive post on my part I apologize. I just thought the question he posed was too stupid to reply extensively.

Now I am afraid that the drive to destroy Israel does come from the last 60 years. Before that there was no Israel. Tracing Arab actions against Israel to hatred of Jews before that that is not convincing.

Before you try to take apart that last comment, lets remember that under the Arab dominanted Middle East of the last 1000+ years, Jews were second-class citizens just like Catholics but were certainly treated better than they were in Europe. They were people of the book, however misguided according to the Arabs. Remember, I am not ignoring the historic plight of the Jews, in fact I am sure this is what drives them in their part of the wars of the past 60 years.

However, the flooding of Palestine with Zionist Jews withe the tepid consent of the Britain controllers of Palestine was seen as yet another Western incursion and attempt at Imperialism. Everybody got independence around this time, colonialism was shaken off to a great extent. The Palestinaians were promised the same but tragically the entrance of the Zionists came just as the Palestinians were achieving their own statehood.

I propose to you that if some sect of western-supported Catholics or even freaking Eskimoes had done the same thing the Zionists did, which amounted to a western-supported snatching of the Arabs land in 1948, and continued to act as Israel has, then the events which followed would not have been much different.

twowords

10-28-2005, 12:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
All your points are "valid," however there are some key factual errors. There are millions of Palestinians today, but at the time of the creation of Israel the number was several hundred thousand. They multiplied. To say that millions were displaced from their homes, is a lie.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. Total population of Palestine was around 2 million, so yes your're right it was in the hundreds of thousands. Today, the number with "refugee status" is around 7 million, which is also from further Israeli occupations.
[ QUOTE ]

Not all Palestinians were forced to leave. In fact, a large portion were encouraged to leave by the prospect of a full out Arab invasion which they assumed would be successful, and then they could return to "their" land.

[/ QUOTE ]

Israel enacted a deliberate policy of outsting Arabs from the territory they took over. This was done through terror tactics including the Deir Yassin massacre and propaganda which threatened future massecres.

Your story was used as an ex post facto Israeli stance, to justify deniying the reutrn of the refugees. Even if true, the main reason for the Arab flight are stated above.

tomdemaine

10-28-2005, 01:17 PM

Why don't all the Jews (or palestinians for that matter) just move to Nevada. There's much more space there than is needed, it's just as inhospitable a climate but with nickel slots and hookers. Sounds ideal to me, they can build a paradise in the desert all over again but without that pesky constant threat of annihilation thing.

10-28-2005, 01:27 PM

I am not afraid of Jews blowing up my city (NYC), I am afraid of Muslims terrorists blowing up my city, as they have already done. Pretty simple. I'm on Isreal's side, and I am glad the US supports it.

Meech

10-28-2005, 02:47 PM

He who has the gold, makes the rules. Tis a bitch sometimes.

theweatherman

10-28-2005, 02:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Truly not a comprehensive post on my part I apologize. I just thought the question he posed was too stupid to reply extensively.

Now I am afraid that the drive to destroy Israel does come from the last 60 years. Before that there was no Israel. Tracing Arab actions against Israel to hatred of Jews before that that is not convincing.

Before you try to take apart that last comment, lets remember that under the Arab dominanted Middle East of the last 1000+ years, Jews were second-class citizens just like Catholics but were certainly treated better than they were in Europe. They were people of the book, however misguided according to the Arabs. Remember, I am not ignoring the historic plight of the Jews, in fact I am sure this is what drives them in their part of the wars of the past 60 years.

However, the flooding of Palestine with Zionist Jews withe the tepid consent of the Britain controllers of Palestine was seen as yet another Western incursion and attempt at Imperialism. Everybody got independence around this time, colonialism was shaken off to a great extent. The Palestinaians were promised the same but tragically the entrance of the Zionists came just as the Palestinians were achieving their own statehood.

I propose to you that if some sect of western-supported Catholics or even freaking Eskimoes had done the same thing the Zionists did, which amounted to a western-supported snatching of the Arabs land in 1948, and continued to act as Israel has, then the events which followed would not have been much different.

[/ QUOTE ]

twowords is far better at articulating the issue than I am, but what he has said here is pretty much exactly correct.

Persecution through out history does notgive the right to take over land. dozens of groups have faced continued abuse during the ages, blacks and gypsies come to mind, but no one even brings up the notion of a nation state. Israel is an illegal state that really has no right to exist.

Most of the Arab hatred for the Jews does come from the existence of the Jewish state. What other issues would th earab world have with the jews if they werent being subjugated by them? Probably not much more than your average religious prejudice (like they have for christians)

I'm not sure why the US continues to expose itself by backing Israel, and I'm even more confused as to why the hell they have nukes but the ARabs aren't allowed to have them. Israel has commited just as many acts of aggression against its neighbors as the other middle eastern contries have. They are no different in my mind.

BCPVP

10-28-2005, 03:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Israel is an illegal state that really has no right to exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
I ask again. Why is Israel an illegal state with no right to exist while America is not? What makes a state "legal"?

Arnfinn Madsen

10-28-2005, 03:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Israel is an illegal state that really has no right to exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
I ask again. Why is Israel an illegal state with no right to exist while America is not? What makes a state "legal"?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are slightly derailing, but this is actually a very interesting question. Some EU-thing (comitee, bureau or something) had a discussion on this and they did not find objective parameters.

MaxPower

10-28-2005, 03:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why does everybody hate the Jews so much? Historically, they were persecuted in Europe leading all the way to the Holocaust. Now in the Middle East every Arab/Muslim country want the Jews to die. Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Everybody needs a scapegoat.

BCPVP

10-28-2005, 03:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Israel is an illegal state that really has no right to exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
I ask again. Why is Israel an illegal state with no right to exist while America is not? What makes a state "legal"?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are slightly derailing, but this is actually a very interesting question. Some EU-thing (comitee, bureau or something) had a discussion on this and they did not find objective parameters.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree that this is derailing. It's is exactly the question the OP needs to answer before he starts spouting off things like "Israel is an illegal state with no right to exist". If he can't answer these questions then he should stfu.

Arnfinn Madsen

10-28-2005, 03:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Israel is an illegal state that really has no right to exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
I ask again. Why is Israel an illegal state with no right to exist while America is not? What makes a state "legal"?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are slightly derailing, but this is actually a very interesting question. Some EU-thing (comitee, bureau or something) had a discussion on this and they did not find objective parameters.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree that this is derailing. It's is exactly the question the OP needs to answer before he starts spouting off things like "Israel is an illegal state with no right to exist". If he can't answer these questions then he should stfu.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I despise much of Israel's politics, but I agree to your statement. No state has any universal right to exist, and thus no state can claim to be "legal" and then there really isn't any illegal states either.

jaxmike

10-28-2005, 03:21 PM

10-28-2005, 03:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the Arab hatred for the Jews does come from the existence of the Jewish state. What other issues would th earab world have with the jews if they werent being subjugated by them? Probably not much more than your average religious prejudice (like they have for christians)

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy crap you have no idea what you're talking about. The Arabs subjugated the Jews for centuries. Significant Jewish populations in many Arab nations, such as Syria, no longer exist due to mistreatment, as just one example.

Moreover, "the Jews" are not subjugating Arabs. Assuming the truth of your hypothesis, Israel is. There is a significant difference. "The Jews" that are not in Israel are not doing anything to "the Arabs" other than predominantly living in peace with them.

And "the Jews" have a long, long way to go before their "subjugation" of any Arab population matches what Arab nations -- let alone much of the world -- has done to the Jews that lived among them.

I just find this marked dislike for Israel very befuddling. The Hutus killed millions of Tutsis, and nobody said or did anything. The Sudanese are murdering and raping other Sudanese, and nobody cares. It took years before anyone responded to the crap that went on in Bosnia, and even today the US is criticized for intervening. Yet Israel -- which reasonably can be considered to be trying to protect itself from annihilation at worst and, at a minimum, terrorism -- takes actions against a relatively small population of Palestinians, at least some of whom are members of terrorist organizations, actions which I don't disagree may be extreme or violent, and the world jumps up and down screaming bloody murder.

10-28-2005, 03:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I despise much of Israel's politics

[/ QUOTE ]

What is it about "much of Israel's politics" that you "despise"? Is it their attempts to reach peace agreements with their Arab neighbors? To put an end to terrorism within its borders? To protect itself against being wiped out by some of its crazy neighbors?

I certainly can appreciate the point of view that "despises" Israel's approach to the Palestinians in the refugee camps. I simiarly agree with the view that Israel needs to be watched, as it already has been caught spying on the US. Hell, I'm an American, not an Israeli, and my interests are US first, everyone else second. Despite the fact that I am a Jew, Israel is little more than another country to me. That having been said, I find it very difficult to consider a view that "much of Israel's politics is despicable" to be reasonable. The politics of Israel's neighbors in that region -- from its "friends" like Egypt to its mortal enemies like Syria and Iran -- are far more "despicable" than anything Israel could ever pull out of its ass, and is much more worthy of your scorn. Again, this fascination with Israel is most curious.

Arnfinn Madsen

10-28-2005, 03:39 PM

I despise the whole fundament of which the state is made and the effects this has on innocent people. I think a state made for one people/ religion/ nationality etc. is an undemocratic bad idea since those not belonging to that people/ religion/ nationality etc. often ends up being suppressed (like Jews traditionally in Europe and Palestinians in Israel today).

dandy_don

10-28-2005, 03:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Israel was created only 60 years ago

[/ QUOTE ]

Believe what you wish, but this is the written Word from Joshua chapter 1, verses 1-4 (that's a book in the Bible from +/-1250 years before the birth of Christ):

[ QUOTE ]

Joshua 1
The LORD Commands Joshua
1 After the death of Moses the servant of the LORD, the LORD said to Joshua son of Nun, Moses' aide: 2 "Moses my servant is dead. Now then, you and all these people, get ready to cross the Jordan River into the land I am about to give to them—to the Israelites. 3 I will give you every place where you set your foot, as I promised Moses. 4 Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the great river, the Euphrates—all the Hittite country—to the Great Sea on the west.

[/ QUOTE ]

theweatherman

10-28-2005, 03:45 PM

I really do not care what your BS theology has to say about the issue. Respond In terms of secular politics please.

Arnfinn Madsen

10-28-2005, 03:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]

The politics of Israel's neighbors in that region -- from its "friends" like Egypt to its mortal enemies like Syria and Iran -- are far more "despicable" than anything Israel could ever pull out of its ass, and is much more worthy of your scorn. Again, this fascination with Israel is most curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is really no such basic specific fascination on my part. But I very rarely see anybody defend human rights abuses conducted by Syria, Iran or Egypt. But I see a lot of defending or "explaining" of those conducted by Israel (not take this personally) and thus it is a more important issue to address.

jaxmike

10-28-2005, 03:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I really do not care what your BS theology has to say about the issue. Respond In terms of secular politics please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

That is probably less reliable than theology unfortunately.

theweatherman

10-28-2005, 03:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Holy crap you have no idea what you're talking about. The Arabs subjugated the Jews for centuries. Significant Jewish populations in many Arab nations, such as Syria, no longer exist due to mistreatment, as just one example.

Moreover, "the Jews" are not subjugating Arabs. Assuming the truth of your hypothesis, Israel is. There is a significant difference. "The Jews" that are not in Israel are not doing anything to "the Arabs" other than predominantly living in peace with them.

And "the Jews" have a long, long way to go before their "subjugation" of any Arab population matches what Arab nations -- let alone much of the world -- has done to the Jews that lived among them.

I just find this marked dislike for Israel very befuddling. The Hutus killed millions of Tutsis, and nobody said or did anything. The Sudanese are murdering and raping other Sudanese, and nobody cares. It took years before anyone responded to the crap that went on in Bosnia, and even today the US is criticized for intervening. Yet Israel -- which reasonably can be considered to be trying to protect itself from annihilation at worst and, at a minimum, terrorism -- takes actions against a relatively small population of Palestinians, at least some of whom are members of terrorist organizations, actions which I don't disagree may be extreme or violent, and the world jumps up and down screaming bloody murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically your saying that the Israelis should be allowed to get and eye for an eye? That sounds like a great way to guide international politics. Give Israel free reign until they cross the limit of their own persecution?? That makes absolutly no sense.

your examples are so perfect. Every one is a situation created by imperialism, as israel is. In everyone of these examples there are terrible situations brought on by imperialism. The violence caused by the existence of Israel is just another ill brought on by imperialism.

MMMMMM

10-28-2005, 03:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I despise the whole fundament of which the state is made and the effects this has on innocent people. I think a state made for one people/ religion/ nationality etc. is an undemocratic bad idea since those not belonging to that people/ religion/ nationality etc. often ends up being suppressed (like Jews traditionally in Europe and Palestinians in Israel today).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, then you should despise EVEN MORE SO the legal codes of the neighboring countries of Israel, which spell out how Jews do not get full human rights in their countries. You should despise even more those countries which will legally not allow Jews to become citizens.

If you consider Israel's existence as a "Jewish state" to be despicable, you must, by applying the same standards, consider that the laws and very existence of its neighbors to be even more despicable.

Arabs can become citizens in Israel, and there enjoy full human rights, and freedom of religion. Jews cannot become citizens in various Arab countries, and do not enjoy comparable human rights, nor freedom of religion--and that's the LAW in those countries.

So, WHICH IS MORE DESPICABLE? And which should you object to more strenously?

MMMMMM

10-28-2005, 03:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The politics of Israel's neighbors in that region -- from its "friends" like Egypt to its mortal enemies like Syria and Iran -- are far more "despicable" than anything Israel could ever pull out of its ass, and is much more worthy of your scorn. Again, this fascination with Israel is most curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is really no such basic specific fascination on my part. But I very rarely see anybody defend human rights abuses conducted by Syria, Iran or Egypt. But I see a lot of defending or "explaining" of those conducted by Israel (not take this personally) and thus it is a more important issue to address.

[/ QUOTE ]

So which more merits scorn and condemnation: the human rights abuses conducted by Israel, or the human rights abuses conducted by Israel's neighboring countries?

Arnfinn Madsen

10-28-2005, 04:03 PM

Okay, bookmark this MMMMMM /images/graemlins/tongue.gif:

I despise Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia (I can extend the list if necessary....).

It is the whole "which is more despicable?"-attitude I am trying to attack because it is often used to defend "minor despicabilities" (not a valid word, but you get my meaning). It is a very defensive, pessimistic approach to policy and development; in a time where more resources, knowledge, consciousness on this issues etc. is available than at any previous time in history.

Arnfinn Madsen

10-28-2005, 04:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The politics of Israel's neighbors in that region -- from its "friends" like Egypt to its mortal enemies like Syria and Iran -- are far more "despicable" than anything Israel could ever pull out of its ass, and is much more worthy of your scorn. Again, this fascination with Israel is most curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is really no such basic specific fascination on my part. But I very rarely see anybody defend human rights abuses conducted by Syria, Iran or Egypt. But I see a lot of defending or "explaining" of those conducted by Israel (not take this personally) and thus it is a more important issue to address.

[/ QUOTE ]

So which more merits scorn and condemnation: the human rights abuses conducted by Israel, or the human rights abuses conducted by Israel's neighboring countries?

[/ QUOTE ]

List the countries you want included.

twowords

10-28-2005, 04:04 PM

Hold up.

[ QUOTE ]

The Arabs subjugated the Jews for centuries. Significant Jewish populations in many Arab nations, such as Syria, no longer exist due to mistreatment, as just one example.

[/ QUOTE ]
Israel gave Palestinians the boot in 1948 and refused to ever let any refusgees return, and this led to much increased violence and subsequent expulsion of Jews around the Middle East.
[ QUOTE ]

Moreover, "the Jews" are not subjugating Arabs. Assuming the truth of your hypothesis, Israel is. There is a significant difference. "The Jews" that are not in Israel are not doing anything to "the Arabs" other than predominantly living in peace with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Israel is subjegating Palestinaians big time. Big time. In occupied terrority, Arabs could be imprisoned for no reason for months (various academics considered activist for example) and were subject to daily beatings, haressments, and humiliations. Demostrations which featured lots of yelling and some rock throwing, were responded to with live ammo. This went on into the 80s and the 90s, and has only very recently gotten better.
[ QUOTE ]

And "the Jews" have a long, long way to go before their "subjugation" of any Arab population matches what Arab nations -- let alone much of the world -- has done to the Jews that lived among them.

I just find this marked dislike for Israel very befuddling. The Hutus killed millions of Tutsis, and nobody said or did anything. The Sudanese are murdering and raping other Sudanese, and nobody cares. It took years before anyone responded to the crap that went on in Bosnia, and even today the US is criticized for intervening. Yet Israel -- which reasonably can be considered to be trying to protect itself from annihilation at worst and, at a minimum, terrorism -- takes actions against a relatively small population of Palestinians, at least some of whom are members of terrorist organizations, actions which I don't disagree may be extreme or violent, and the world jumps up and down screaming bloody murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

And here's the rest of your post which argues that Israeli attoricites aren't as bad as others and the Arabs used to do worse 1000 years ago. This sort of speaks for itself.

Meech

10-28-2005, 04:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm even more confused as to why the hell they have nukes but the ARabs aren't allowed to have them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa. I think the answer to this is pretty simple.

They would use them. Repeatedly.

theweatherman

10-28-2005, 04:09 PM

whats the point of anyone having them if they dont intend to use them? Detterence is meaningless without the will to fire your missles.

Who are you to decide which nations are allowed to have power andwhich are not? I think some others on this forum have said that the Israelis deserve to be there because they fought for it. Well why aren't the Arabs allowed to fight back with modern weapons?

dandy_don

10-28-2005, 04:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
whats the point of anyone having them if they dont intend to use them? Detterence is meaningless without the will to fire your missles.

[/ QUOTE ]

America and Israel have the "will", Iran and Syria have the "desire".

Meech

10-28-2005, 04:24 PM

Personally I can't decide anything. But I agree with the world community (whatever that means) in their decision to not allow them to have them.

If there is such a thing as fighting honorably, the Arabs don't.

If they had nukes, they would strap them on the back of a 10 year old boy, and send him into a civilian establishment or school.

MMMMMM

10-28-2005, 04:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, bookmark this MMMMMM :

I despise Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia (I can extend the list if necessary....).

It is the whole "which is more despicable?"-attitude I am trying to attack because it is often used to defend "minor despicabilities" (not a valid word, but you get my meaning). It is a very defensive, pessimistic approach to policy and development; in a time where more resources, knowledge, consciousness on this issues etc. is available than at any previous time in history.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, noted;-)

IF you're going to TAKE SIDES, though (and you apparently are taking sides), why not side with the party which is LESS despicable???

Meech

10-28-2005, 04:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Who are you to decide which nations are allowed to have power andwhich are not?

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet again, the golden rule applies here. He who has the gold(power) makes the rules.

MMMMMM

10-28-2005, 04:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So which more merits scorn and condemnation: the human rights abuses conducted by Israel, or the human rights abuses conducted by Israel's neighboring countries?

[/ QUOTE ]

List the countries you want included.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any Middle Eastern country which has laws denying full human rights to non-Muslims; which regularly practices actual torture (not merely abuse); which practices capital punishment on persons of minor age; which denies religious freedom; or which imprisons persons purely for political reasons.

Arnfinn Madsen

10-28-2005, 04:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, bookmark this MMMMMM :

I despise Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia (I can extend the list if necessary....).

It is the whole "which is more despicable?"-attitude I am trying to attack because it is often used to defend "minor despicabilities" (not a valid word, but you get my meaning). It is a very defensive, pessimistic approach to policy and development; in a time where more resources, knowledge, consciousness on this issues etc. is available than at any previous time in history.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, noted;-)

IF you're going to TAKE SIDES, though (and you apparently are taking sides), why not side with the party which is LESS despicable???

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many conflicts/subconflicts here (internal Jewish and Arab power struggle etc.) but in the "main" conflict between Israel and the palestinians my sympathise list goes something like this:

1. Average Palestinian guy. Suppressed by a powerful apartheid nation.
2. Jews who don't support apartheid. May be coincidentially subject to a terror attack.

On my non-sympathy list:
1. Hamas. Killing indisriminately.
2. Israeli state. Systematically oppressing a people.
3. Hamas-supporters.
4. Jewish settlers.
5. Jews voting for apartheid.

Arnfinn Madsen

10-28-2005, 04:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So which more merits scorn and condemnation: the human rights abuses conducted by Israel, or the human rights abuses conducted by Israel's neighboring countries?

[/ QUOTE ]

List the countries you want included.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any Middle Eastern country which has laws denying full human rights to non-Muslims; which regularly practices actual torture (not merely abuse); which practices capital punishment on persons of minor age; which denies religious freedom; or which imprisons persons purely for political reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe backpedalling a bit, but I thought at some countries and comparing is really difficult, it is a bit complex. I.e. Syria can go to drastic means against certain groups but does not interfere too much into the life of the average individual, Iran treats Jews worse than they threat Christians, Israel respects most of the rights of Israeli Arabs, but not palestinians etc.

twowords

10-28-2005, 04:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There are many conflicts/subconflicts here (internal Jewish and Arab power struggle etc.) but in the "main" conflict between Israel and the palestinians my sympathise list goes something like this:

1. Average Palestinian guy. Suppressed by a powerful apartheid nation.
2. Jews who don't support apartheid. May be coincidentially subject to a terror attack.

On my non-sympathy list:
1. Hamas. Killing indisriminately.
2. Israeli state. Systematically oppressing a people.
3. Hamas-supporters.
4. Jewish settlers.
5. Jews voting for apartheid.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty close to this too.

Jedster

10-28-2005, 05:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, why do people have such strong feelings towards Israel?

Israel was created only 60 years ago, and yet many people talk about itas if it has always existed. The terms of it's inception are similar to the Indians taking back a chunk of the US because they lived there once. Why do the Jews deserve their own state at all? The Palestinians dont have their own state, the Catholics dont have their own state, the kurds dont have their own state, etc. What makes the Jews sospecial that they get their own country adn allowed to rule over a people who were already living there. Makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

The United States was only created a couple of centuries ago. Viewed in the context of the history of the world, the difference of when the U.S. was created and when Israel was created is a blink of an eye. I was only created about three decades ago, so both existed equally at birth. I love my country, the U.S., and I do love Israel, as much as the actions of the right-wing extremists there frustrate me. Surely it is obvious that some extremists there have done awful things, just as surely some Palestinian extremists have done awful things. But at the same time, Israel the most stable democracy in that part of the world. And that Democracy does include palestinians and arabs, even in the Knesset. Israel is certainly not perfect, but its imperfections don't even hold a dimly lit candle to Syria or Iran or Saddam's Iraq. And I say this as a liberal extremist in the U.S. who totally hates the Iraq war and everything about Bush's foreign policy. It's a tragedy that there is no religious tolerance in the Middle East, but the destruction of Israel is not the answer. Rather, the foundations of liberalization in the Middle East will be the establishment of a Palestinian state and the establishment of a peaceful relationship between a coexisting Israel and Palestine. Building a welathy and democratic and peaceful Palestine next to Israel will do far more for our interests than what we're trying (and failing) to do in Iraq.

10-28-2005, 06:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am not afraid of Jews blowing up my city (NYC), I am afraid of Muslims terrorists blowing up my city, as they have already done. Pretty simple. I'm on Isreal's side, and I am glad the US supports it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Felix_Nietsche

10-28-2005, 06:59 PM

Why do people love Israel so much?
****************************
Hmmmmmmmm......I think it is more that people don't like Arabs.
It is kind of like the guy that said he is a vegetarian NOT because he loved animals but because he hated plants. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

10-28-2005, 07:02 PM

MMMMMM

10-28-2005, 07:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IF you're going to TAKE SIDES, though (and you apparently are taking sides), why not side with the party which is LESS despicable???

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many conflicts/subconflicts here (internal Jewish and Arab power struggle etc.) but in the "main" conflict between Israel and the palestinians my sympathise list goes something like this:

1. Average Palestinian guy. Suppressed by a powerful apartheid nation.
2. Jews who don't support apartheid. May be coincidentially subject to a terror attack.

On my non-sympathy list:
1. Hamas. Killing indisriminately.
2. Israeli state. Systematically oppressing a people.
3. Hamas-supporters.
4. Jewish settlers.
5. Jews voting for apartheid.

[/ QUOTE ]

All right, I understand that part of your position, but you also wrote the following:

[ QUOTE ]
I despise the whole fundament of which the state is made and the effects this has on innocent people. I think a state made for one people/ religion/ nationality etc. is an undemocratic bad idea since those not belonging to that people/ religion/ nationality etc. often ends up being suppressed (like Jews traditionally in Europe and Palestinians in Israel today).

[/ QUOTE ]

On that same basis you should EVEN MORE despise the Arab states which have laws denying equal rights to Jews and Christians.

If you despise Israel because you despise any state that is for one people/religion/nationality, you should EVEN MORE SO despise those Arab states which are EVEN MORE for one people/religion/nationality.

twowords

10-28-2005, 07:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not afraid of Jews blowing up my city (NYC), I am afraid of Muslims terrorists blowing up my city, as they have already done. Pretty simple. I'm on Isreal's side, and I am glad the US supports it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite the self-fulfilling prophacy here. Fair enough though, we are threatened by Muslims not Jews. Kind of makes me wish we had not supported either belligierent and instead supported an even-handed peace. Truman, Johnson, and Nixon chose Israel and in a sense we pay for that today.

Go ahead, hate Muslims and support Israel, but know that the US played a large role in screwing over the Palestians.

MMMMMM

10-28-2005, 07:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
...but know that the US played a large role in screwing over the Palestians.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe so, but I've got a question:

Why is it that of all the oppressed and displaced peoples (that I can think of), only the Palestinians have refused to move on and get to work trying to forge better lives for themselves--perhaps in other countries? Example: the "boat people" of Southeast Asia faced far worse and they just fled, risking dying on the journey, to come to America and start better lives from scratch. The Palestinians who were originally displaced, well, most of them aren't even alive now. And of all the oppressed or displaced groups in the world, ONLY the Palestinians are granted permanent refugee status by the U.N. which extends to all of their descendants in perpetuity.

What the hell? If our grandfathers were displaced, would you and I stick around in a hellhole, fighting a hopeless and miserable quixotic battle to try to reclaim our ancestral lands? Or would we go, say, to New York, in whatever way we might manage to get there?

There is no good reason why millions of third-generation Palestinian refugees should all stick around in a living hell. Every other group of refugees has found a way for many or most of them to leave and start new and better lives in new land. Why the heck don't the Palestinians? If you were a descendant of a refugee and even believeds you were 100% right and Israel was 100% wrong, would you waste your life tilting at windmills or would you make a move to go start a better life elsewhere as millions of other refugees the world over have done?

Never mind what is "right" for the moment; what would you DO as a third-generation refugee", who had never even set foot on the contested land? Waste your life throwing rocks in a living hell, or find a way to get the hell out of there and start over elsewhere?

Jedster

10-28-2005, 07:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I despise the whole fundament of which the state is made and the effects this has on innocent people. I think a state made for one people/ religion/ nationality etc. is an undemocratic bad idea since those not belonging to that people/ religion/ nationality etc. often ends up being suppressed (like Jews traditionally in Europe and Palestinians in Israel today).

[/ QUOTE ]

On that same basis you should EVEN MORE despise the Arab states which have laws denying equal rights to Jews and Christians.

If you despise Israel because you despise any state that is for one people/religion/nationality, you should EVEN MORE SO despise those Arab states which are EVEN MORE for one people/religion/nationality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Viewed in a vacuum, Israel certainly seems far from a model nation. But in the greater context of the middle east, M is right, Israel isn't the worst apple. In fact, the possibility that a Palestinian state may coexist with Israel in peace is perhaps the greatest hope for the region overall.

Arnfinn Madsen

10-28-2005, 10:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]

All right, I understand that part of your position, but you also wrote the following:

[ QUOTE ]
I despise the whole fundament of which the state is made and the effects this has on innocent people. I think a state made for one people/ religion/ nationality etc. is an undemocratic bad idea since those not belonging to that people/ religion/ nationality etc. often ends up being suppressed (like Jews traditionally in Europe and Palestinians in Israel today).

[/ QUOTE ]

On that same basis you should EVEN MORE despise the Arab states which have laws denying equal rights to Jews and Christians.

If you despise Israel because you despise any state that is for one people/religion/nationality, you should EVEN MORE SO despise those Arab states which are EVEN MORE for one people/religion/nationality.

[/ QUOTE ]

They both think the same way: Our country is for those who are like us.

andyfox

10-28-2005, 10:46 PM

"Why do people love Israel so much? ......I think it is more that people don't like Arabs."

This is true. The Zionists originally sold themselves to the Europeans as an agent of Western civilization in a sea of Oriental backwardness. This view of both societies still has resonance.

But there was also an element of justice in the founding of Israel. In light of European and Russian antisemitism, and the holocaust, a country for the Jewish people seemed fitting and proper. The Zionists also sold the Jews as a nation, not as a religious entity. There was, of course, an element of injustice in Zioinism in that this land for a people without one was not a land without people already there. But those people were, like natives everywhere, treated like non-people for a long time.

Israel is also seen as the only democracy in a sea of authoritarianism.

BluffTHIS!

10-28-2005, 11:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Why do people love Israel so much? ......I think it is more that people don't like Arabs."

This is true. The Zionists originally sold themselves to the Europeans as an agent of Western civilization in a sea of Oriental backwardness. This view of both societies still has resonance.

But there was also an element of justice in the founding of Israel. In light of European and Russian antisemitism, and the holocaust, a country for the Jewish people seemed fitting and proper. The Zionists also sold the Jews as a nation, not as a religious entity. There was, of course, an element of injustice in Zioinism in that this land for a people without one was not a land without people already there. But those people were, like natives everywhere, treated like non-people for a long time.

Israel is also seen as the only democracy in a sea of authoritarianism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this statement 100%. And this is a devout christian agreeing with an atheist/agnostic. So it should be clear that it is likely that such preference for Israel is not just religious or cultural affinity, but a rational one. And the constant images on television of mobs of moslems in the streets demonstrating over any tiny perceived wrong after being egged on by mullahs who have no religious education, together with so-called "honor" killings of family members and cutting the clits off little girls, show that reason simply cannot side with the predominant islamic culture that exists in arab states.

ACPlayer

10-28-2005, 11:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I just find this marked dislike for Israel very befuddling.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why? Considering that our policies in the middle east directly impact us in America on a day to day basis. The Hutu policy has perhaps a tertiary impact on our lives. Notice that America has not sided with the Hutu's over Tutsi's or vice-versa.

If you really have to ask the question, you dont understand or are willing to acknowledge the harm that the Israel policy has done to us. I am all for letting Israel live on, just as I am for the Hutu's or the Tutsi's or whatever. Once it starts impacting me, I have to be at least concerned about it. I also dont particularly care if the Israeli's are putting Palestinians in a Ghetto, except that our unfair one-sided support has got us into trouble.

Having said all that, sure I care about the Jewish people killed by bombs, or the Palestinians living in hell under the IDF, or the Darfur massacres etc. But I care about all of them and want out govt to first protect us and then try to take care of these problems. Instead the govt protects Israel at our expense and at the expense of all the other groups.

ACPlayer

10-28-2005, 11:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So, WHICH IS MORE DESPICABLE? And which should you object to more strenously?

[/ QUOTE ]

We should object to neither.

We should be truly neutral and let them sort themselves out for the most part - a token commitment to blue helmets I can live with that. Like we do in Kashmir, or in Darfur, or ...

Supporting Israel because they are less despicable is idiotic, specially when we know the support is costing us dearly.

lehighguy

10-28-2005, 11:19 PM

As is my understanding, Arabs that live in Isreal proper and are actual citizens don't have it too bad. I think they even have representatives in government (or used to). If not for the terrorist bombings they could probably lead normal lives.

Arnfinn Madsen

10-28-2005, 11:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
As is my understanding, Arabs that live in Isreal proper and are actual citizens don't have it too bad. I think they even have representatives in government (or used to). If not for the terrorist bombings they could probably lead normal lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they are treated quite well. The displacement and occupation though means that there are millions of Palestinians living in "de facto Israel" who are discriminated.

BluffTHIS!

10-29-2005, 12:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The displacement and occupation though means that there are millions of Palestinians living in "de facto Israel" who are discriminated.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why don't those Palestinians go back to the Palestinian majority state where they would be welcomed? You know, the state called Jordan. And why don't those rich oil sheiks spend enough of their billions to make their lives better?

BCPVP

10-29-2005, 12:58 AM

MMMMMM

10-29-2005, 01:01 AM

No, Arnfinn, you are dodging the point.

Israel allows Arabs to become citizens and grants them legal status with equal rights and religious freedom. Many Arab states DO NOT allow Jews to become citizens, and DO NOT grant them legal status with equal rights, and DO NOT allow them religious freedom. So you are talking nonsense.

MMMMMM

10-29-2005, 01:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, WHICH IS MORE DESPICABLE? And which should you object to more strenously?

[/ QUOTE ]

We should object to neither.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

[ QUOTE ]
We should be truly neutral and let them sort themselves out for the most part - a token commitment to blue helmets I can live with that. Like we do in Kashmir, or in Darfur, or ...

Supporting Israel because they are less despicable is idiotic, specially when we know the support is costing us dearly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think supporting democracy anywhere in the world is a worthy endeavor, and especially so in the Middle East where it is so sorely needed.

ACPlayer

10-29-2005, 05:54 AM

We should support a state which is in our best interest and not just because it is a democracy. You and I have agreed that the state of Israel shows disdain if not contempt for some of the things we ask for, we have agreed that they implement some despicable policies towards the Palestinians in the occupied territories, that they implement a creeping land grab via the settlements.

So, we should move squarely into the neutral camp in the Middle East. We should do it explicitly and with clear actions to back up the words. We lose nothing by doing so, we gain a lot.

MMMMMM

10-29-2005, 07:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
We should support a state which is in our best interest and not just because it is a democracy. You and I have agreed that the state of Israel shows disdain if not contempt for some of the things we ask for, we have agreed that they implement some despicable policies towards the Palestinians in the occupied territories, that they implement a creeping land grab via the settlements.

So, we should move squarely into the neutral camp in the Middle East. We should do it explicitly and with clear actions to back up the words. We lose nothing by doing so, we gain a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Democracies (versus the alternatives) ARE in our best interests.

I think we should take sides more strongly, and we should tell Israel it is fine to take the gloves off and totally kick the crap out of any terrorists who fire rockets into Gaza.

Respond to terror attacks by hitting the terrorist groups near Israel wih utterly overwhelming force. Destroy the infrastructure associated with the launching area of attacks, and the headquarters and training camps of the group responsible, and be sure to finish off with a Daisy Cutter or two to be sure no militants escape.

Then, if the Palestinians want peace, truly help them build a state of their own. But if they keep firing rockets and such, wipe out the source of each attack.

That would soon end the nearly all of the violence, believe it or not. If the terrorists don't have headquarters and their leaders are dead, they will quit. The reason they "vow revenge" when Israel launches counterstrikes is because Israel is playing only tit-for-tat. The terrorist groups are never getting truly hammered. They've only been getting chipped away at, and it's good for their PR.

The reason they keep attacking, is because it is working. The reason Arafat turned to terrorism is because he found it worked. He showed up at the U.N. wearing a gun and his military garb. Israeli athletes were murdered at the Olympics. Arafat got more recognition and sympathy for the Palestinians via militancy, than far more oppressed groups around the world obtained through silent protests.

Well, terrorism does not have to work if we don't let it. If concessions to terror are never given, the reward/pain ratio changes dramatically--the more so if terrorists are killed in response, and all their known infrastructure blown up.

It is time to stamp out the regional terrorist groups. Only if the Palestinian militants suffer utter defeat and total humiliation will there be a chance at peace. Their means and spirit must be broken before they will accept co-existence with Israel, before they will stop targeting children's birthday parties and schoolbuses and hospitals for murder.

Fanatics care for nothing but victory or total defeat. It is up to Israel and the USA to give them that defeat.

Whenever Israel has responded with true strength, terror attacks have dropped off. Terror attacks dropped off wherever the fence was built. Terror attacks dropped off after Sheikh Yassin was killed, despite the militants' vows to create a greater bloodbath. Why? Because they were getting hit and hurt, and found it hard to operate under such pressure.

It's time to stop negotiating with terrorists. It's time to start pro-actively squashing them after every attack. If it is done forcefully enough they won't be retaliating much, because they will mostly just be dead. They aren't used to getting flattened, because Israel has always exercised great restraint at our behest and due to world opinion.

I suggest it is time for a new method of dealing with terrorists: zero negotiation, and a response of totally overwhelming force directed at the source of any attack. A 100% applied consistency in this approach will soon stamp out nearly all of the terrorism in the region. And then the Palestinians can have a state, as Bush has laid out in the RoadMap--once they are no longer attacking. But the fanatical members of terrorist groups will never stop attacking until they are dead or rendered totally powerless.

The die has long been cast, but few people want to face the reality of the situation. The reality is that no matter what any moderate Palestinians might want, or what Abbas might suggest, the fanatics will keep attacking until they meet with either success or utter defeat. So which will it be? Tbe answer will depend upon the astuteness and the will of Israel and the USA, because Abbas cannot cointrol the militants fanatics, and the militant fanatics will never accept the existence of Israel but will always attack her. And end and moving-forward is possible only if the militant fanatics are utterly defeated.

In the absence of a definitive answer resolutely acted upon by Israel and the USA, the bloody stalemate wil continue, much to the long-term detriment of all parties involved.

ACPlayer

10-29-2005, 08:03 AM

Democracy can be one factor.

The rest of your post is simply muslim hating at its best. You are advocating a strategy which is a loser, has been shown to be a loser and a strategy that continues to make us the target of terrorists for no value.

BluffTHIS!

10-29-2005, 08:28 AM

There is nothing inherently anti-moslem in MMMM's posts. If moslems are disliked it is because of their actions where mobs follow ignorant uneducated mullahs who inflame them and blame all their own faults on Israel. And we have a right to choose who our friends in the international coummunity are. To advocate appeasement of terrorists and their backers is the same as advocating not aggressively pursuing criminal gangs because they might retaliate against law enforcement and witnesses.

Would you tell your son not to be friends with someone just because the neighborhood bully told him not to? Or would you tell him to stand up for himself and his friend?

MMMMMM

10-29-2005, 08:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Democracy can be one factor.

The rest of your post is simply muslim hating at its best. You are advocating a strategy which is a loser, has been shown to be a loser and a strategy that continues to make us the target of terrorists for no value.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not Muslim-hating, because I hate the terrorists, not all Muslims.

The strategy I outlined it is not a loser. What IS a losing strategy is fighting the terrorists in a half-assed manner, which has the doubly-bad effects of making us targets AND not incapacitating the enemy.

Hit 'em back a bit (as Israel has done) and they'll hate you more for it, and draw psychological and political strengths from their modest losses.

Beat the total f'ing crap out of them (a la Nazi Germany's defeat) and it's OVER and they know they're whipped. Then, and with your gracious help, they can begin rebuilding with a totally different spirit.

andyfox

10-29-2005, 12:13 PM

"I agree with this statement 100%."

Just wanted to see this in print again. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

masse75

10-29-2005, 12:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't all the Jews (or palestinians for that matter) just move to Nevada. There's much more space there than is needed, it's just as inhospitable a climate but with nickel slots and hookers. Sounds ideal to me, they can build a paradise in the desert all over again but without that pesky constant threat of annihilation thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

See what happened to Mo Green? That's why.

twowords

10-29-2005, 12:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There was, of course, an element of injustice in Zioinism in that this land for a people without one was not a land without people already there. But those people were, like natives everywhere, treated like non-people for a long time.

[/ QUOTE ]

What the hell? Creating Israel brought some injustices, but those Arabs were treated like non-people before so it should have been a big deal? wtf? The Arabs in Palestine basically helped throw off the Ottoman Empire, and were promised independence by the British. Instead, their state was essentially taken from them by the western-backed Zionists. The Brits betrayed them and the Zionists screwed them. Is this not so bad since they were essentially a backwards people, who had been accustomed to being non-peoples?

To take a cheap shot, shouldn't the 100% endorsement from the next guy have thrown up a red flag? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

twowords

10-29-2005, 12:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No, Arnfinn, you are dodging the point.

Israel allows Arabs to become citizens and grants them legal status with equal rights and religious freedom. Many Arab states DO NOT allow Jews to become citizens, and DO NOT grant them legal status with equal rights, and DO NOT allow them religious freedom. So you are talking nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, but simply stating this indigniantly is not useful. Israel has a small population of Arabs, it had about 100,000 left after it gave the vast majority the boot when they took Palestine. Israel has let them stay, but not allowed any refugees to return or allowed Arab immigration, since this would ruin the purity of the Jewish state. Why focus on the small amount of Arabs in Israel, when millions are under an often brutal Israeli military occupation? As for the Arab states, what do you expect given the millions of Arab refugees and the million under occupation? The Arab theory is resolution and justice before normal relations. Israel has not given them such, and the US has been with Israel every step of the way.

twowords

10-29-2005, 01:15 PM

Historically, in the Arab-Israeli conflict your theory has prevailed in Israel, and failed miserably .

In the early days, when Israel faced a number of enemy Arab states, it attitude offen reflected an idea that Arabs only understand brute force, they will only sue for peace if it can be shown that Israel was unbeatable. Border battles were instigated by Israel, and Israel tried to break their will. This served only to unite the Arab states, and 30 years of continued Arab defiance and war followed. Finally, a shift away from Pan-Arab nationalism toward state nationalism lead to various agreements between Israel, Egypt, Syria, Jordan.

Fastforward to the beginings of Palestinian revolt in 1988, the Intifada. It began with demonstrations and rack throwing. Israeli leadership decided to try to break the will of the movement and refuse to negotiate a resolution to end the uprising. They jailed academics who make speaches about a 2 state solution to end the uprising. They shot into crowds and arrested thousands, beating them harshly. This served to escalate the rebellion evern furthur, and soon more and more involved weapons. The death toll climbed much higher.

From Vietnam: "When asked what would happen if more and more Americans came and bigger and bigger bombs dropped, the prisoners very often showed a fatalistic and dispassionate attitude: "Then we will all die." Such defiance brought Lyndon Johnson face-to-face with the threat of ultimate escalation- in the parlance of the time, to bomb North Vietnam into the Stone Age, or put more simply, to commit genocide."

AC Player is right, since when do such genocidal-ish measures work? To put it harshly, your mindset is leading us into a terrible strategy in fighting the war on terror.

Lastly, you asked earlier, why don't the Palestininans give up? I really can't put myself in a Palestinians place since I have not gone through what they have, and I can't speculate to whether I would just give up and leave. But historically, people don't give up in fights for justice. Additionally, the Palestinian uprisings only really began in 1988. The occupation is in their face 24/7 with military checkpoints and few rights of their own.

MMMMMM

10-29-2005, 07:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, Arnfinn, you are dodging the point.

Israel allows Arabs to become citizens and grants them legal status with equal rights and religious freedom. Many Arab states DO NOT allow Jews to become citizens, and DO NOT grant them legal status with equal rights, and DO NOT allow them religious freedom. So you are talking nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, but simply stating this indigniantly is not useful. Israel has a small population of Arabs, it had about 100,000 left after it gave the vast majority the boot when they took Palestine. Israel has let them stay, but not allowed any refugees to return or allowed Arab immigration, since this would ruin the purity of the Jewish state. Why focus on the small amount of Arabs in Israel, when millions are under an often brutal Israeli military occupation? As for the Arab states, what do you expect given the millions of Arab refugees and the million under occupation? The Arab theory is resolution and justice before normal relations. Israel has not given them such, and the US has been with Israel every step of the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that Arab theory of which you speak contains an immense double-standard.

Let the Arab states pass and uphold laws granting ALL persons equal legal status and equal rights within their own borders, regardless of religious affiliation, and then maybe they'll have a leg to stand on when decrying Israeli policies within Israel.

The Arab states want equal rights for Arabs but not for Jews. Well they've got that already in a land mass that exceeds the size of Israel by a factor of around 900 times. They've oppressed Jews within that land mass for a long time and their legal systems are codified to oppress Jews. So how the hell do they have a right to bitch about Israel trying to maintain some purity and control and autonomy within tiny Israel herelf? The Arab states are FAR more in violation of those standards than is Israel.

Additionally, with their combined land and financial and resources, the Arab states could easily have resettled the Palestinians rather comfortably. But no...they'd rather use them cynically, as pawns against the hated Jews. And the U.N. is complicit in this cynical usage, by virtue of designating all Palestinian descendants in perpetuity as refugees, a status not granted to any other refugee group in history. Way to encourage dead-end resistance, rather than moving forward and progress, by the grandchildren of the original displaced Palestinians. Hey even the U.N. tells them they're wronged victims, so why should they do what every other refugee group in history has done, which is move forward, move out, and start better lives?

MMMMMM

10-29-2005, 07:09 PM

I see your points, twowords, but I don't think Israel has ever totally beaten the crap out of the aggressors. Heck Israel even gave bacmk huge land it should have (in my opinion) kept after certain war(s).

I'm not suggesting Israel should beat up on ALL of the Palestinians. Rather, just respond with overwhelming force against whatever location and group launches new attacks. Pretty soon those attacks would nearly cease. Israel has never tried such an approach, though.

andyfox

10-29-2005, 08:22 PM

I was trying to answer OP's question, but didn't feel I should just do so without at least mentioning the tragedy that Zionism brought with it to Palestine. I never said I agreed with the ending of the "other guy's" post. What the British and the Zionists did to the Palestinians was a crime.

MMMMMM

10-29-2005, 09:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I was trying to answer OP's question, but didn't feel I should just do so without at least mentioning the tragedy that Zionism brought with it to Palestine. I never said I agreed with the ending of the "other guy's" post. What the British and the Zionists did to the Palestinians was a crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

To expand a little on that sort of sentiment:

What the Arabs did to the Jews was a crime, too.

One might think that if the two groups just could't get along, the Jews might be entitled to have 1/900th or so of the entire land mass for their own little country, seeing as they were oppressed and even driven out of some Arab countries, and that they too were indigenous inhabitants. Heck you might even consider Israel as akin to a larger American Indian Reservation in terms of size, etc. It's no skin off the noses of the Arabs, except for the few hundred thousand who were living there originally--and most of them are deceased now.

Yes, it wasn't fair to the Arabs living in that little bit of land, but with about 900 times the land mass, and ties to more settled Arab neighbors, especially in Jordan, one might think they could have done OK with the land that was allocated to them, and/or some of them would have been resettled Jordan or nearby.

The Arabs discriminated against and oppressed the Jews for ages--including in the 20th century--drove them out of some Arab countries, even--but the Jews getting a tiny sliver of that desert land is too much for the Arabs to stomach? Why is the plight of the Palestinians worse than what happened to the Jews throughout Arab lands? The Jews were oppressed, rioted against, driven out by Arabs--but when a small pocket of Arabs in a gargantuan land mass was driven out by Jews it's a whole different matter.

The Jews over centuries learned to survive in new homes due to continually being oppressed and driven out of regions. Why can't the Palestinians do the same--and heck we're talking about mostly GRANDKIDS nowadays, not the original displaced persons.

Life's not fair, but there's no reason the Palestinians are any more special than countless other groups who have been displaced or treated unfairly. Time to move on, guys, jeez...don't you think?

andyfox

10-29-2005, 09:46 PM

Well, you know I once posted that neither of them were worthy of the land and that the best solution would be if they killed each other off. So I'm not unaware of the depredations of the Palestinians. I was not a great fan of Abba Eban, but his mot that "the Palestinians never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity" is right on the button.

But your assessment that the "Arabs" had 900 times the land is not relevant. That would be like telling the Cherokees that the Indians have 900 times the land, why do you have to live right here? They had a nexus with that land for a long time.

Also, Jews historically fared much better living among the Arabs than they did among Christians. The Jews that were rioted against in Palestine were the Zionists, who claimed that the Palestinians didn't exist. Zionism was needed because of European and Russian oppression, not Arab.

The one sentiment in your post that I agree with, and I think it's the crucial point, is: "Time to move on, guys." That's why I was glad when Arafat departed from the scene and will be glad when Sharon does too. Hopefully there will be a new generation of leaders on both sides that are ready to move on. It's been long enough, hasn't it?

MMMMMM

10-29-2005, 11:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But your assessment that the "Arabs" had 900 times the land is not relevant. That would be like telling the Cherokees that the Indians have 900 times the land, why do you have to live right here? They had a nexus with that land for a long time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah but it is relevant. Reason: the groups apparently are in unresolvable conflict. Both have claim to the land, but obviously separation will work better than integration. So the Arabs can give up 1/900, especialy seeing as they have laws and customs in place which oppress the Jews, and therefore they are much responsible for the conflict in the first place.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, Jews historically fared much better living among the Arabs than they did among Christians. The Jews that were rioted against in Palestine were the Zionists, who claimed that the Palestinians didn't exist. Zionism was needed because of European and Russian oppression, not Arab.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now THAT'S irrelevant, because you and I are now discussing not why Zionism was needed overall, but why the Jews deserved a separate tiny protected enclave in the midst of a vast sea of oppressive Arabs, on land which was claimed by both Jews and Arabs. The comparative argument you presented, while true, does not hold water here because we are specifically discussing only the Arab/Jew aspect at the moment.

[ QUOTE ]
The one sentiment in your post that I agree with, and I think it's the crucial point, is: "Time to move on, guys." That's why I was glad when Arafat departed from the scene and will be glad when Sharon does too. Hopefully there will be a new generation of leaders on both sides that are ready to move on. It's been long enough, hasn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but even once the leadership issue becomes favorable for resolution, the problem still is not solved due to the intractable nature of fanaticism amongst the militants.

There could be in place the two most dovish leaders imaginable, and still Hamas et al would be attacking and vowing to not stop until all of Palestine is regained. Hence Israel should obliterate the origination of each attack, that is, the immediate area from which an attack is launched, and the infrastructure and leadership of the group which launched it. That is the only way that militant fanatics can be dealt with; else they will simply keep attacking--even if Ghandi were to be leading the Israelis and Martin Luther King the Palestinians. The die-hard militants are an intractable and ungovernable force which crave either total victory or death, and that part of the equation sadly isn't going to change anytime soon.

twowords

10-30-2005, 02:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But your assessment that the "Arabs" had 900 times the land is not relevant. That would be like telling the Cherokees that the Indians have 900 times the land, why do you have to live right here? They had a nexus with that land for a long time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah but it is relevant. Reason: the groups apparently are in unresolvable conflict. Both have claim to the land, but obviously separation will work better than integration. So the Arabs can give up 1/900, especialy seeing as they have laws and customs in place which oppress the Jews, and therefore they are much responsible for the conflict in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Israel has worked off this assumption since its existance, believing that the Palesetinans would simply find new homes in Jordan since they were all Arabs so whats the difference. Considering the disastorous results, clearly the concept that the Middle East is a homogenous Arab state entity is false. Also, the 1/900th part of the Middle East contains a vital holy place in Islam. The pophet Mohammed stopped in Jeruselem briefly before returning the heaven. If only he'd have stopped in Bagdad or something.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, Jews historically fared much better living among the Arabs than they did among Christians. The Jews that were rioted against in Palestine were the Zionists, who claimed that the Palestinians didn't exist. Zionism was needed because of European and Russian oppression, not Arab.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now THAT'S irrelevant, because you and I are now discussing not why Zionism was needed overall, but why the Jews deserved a separate tiny protected enclave in the midst of a vast sea of oppressive Arabs, on land which was claimed by both Jews and Arabs. The comparative argument you presented, while true, does not hold water here because we are specifically discussing only the Arab/Jew aspect at the moment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, you missed the point. You claim Arab states oppressed Jews and gave them the boot in a worse or equivalent way as ISrael has. Andy corrects notes that Jews were second-class (along with Catholics) but far from oppressed in the Arab Middle East (had freedom of prayer, etc). It was their oppression in Europe which fueled Zionism. And most importantly, it was largely the creation of Israel which lead to 20 Century violence against Jews in Arab states and subsequent expulsion. This was a cause and effect, in response to the creation of Israel and its subsequent actions. I really do think you're way off here.

[ QUOTE ]

There could be in place the two most dovish leaders imaginable, and still Hamas et al would be attacking and vowing to not stop until all of Palestine is regained. Hence Israel should obliterate the origination of each attack, that is, the immediate area from which an attack is launched, and the infrastructure and leadership of the group which launched it. That is the only way that militant fanatics can be dealt with; else they will simply keep attacking--even if Ghandi were to be leading the Israelis and Martin Luther King the Palestinians. The die-hard militants are an intractable and ungovernable force which crave either total victory or death, and that part of the equation sadly isn't going to change anytime soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

I personally believe strong, more benevolent leaders would have been huge over the years. Some of these ME leaders were just often so despicable, hard-line anti-peace, or incompetent: Ben-Gurion, Meir, Begin, Netanyahu, Sharon on the Israeli side, and certainly Arafat. Others like Rabin, Barck of Israel, and Sadat of Egypt at least tried and got close to peace. Rabin was assasinated by Israeli extremists, Sadat by Islamic counterparts in Egypt (whoops this might help your point). Still, replacing Arafat would have been nice in the Clinton years in 2000 when they were tantilizingly close to an agreement, and Barack was ready to deal. Arafat was widely blamed for the missed opportunity.

MMMMMM

10-30-2005, 09:07 AM

Hi twowords,

I may not have clearly made my point. I agree that European and Russian oppressions of the Jews fueled Zionism far more so than did Arab oppressions.

I'm just arguing that given that the Arabs and Jews seem unable to get along, and both have claim to a tiny sliver of land, that land ought to go to the Jews since:

1) the Arabs have 900 times more land in the region anyway,

AND

2) a major reason the Jews and Arabs can't get along is that the Arabs oppressed the Jews, historically speaking--and even today have laws denying equal rghts to Jews in their own countries. So in essence, the historical enmity is MAINLY THEIR FAULT, and continues to be, since they do not see beyond nor repudiate their backwards and discriminatory laws, policies and religious hatreds.

It's sort of like when the Jim Crow laws existed in the southern part of the USA. The enmity and inability to get along between the races WAS MAINLY THE WHITES' FAULT, because they did not see beyond and repudiate their discriminatory and oppressive laws and policies (at that time). Hypothetically speaking, if such laws and policies had continued until today, then I would think the blacks would be justified in demanding and being granted a country of their own carved out of part of the USA, so that they would no longer be oppressed by unfair laws and discrimination in the greater land mass.

DVaut1

10-30-2005, 09:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, Jews historically fared much better living among the Arabs than they did among Christians. The Jews that were rioted against in Palestine were the Zionists, who claimed that the Palestinians didn't exist. Zionism was needed because of European and Russian oppression, not Arab.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now THAT'S irrelevant, because you and I are now discussing not why Zionism was needed overall, but why the Jews deserved a separate tiny protected enclave in the midst of a vast sea of oppressive Arabs, on land which was claimed by both Jews and Arabs. The comparative argument you presented, while true, does not hold water here because we are specifically discussing only the Arab/Jew aspect at the moment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, you missed the point. You claim Arab states oppressed Jews and gave them the boot in a worse or equivalent way as ISrael has. Andy corrects notes that Jews were second-class (along with Catholics) but far from oppressed in the Arab Middle East (had freedom of prayer, etc). It was their oppression in Europe which fueled Zionism. And most importantly, it was largely the creation of Israel which lead to 20 Century violence against Jews in Arab states and subsequent expulsion. This was a cause and effect, in response to the creation of Israel and its subsequent actions. I really do think you're way off here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to repeat what twowords and Andy are saying here, but even at the end of the 19th century, there were only 5,000 Jews living in the Israel/Palestine area (knowing that no name will satisfy all parties - and granting that calling the area Israel when referring to the pre-1948 era is somewhat of a misnomer) - and these Jews had rather harmonious relations with the Arabs in the area; and this had more or less been the status quo since the Middle Ages.

From Tessler's seminal work on the subject of the history of the conflict, A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0253208734/qid=1130676343/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-4021562-2737424?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

"At the dawning of the modern age, in the latter half of the eighteenth century, only 5,000 or so of the estimated 2.5 to 3 million Jews in the world resided in Palestine, a terroritory which itself had a population of roughly 250,000 to 300,000 at the time. So as far as the Jews of the country are concerned, their presence was limited not only in magnitude by also in dispersion, involving concentrations only in Jerusalem and three other cities of special spiritual significance: Hebron, Tiberias, and Safad.

The history of Jews in Europe, where about 90 percent of the world Jewry lived at this time, had for centuries been characterized not only by political inequality and personal humiliation, but also, frequently, by physical persecution. Individual Jews might on occasion prosper, or even attain positions of privilege and influence through service to prominent notables and officials. Further, though continuing themes in European Jewish life, intolerance and abuse were much more intense in certain times and places than others. On the whole, however, the Jewish communities of Europes were powerless and dependent and were often the target of anti-Semitic outbursts, many of which were associated with Christian religious fervor. Jews living within the Byzantine Empire were the target of four major campaigns of forced conversion, in 560, 621, 873 and 930, and there were similar campaigns in France in the sixth and seventh centuries, as well as later. Jews were massacred in France and Germany during the Crusades, and there were anti-Jewish riots in England during the Middle Ages. In the late thirteenth century Jews were expelled from England, and they were expelled from France as well the following century. There were also violent outbursts against the Jews of Germany during this period. On one occasion, for example, nearly two hundred Jews were slaughtered in Frankfurt after the Jewish parents of a boy who was forced to convert to Christianity tried to prevent his baptism. In addition, Jewish riots occured in Austria in the fifteenth century.

The persecution that Jews had known for half a millenium or more in the Christian states of Europe was largely absent in Muslim Spain, which experienced a golden age of the eighth century under the rule of the Umayyad dynasty based in Cordoba. On the contrary, Jewish life was full and prosperous for almost four hundred years, even after the most puritanical Almoravid and Almohad dynasties based in Morocco took control of the area in the eleventh and twelfth centuries respectively."

As Tessler lays out, one of the reasons modern political Zionists like Herzl chose the settle in Palestine (although Palestine was not the only option for some like Herzl, who also proposed establishing a Zionist state in Uganda - again, to escape European anti-Semitic persecution, not Arab) was not only the motivation to reconnect with the land of their ancestors, but also because Jews had fared much better at the time assimilating with Arabs, with whom they had relatively friendly and concordant relations with (and again note that Herzl's The Jewish State, the work that spurred on modern political Zionism, was Herzl's response to incidents such as the Dreyfus affair, which had left Herzl so jaded toward modern Europe, and its virulent anti-Semitism, that he felt Jews had no choice left but to leave Europe and settle elsewhere); in fact, the success of the first wave of Jewish immigration to Palestine at the turn of the 20th century was due in no small part to the cooperation of Palestinian-area Arabs, who aided modern European Jews in the practices and techniques of agriculture, which many of the members of the first Aliya had no knowledge of. Many Arabs more than welcomed the initial immigration of European Jews to the area, who brought with them the then-innovative technologies and knowledge of a now-industrialized Europe.

Long story short: the "Zionism is a movement borne out of Arab oppression" seems completely unsubstantiated by everything I know about the subject. I really have no idea how you came to such a conclusion, M. It truly does seem to run against anything I've ever read.

DVaut1

10-30-2005, 10:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Hi twowords,

I may not have clearly made my point. I agree that European and Russian oppressions of the Jews fueled Zionism far more so than did Arab oppressions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that Arab oppression had nothing to do with Zionism - because perhaps there's something I've missed. So while I won't rule out the possibility entirely, I challenge you to cite me any instance of one prominent Zionist from the beginning of the movement who claimed that Arab oppression had influenced the movement. I seriously doubt you'll succeed in doing this, as I've read absolutely nothing about early Zionism being spurred on by Arab oppression. There weren't many Jews living under Arabs - and those that were, if you look above (even historically) were living in peace and comfort.

Just to be clear about the time period I speak of, I want to see some evidence of anything from the very early beginning of the Zionist movement in the 1860's, through early 20th century - let's say the start of WWI (although serious, modern political Zionism did not begin in earnest until the 1890s). Cite any work from an early Zionist who claimed that Zionism was a movement to escape Arab oppression.

Again, and remember - Zionism was a movement from Europe to Palestine; Jews chose to leave Europe to live with Arabs (in fact, the early Zionists were highly dependent on a close, working relationship with the Arabs who were there). Consider this strongly.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just arguing that given that the Arabs and Jews seem unable to get along

[/ QUOTE ]

Arabs and Jews have a rather long track record of 'getting along' in various points in time during history - including the early stages of the Zionist movement.

[ QUOTE ]
2) a major reason the Jews and Arabs can't get along is that the Arabs oppressed the Jews, historically speaking--and even today have laws denying equal rghts to Jews in their own countries. So in essence, the historical enmity is MAINLY THEIR FAULT, and continues to be, since they do not see beyond nor repudiate their backwards and discriminatory laws, policies and religious hatreds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, not true - Arabs and Jews have, at various points in time, lived closely together, quite successfully, for long periods of time, to the betterment of both cultures. See my previous post. A major reason Arabs and Jews don't currently 'get along' is because they have serious political disagreements with one another - not necessarily a history of religious acrimony. Current rhetoric may lead you to believe otherwise, as the current conflict manifests itself as a religious one - but it's certainly dominated by politics and not by the realm of the spiritual.

MMMMMM

10-30-2005, 12:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that Arab oppression had nothing to do with Zionism - because perhaps there's something I've missed. So while I won't rule out the possibility entirely, but I challenge you to cite me any instance of one prominent Zionist from the beginning of the movement who claimed that Arab oppression had influenced the movement. I seriously doubt you'll succeed in doing this. Just to be clear about the time period I speak of, let's say anything from the very early beginning of the Zionist movement in the 1860's, through early 20th century - let's say the start of WWI.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's really besides the point I'm trying to make. If Arab oppression of Jews did not "fuel" Zionism, even slightly, that does not change my point that Arab oppression of Jews existed and that it is a contributing reason the Arabs and Jews have historically had problems, and a partial justification for Israel to have been given to the Jews. I'm really not trying to argue the historical origins of Zionism here.

[ QUOTE ]
Arabs and Jews have a rather long track record of 'getting along' in various points in time during history - including the early stages of the Zionist movement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, at times and in places they have gotten along; I'm not saying all didn't or never did. The history is checkered. Arab countries however have long had oppressive laws and treatment of the Jews and continue to do so to this day. Arab/Jew problems go back many centuries and a lot of it boils down to Islamic insistence on being the DOMINANT religion and politics (instead of merely being an EQUAL religion), and to laws denying non-Muslims equal rights--plus a certain amount of plain anti-Jewish sentiment (often with a background religious component).

[ QUOTE ]
Current rhetoric may lead you to believe otherwise, as the current conflict manifests itself as a religious one - but it's certainly dominated by politics and not by the realm of the spiritual.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the conflict today is in large part political, especially as regards Israel--but it is by no means entirely political.

However, you cannot simply dissociate the religious from the political when it comes to Islam. Islam is anti-secular in thrust, by its very nature; and with its emphasis on bringing the world into conformance to God's laws (as spelled out in the Koran), it is philosophically not well-suited to divorcing the religious from the political.

So yes, much of the conflict today is political but there is also an underlying religious component that cannot be ignored. And historically that religious component always existed even when and where there was peace between the Arabs and Jews. Basically, it is the position of Islam that it is not to be equal with other religions but must become dominant, and that Muslims must work to bring not only themselves, but the world itself to submission under God's laws. Eaxpmles of this in the political realm are many laws in Arab countries denying full legal rights to non-Muslims. Many of those laws still exist and are enforced today. And that in my opinion is partial justification for Israel being given to the Jews, so that they can have a tiny haven safe from the oppressions by Arab laws and customs which exist throughout most of the rest of the Middle East.

andyfox

10-30-2005, 12:37 PM

"The Arabs" have as much to do with the Palestinians as "The Indians" have to do with The Cherokees. Zilch. And the reason for "the conflict in the first place" was that the Zionists said that Palestine was a land without people. It was not. That was the genesis of the conflict.

The reason why the Jews "deserved" a homeland was because of antisemitism in Europe and Russia. That's where the vast majority of Jews resided and where they fare the worst. No Zionist writer of any political stripe ever mentioned the conditon of the Jews anywhere else as a reason for their longings to either return to Zion or to have any kind of homeland.

It's not just the dovishness of future leaders that would get the job done, but the competency as well. I agree with you that mere sentiment will not do the trick. Leaders have to be strong and smart statesmen as well, especially in light of the fanatacism that motivates many of the actors in the conflict.

Whenever I despair of this ever happening (for example, when I saw the hideous march in Iran this week), I think of Begin and Sadat. Begin was a terrorist and Sadat a fascist earlier in their careers, both hardhearted military men; Egypt was Israel's most implacable foe during the 1940s and 1950s. And yet they managed to grow and to forge a peace that has lasted many years now.

10-30-2005, 01:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just arguing that given that the Arabs and Jews seem unable to get along, and both have claim to a tiny sliver of land, that land ought to go to the Jews since:

1) the Arabs have 900 times more land in the region anyway

[/ QUOTE ] this is silly for two reasons. "They both lay claim to a tiny sliver of land." i haven't read the rest of this thread, so maybe i'm misinterpreting what your saying, but the heart of the current arab resentment of israel is not its existance, but the policy towards the W.B. and the Gaza strip, as well as israeli presance in the golan hights (syria's beef) and the lebanese border. the average arab has conceded that israel isn't going anyhwere. The part about 900 times more land is silly also. Arabs is a broad term. muslims christians druze etc... sunni's shiites kurds etc... The jews have israel, the real contemporary beef is about the plight of the palestinians. no sighting ajeminiangmkjafjhfy's quote, as the iranians aren't arabs.

andyfox

10-30-2005, 08:31 PM

"Arab oppression of Jews existed and that it is a contributing reason the Arabs and Jews have historically had problems, and a partial justification for Israel to have been given to the Jews."

Jews were not oppressed in Arab lands. Muslims considered Jews and Christians people of the "book" and considered that their religion should be respected. This is precisely what caused problems for Jews in the western world and in Russia: their religion. While Jews were considered dhimmi, and thus were not of the same status as Muslims, oppression is the wrong word to apply to Jewish life in Arab/Muslim states. No historian who has studied Jewish existence in Arab states comes to this conclusion.

Thus, Arabs and Jews did not have historical problems of anywhere close to the magnitude of the problems problems that Christians and Jews had. Jewish treatment in Arab states had absolutely nothing to do with the Zionist movement and the justification for the formation of the state of Israel. There is nothing in any of the Zionist writings about the condition of Jews in Arab states.

BTW, Israel defines itself as a Jewish state. I can move to Israel and I immediately become a citizen. My daughter in law cannot do so. The problems Arabs have in Israel boil down to Jewish insistence on being the DOMINANT religion and politics (instead of merely being an EQUAL religion), and to laws denying non-Jews equal rights--plus a certain amount of plain anti-Arab sentiment (often with a background religious component).

Gamblor

10-30-2005, 08:49 PM

There is so much bull [censored] in this thread I don't know where to begin.

Everyone who thinks they are smart because they claim to know more than the majority is really a tool.

ACPlayer

10-30-2005, 09:30 PM

This is exactly so:

[ QUOTE ]
Jews were not oppressed in Arab lands. Muslims considered Jews and Christians people of the "book" and considered that their religion should be respected. This is precisely what caused problems for Jews in the western world and in Russia: their religion. While Jews were considered dhimmi, and thus were not of the same status as Muslims, oppression is the wrong word to apply to Jewish life in Arab/Muslim states. No historian who has studied Jewish existence in Arab states comes to this conclusion

[/ QUOTE ]

Jews have been oppressed almost exclusively only by Christians.

MMMMMM

10-30-2005, 11:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Arab oppression of Jews existed and that it is a contributing reason the Arabs and Jews have historically had problems, and a partial justification for Israel to have been given to the Jews."

[/ QUOTE ]

Jews were not oppressed in Arab lands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy, as much as I respect your historical knowledge, this is quite inaccurate.

[ QUOTE ]
Muslims considered Jews and Christians people of the "book" and considered that their religion should be respected.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, so their religion is "respected" but they can't worship in public? So they have to pay a special tax? So Jews and Christians can't preach Judaism or Christianity to Muslims, but Muslims can preach Islam to Jews and Christians? A Muslim's word as a witness in court is to be legally considered worth twice that of the word of a Jew--legally speaking?

That's not RESPECT; that's DISCRIMINATORY LEGISLATION and oppression--and while not terribly bad hundreds of years ago, it still exists today and IS very bad by today's standards. And it also existed and was very bad about the time Israel was formed.

[ QUOTE ]
This is precisely what caused problems for Jews in the western world and in Russia: their religion. While Jews were considered dhimmi, and thus were not of the same status as Muslims, oppression is the wrong word to apply to Jewish life in Arab/Muslim states. No historian who has studied Jewish existence in Arab states comes to this conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dhimmitude IS oppression; there is no other rational way to look at it by 20th/21st century standards. And I assume that since it existed around the time of Israel's formation, along with many oppressive laws, that measuring it by modern standards has a proper place in this discussion. By the way, all that "Protection" meant, was that if you do what we say, and remain subjugated under our laws which DON'T grant you equal rights, we won't kill you. If you don't proselytize a Muslim, we won't kill you. If you don't build a temple or church higher than a mosque, we won't burn it down. If you don't worship in public, we won't arrest you. Exactly how the hell is that not oppression?

(excerpt)"...And the first church in Saudi Arabia is opening when?

On April 21st (2005), the Saudi religious police (known as the Authority for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice”), scooped up a criminal gang in a raid on a Riyadh apartment. The desperate and dangerous felons (40 Pakistani men, women and children) were listening to Christian sermons on tape and praying in the name of Jesus. All of which are hanging offenses in the most Muslim nation on Earth.

A Saudi police source was quoted as saying, “These people tried to spread the poison (i.e., Christianity) and their beliefs to others, by means of distributing pamphlets and (missionary) publications.” The villains!" (end excerpt by Don Feder)

Come on Andy. That's not oppression???

[ QUOTE ]
Thus, Arabs and Jews did not have historical problems of anywhere close to the magnitude of the problems problems that Christians and Jews had. Jewish treatment in Arab states had absolutely nothing to do with the Zionist movement and the justification for the formation of the state of Israel. There is nothing in any of the Zionist writings about the condition of Jews in Arab states.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what, even if that is true? It's still good reason and good partial justification for the existence of Israel, and it remains a good justification today. Arab laws are HORRIBLY discriminatory against Jews; Arabs are even legally allowed to do things to Jews that Jews cannot do to Arabs.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, Israel defines itself as a Jewish state. I can move to Israel and I immediately become a citizen. My daughter in law cannot do so. The problems Arabs have in Israel boil down to Jewish insistence on being the DOMINANT religion and politics (instead of merely being an EQUAL religion), and to laws denying non-Jews equal rights--plus a certain amount of plain anti-Arab sentiment (often with a background religious component).

[/ QUOTE ]

I am sorry to say it but I expect better of you than to ignore DEGREE in this comparison. Arabs are free to practice Islam in Israel without restrictions such as Jews must legally observe in Arab states. Judaism in Israel does not SUPPRESS Islam in Israel; there are no laws that Muslims cannot pray in public, cannot proselytize, etc. So you are flipping my meaning of the phrase "dominant religion and politics" to mean something else.

More importantly, Arabs are legally granted full human rights protection in Israel. Don't you remember the post wherein I cited sections of the legal codes of various Arab states? Things like: a Muslim committing a serious offense against a Jew or a Christian or Bahai is not nearly so punishable a crime as the converse, LEGALLY speaking. In fact, in one Arab country (I forget which), a Bahai has no legal status at all, so if a Muslim kills a Bahai, that is not even a crime! That is in their damned legal code, for crissakes, and I posted it verbatim. Do I need to go search and post their legal codes all over again?

DVaut1

10-30-2005, 11:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
More importantly, Arabs are legally granted full human rights protection in Israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a highly (not sure how else to emphasize this) statement.

MMMMMM

10-31-2005, 12:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
More importantly, Arabs are legally granted full human rights protection in Israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a highly (not sure how else to emphasize this) statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Arabs have FAR more civil rights in Israel, than Jews have in Arab countries--(and in Israel their civil rights are on a par with the rights people enjoy in other first-world countries. The rights of Jews in most Arab countries however are not).

That's the point I'm trying to make; does it read better now? (did you not know what point I was trying to make?)

DVaut1

10-31-2005, 12:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Arabs have FAR more civil rights in Israel, than Jews have in Arab countries

[/ QUOTE ]

This is highly debateable.

Did you not know what point I was trying to make? At the very least, you should attempt to narrow down what you say when you refer to 'Arab' countries, as they certainly don't have uniform laws and respect for civil rights. It's a rather strange point to begin with - there aren't many Jews living in the Arab countries, anyway. I think a majority of the Jews in the Arab countries live in North Africa (specifically Morocco), where they're given full civil rights protections.

andyfox

10-31-2005, 12:20 AM

From Bernard Lewis's book, The Jews of Islam:

"Discrimination was alway there, permanent and indeed necessary, inherent in the system and instituionalized in law and practice. Persecution, that is to say, violent and active repression, was rare and atypical. They were not often obliged to make the choice, which confronted Muslims and Jews in reconquered Spain, between exile, apostasy, and death. They were not subject to any major territorial or occupational restrictions, such as were the common lot of Jews in premodern Europe."

"The only real economic penalty imposed on the dhimmis was fiscal. They had to pay higher taxes. In their own internal affairs, the dhimmis normally enjoyed some autonomy, being subject to their own chiefs and judges, and living, at least in family, personal, and religious matters, according to their own laws.

Lewis's conclusion: "Islamic practice on the whole turned out to be gentler than Islamic precept--the reverse of the situation in Christendom."

Zionism was a response to Christian antisemitism and mistreatment of Jews in the West, where the vast majority of Jews resided. Islams' attitude toward Jews was one of contempt; Christianity's was one of hatred.

As for the following: "BTW, Israel defines itself as a Jewish state. I can move to Israel and I immediately become a citizen. My daughter in law cannot do so. The problems Arabs have in Israel boil down to Jewish insistence on being the DOMINANT religion and politics (instead of merely being an EQUAL religion), and to laws denying non-Jews equal rights--plus a certain amount of plain anti-Arab sentiment (often with a background religious component).": I took your statement to show that there are two sides to the coin. A state that defines itself as a Jewish state can never treat it's non-Jewish citizens in a fair manner. I do not mean to insinuate, as you seem to think I do, that there is a comparison between the horrific government of Saudi Arabia (among a host of others) and the flawed democracy of Israel. What I do mean to insinuate is that an attitude that the Arabs are a sea of barbaric savages and the Israelis are angelic democrats is exactly the kind of attitude that has gotten us to the point we are at today. I expect more of Israel, both objectively because it has had less benighted leadership, and more subjectively, because of my Jewish heritage.

MMMMMM

10-31-2005, 12:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Arabs have FAR more civil rights in Israel, than Jews have in Arab countries

[/ QUOTE ]

This is highly debateable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if you know anything about the legal codes of Arab countries.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Did you not know what point I was trying to make?

[/ QUOTE ]

At the very least, you should attempt to narrow down what you say when you refer to 'Arab' countries, as they certainly don't have uniform laws and respect for civil rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, because I did all that before on this forum, together with reprinting the actual legal codes of the countries--and I presumed Andy would remember that at least in bulk. I'm trying to have a discussion with him; I'm not trying to convince everyone who has joined this discussion for the first time. Sorry but I don't archive all that stuff, and while I COULD and MIGHT go to the trouble of doing it all AGAIN, that won't be necessary if Andy recalls it.

DVaut1

10-31-2005, 12:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
No, because I did all that before on this forum, together with reprinting the actual legal codes of the countries--and I presumed Andy would remember that at least in bulk. I'm trying to have a discussion with him; I'm not trying to convince everyone who has joined this discussion for the first time. Sorry but I don't archive all that stuff, and while I COULD and MIGHT go to the trouble of doing it all AGAIN, that won't be necessary if Andy recalls it.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I know, there aren't many Jews living in Arab countries - perhaps due in some part to the discrimination they've faced. But the majority of Jews in Arab countries today live in Morocco, where they're given full civil rights protections.

I realize there are Jews living in Syria and elsewhere in the Arab world who don't receive civil rights protections - but then again, since we're referring to Syria, that's not exactly a breaktaking claim, as Syria is a notorious human rights abuser, be it of Jews or women or political dissidents. I'll grant it's certainly abhorant, and I would say far worse than any civil rights abuses Israel is guilty of.

But I'm also claiming that the Moroccan Jew has more access to civil rights than the Palestinian in Israel. So what I'm claiming is that we're dealing with a complicated mosaic here, that can't be easily boiled down to:

"Arabs violate Jews rights alot more than Israel violates Arabs rights". It's not necessarily true, and certainly open for debate in my mind.

Lastly, if you're trying to have a discussion with andy, and only andy, and wish no input from others, you should take it to PM. If it's on the public forum, I assume anyone from the public is allowed to comment.

andyfox

10-31-2005, 12:49 AM

I don't recall it, but it's not relevant, at least as far as I'm concerned. Let's just consider Saudi Arabia and we can all, I would think, accept that their government is horrible. I never intended to compare their government with Israel's.

andyfox

10-31-2005, 01:00 AM

Since you're an ex-moderator, thought you might be the one to ask: Do you understand how the upgraded software is now working? Sometimes I go to a thread and it takes me to the lead, title post. Other time, it goes to another post. Some threads have posts from the earliest to the latest, others are opposite. In some threads, I can't tell which posts I've seen and which are new, the white/yellow files be damned.

Anyone? Thanks.

twowords

10-31-2005, 01:02 AM

There's really nothing else I can add here M. You justify the creation of Israel by citing historic oppression in the Arab world. As many have noted, the Jews were treated very well in a relative sense and not poorly given the times. But you further claim that for 21st Century standards, they are not treated well in the Arab world and few live there. Ok.

This brings me to say yet again that the Jews were kicked out and targeted for violence in Arab states AFTER Israel was declared. Consider the circumstances of Israel's creation, which I laid out earlier. Israeli terror tactics, forced explusion, occupation, endless anti-peace Israeli PM's, and more. Whats to say Jews would not gain rights in Arab states if the US-backed Zionists never took Palestine from the Arabs? We will never know. Speculate all you want. (aside: similarly, US support of Israel is a HUGE reason why the Arab world tends to hate the US today)

Can you really justify 50 years of war, death, oppression, etc since the Jews had it coming for being second class in the Arab world? Since Europe and Russia did WAY worse than a higher tax, do the Jews deserve like half the continent?

I could say Palestinian terrorism in Israel is justified because of what Israel did to them for decades, and you would be justifiably upset. Similarly, I am currently upset with you.

AngryCola

10-31-2005, 01:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Since you're an ex-moderator, thought you might be the one to ask:

[/ QUOTE ]

You can ask me!

The new upgrade still has more than a few kinks which need to be worked out. The issue you mentioned is already being looked at. Hopefully something will be done about it within the next couple of days, but Chuck is the man responsible for most of these things, so it's difficult for me to be 100% sure.

In the meantime, browsing is much easier in flat mode.

andyfox

10-31-2005, 01:47 AM

ACPlayer

10-31-2005, 02:37 AM

Jews were not really persecuted in Arab/Muslim lands over the centuries. This is a historical falsehood.

Yes, they were not granted full human rights as we presently define them. But the Dhimmi's for example were granted protection (both physical and religious) by the Ottomans and other Muslim countries. They were not allowed to prosleytize (as required by Islam) and yes were allowed to convert if they wanted to.

Now, if you want to see historical examples where Jews were properly persecuted study -- the Sephardic Jew history, The German Jews history, the Russian Jew history. These were properly persecuted Jews with real grievances. They were persecuted by the religion with the best track record of religious persecution (where your head was on the block not just another tax) -- the Christian.

Perhaps half of Spain would be a more equitable solution.

Arabs and Jews got violent after the rape of the Arab lands and peoples in what is now Israel.

10-31-2005, 03:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Arabs and Jews got violent after the rape of the Arab lands and peoples in what is now Israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

This reeks of ignorance and cluelessness.

Read a history book, or twelve.

Mohammed himself waged war on all Jews. Start with the beheading of 800 Jews at Medina. Then maybe read about Bani Qurayzah, then perhaps Badr. Maybe peruse the Quran too and notice how much if it a handbook on how to wage war on Jews.

[ QUOTE ]
At noon on the same day, Gabriel came to the Prophet telling him: "O Messenger of God. The Angels have not laid down their arms, and return from pursuing the foe. God... commandeth thee to go against the Qurayzah..."26

A thousand Muslims besieged the fortress of the Bani Qurayzah for 25 days when the Jews eventually opened their gates and threw themselves on Muhammad's mercy. They agreed to a chieftain of a Medinan tribe, Sa'd ibn Muadh, judging them for their treachery to the young Islamic state. The Mosaic law applied to the Jews and their punishment should have been total extermination: "thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth" (Deuteronomy 20, 16). Allah was more merciful than Jehovah however (33:26) and Sa'd's adjudication was to slay the men and take the women and children into captivity. The Prophet was pleased and replied to Sa'd: "Thou hast judged with the judgement of God from above the seven heavens."

In the morning Muhammad ordered long, deep and narrow trenches to be dug in the market place. The seven hundred or so men from Bani Qurayzah were brought in small groups to kneel beside the trench. Then the younger and stronger believers cut off the Jews' heads each with a stroke of a sword. The last to die were beheaded by torchlight.

[/ QUOTE ]

MMMMMM

10-31-2005, 04:15 AM

Jeez, DVaut1:

I'm saying that the LAWS in many Arab/Muslim countries are structured to deny equal civil rights to non-Muslims--and in many cases egregiously so. THAT'S what it boils down to. As I mentioned, I ALREADY posted the text of multiple examples of those specific laws on this forum, but sadly you weren't around to read them. I don't have time to RE-VERIFY every thing on this forum just for your benefit. You might try searching the archives, or maybe Human Rights Watch, or other good web sources, if you're really interested.

MMMMMM

10-31-2005, 04:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I don't recall it, but it's not relevant, at least as far as I'm concerned. Let's just consider Saudi Arabia and we can all, I would think, accept that their government is horrible. I never intended to compare their government with Israel's.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK Andy...while Saudi Arabia is amongst the worst, the terribly discriminatory laws go much broader than merely in Saudi Arabia.

Maybe I'll search the legal codes down again; maybe I won't. If I do I'll start a new thread because this one is getting unwieldy.

By the way, the so-called "protection" of dhimmitude was a joke: no better than having to pay protection money to the Mafia. You pay your protection money, or your jizya (the special extortionate tax for dhimmis) and you won't get beaten up, have your store busted up, or get killed. In this case, though, the government is the de facto Mafia, backed by the clerics. And you'd also better not get out of line and do many things that Muslims are allowed to do.

As I said, by standards hundreds of years ago, there were worse things than dhimmitude. But by modern standards many of those remaining (and some newer) laws are actually WORSE than the Jim Crow laws were. And it's not even close.

Gamblor

10-31-2005, 04:26 AM

I think alot of Israel bashing and accusations of whatever crimes people think will make them sound worldy is based on a complete ignorance of what really goes on in most of the Arab world.

It really is a [censored] hole of varying degrees of filth and corruption and poverty and Islamism and violence, and that's why Israel does most of what it does. Morocco and Jordan are relatively cleaner and better (and not coincidentally, secular) than places like Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

But you just can't imagine the way it works there and the kind of pure hatred that festers there.

You just can't imagine.

DVaut1

10-31-2005, 04:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Jeez, DVaut1:

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeez, MMMMMM:

Saying 'Jeez, DVaut1' does nothing to add to your posts, except make you seem kind of whiny. Think it over.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that the LAWS in many Arab/Muslim countries are structured to deny equal civil rights to non-Muslims--and in many cases egregiously so. THAT'S what it boils down to.

[/ QUOTE ]

If THAT's what it boils down to, then I'm not sure why you're interested in claiming that 1) Zionism was a movement borne out of trying to escape Arab oppression, as that's not true according to anything I've read and 2) neither is true that all Arab countries discriminate against Jews, or that Israel necessarily respects human rights more than Arab countries; surely, they do respect human rights more than some Arab countries - and in my estimation, they respect human rights less than some Arab countries. The world isn't easily explained through broad generalizations or over-simplifications. The world is a complicated place. I think you should respect some of that complexity.

[ QUOTE ]
As I mentioned, I ALREADY posted the text of multiple examples of those specific laws on this forum, but sadly you weren't around to read them. I don't have time to RE-VERIFY every thing on this forum just for your benefit. You might try searching the archives, or maybe Human Rights Watch, or other good web sources, if you're really interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's great, but it's not really relevant to the other numerous points you're trying to make here.

Here's a frequent theme I notice in many of the posts you appear in: grand, sweeping, improvable generalizations --> followed by backtracking --> claiming you were actually making a point so narrow and innocuous that it's relatively meaningless anyway. If it's 'nitpicky' to not let such generalizations go unchallenged, than I'm more than happy to be nitpicky. I think it's important not to let such claims exist as Gospel when legitimate debate exists.

Many Arab countries have laws which discriminate; to which I say 'no kidding'. No one doubts that. If that's all you were out to prove, I don't disagree, and I doubt many do. And if that's all you were out to prove...if that's ALL it boils down to, as you say, then fine - but I'd suggest stopping there, and not trying to tie such points into the early Zionist movement, as the two aren't particularly associated, and you're extremely hard-pressed to prove that they do.

If you want to demonstrate that laws in many Arab countries are structured in a way to deny equal civil rights to non-Muslims, fine - that's a fair point to make, and certainly accurate. But you're going to get a lot of friction if you make unsubstantiated and inaccurate claims to make your points - and no amount of 'Jeez' will stop me from pointing out when you're playing loose with the facts - like claiming modern political Zionism was bred from a will to escape Arab oppression, or claiming that Arabs have far more civil rights in Israel, than Jews have in Arab countries. The answer to the former I think is a clear 'no' although I'm willing to listen if you have evidence to the contrary - and the answer to the latter is (like most things in life): 'well, it depends'.

So, jeez, yeah, I'm going to point those kinds of things out.

MMMMMM

10-31-2005, 11:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that the LAWS in many Arab/Muslim countries are structured to deny equal civil rights to non-Muslims--and in many cases egregiously so. THAT'S what it boils down to.

[/ QUOTE ]

If THAT's what it boils down to, then I'm not sure why you're interested in claiming that 1) Zionism was a movement borne out of trying to escape Arab oppression, as that's not true according to anything I've read and

[/ QUOTE ]

I've already said that wasn't the point I was trying to make. I'm NOT interested in claiming that. I may have misspoken. That wasn't my intended thrust and it's not a central point to my argument.

My overall point was that the creation of Israel was justifiable due in part to various oppressions against the Jews--committed by Europeans, Russians and Arabs. If I'm wrong in thinking it was "fueled" in part by Arab oppressions, as well as European and Russian oppressions, well thanks for the correction, but that is largely besides my point, as I've already stated. The state of Israel was a justifiable creation in part due to all of those oppressions. That's my point. Clearer at last, I hope?

[ QUOTE ]
2) neither is true that all Arab countries discriminate against Jews, or that Israel necessarily respects human rights more than Arab countries; surely, they do respect human rights more than some Arab countries - and in my estimation, they respect human rights less than some Arab countries. The world isn't easily explained through broad generalizations or over-simplifications. The world is a complicated place. I think you should respect some of that complexity.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't intended as an absolute or blanket statement without any exceptions, but it is overwhelmingly true in aggregate that the laws in many or most Arab/Muslim countries do not grant equal legal status to non-Muslims. That's very serious. Not only are things like non-Muslim religious fredoms curtailed, but the legal codes contain provisions for greater punishments to be meted out to non-Miuslims for civil and criminal infractions of many kinds; and in some cases do not punish Muslims for crimes against infidels, to nearly the extent that crimes by infidels committed against Muslims are punished. Muslim witenesses in court are LEGALLLY accorded more weight than non-Muslim witnesses. Etc. It's really scary stuff if you delve into it.

Contrast this to Israel, where Arabs possess civil rights approximately in line with first-world standards. Apparently you don't know these things to be true and therefore find the statement offensive somehow. But it's much more true than you would guess. Check out www.hrw.org (http://www.hrw.org) if you don't mind doing some serious on-site searching. Human Rights Watch is a valuable resource, and is probably where I first found the legal codes of various Middle Eastern countries, which I posted previously.

Darryl_P

10-31-2005, 11:35 AM

Philosophically speaking, if a group of people owns a particular plot of land, shouldn't they have the right to pick and choose who is allowed to enter it on any basis they want?

As a landowner myself I certainly expect to have such a right regarding my own property. Otherwise I would question whether or not I really owned the property. Why is it any different for a group of people?

twowords

10-31-2005, 01:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My overall point was that the creation of Israel was justifiable due in part to various oppressions against the Jews--committed by Europeans, Russians and Arabs. If I'm wrong in thinking it was "fueled" in part by Arab oppressions, as well as European and Russian oppressions, well thanks for the correction, but that is largely besides my point, as I've already stated. The state of Israel was a justifiable creation in part due to all of those oppressions. That's my point. Clearer at last, I hope?

[/ QUOTE ]

Europe committed unspeakable atrocities against them, so because of that the Zionists were justified in immigrating in huge numbers to Palestine against the will of the inhabitants AND taking land from the peoples that were promised a state of Palestine, again against the will of the same people. How can you endorse this argument?

PS. The attrocities Redlight is refering to are from early AD around the time of the Crusades. Like around the time Christians sacked Jerusalem and sluaghered every man, woman, and child in the city walls (yes I saw Kingdom of Heaven). Over the last 1000 years, Jews did live in relative harmony with Arabs in the Arab dominated Middle East.

andyfox

10-31-2005, 02:58 PM

Any thread that coins the word dhimmitude is worth its weight in gold. I also just noticed a post on one of the other forums where somebody said he was in "agreeance" with somebody else. I like that word too.

The only points I'm trying to make are:

-Antisemitism in Muslim/Arab states had absolutely zero to do with the Zionist movement and the formation of the state of Israel.

-Jews fared much, much better under Islam than they did under Christianity. Historians of all political stripes who have studied this have all come to this same conclusion.

I agree with you that there is no question that the situation for religious minorities in many/most Arab/Islam states is far worse than it is for Muslims in Israel.

OK?

AngryCola

10-31-2005, 03:14 PM

Here's an update for you, Andy.

Threaded mode is sorting the most recent posts to the top. If they are replies to another post, the entire tree gets moved up, too.

BUT!

The tree will only bump up so far. This is because the OP of that tree is older than the OP of another tree.

It's a bit confusing, but look at it for a bit and you'll see what I'm trying to describe.

Next, thread subjects now take you to the most recent unread post in the thread when viewing in threaded mode. This is the same as the pre-upgrade flat mode default. They may change the threaded mode subject setting to the way it was before (subject always links to OP), but it shouldn't be a big deal if it stays this way. It will just take some getting used to.

Unread posts in threads are are no longer displayed in bold when viewing in threaded mode. The little folder icons are not a good substitute for this, and I suspect there is a setting which needs to be changed in the software to go back to the 'bolded unread posts' style we were all so familiar with. This is something Chuck and Mat are aware of, so I anticpate something will be done about it within a week or so if it's possible to change.

Hopefully this clears up some of your confusion.

bobman0330

10-31-2005, 03:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Any thread that coins the word dhimmitude is worth its weight in gold. I also just noticed a post on one of the other forums where somebody said he was in "agreeance" with somebody else. I like that word too.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Dhimmitude" gets a quarter-million Google hits. Then again, "agreeance" probably does too, so take that for what it's worth.

MMMMMM

10-31-2005, 03:48 PM

MMMMMM

10-31-2005, 03:50 PM

OK Andy.

twowords

10-31-2005, 04:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Europe committed unspeakable atrocities against them, so because of that the Zionists were justified in immigrating in huge numbers to Palestine against the will of the inhabitants AND taking land from the peoples that were promised a state of Palestine, again against the will of the same people. How can you endorse this argument?

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Because:

1) The Jews had a long shared history of that land, along with certain Arab inhabitants

[/ QUOTE ]

Thousands of years ago. At the turn of the 20th Century, like 5,000 Jews lived in all of Palestine.
[ QUOTE ]

2) The Jews were persecuted in Europe and Russia, and oppressed by Arab laws and customs in the Middle East

3) Therefore, the Jews could use a haven or safe sanctuary of their own

4) The area in question is only about 1/900 of the total Arab land mass

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha are 2 and 3 really seperate points? As for 4, many have pointed out that the Arab states are connected intimately by culture but certainly not close to being uniform. Also, Jerusalem and some of the most fertile and strategically valuable land is in that 1/900. Of course, Israel saw it your way. Either way it appears we've reached an impasse since these points aren't even CLOSE to justifying the creation of Israel for me, EVEN without knowing of the horrors it would lead to. We've laid out the facts, so anyone reading can make the call.

As it turned out, the creation of Israel completely [censored] up the Middle East, resulted in millions of causualties and millions of refugees, and finally played a large role in fostering an Arab extremist movement and Islamic terrorism. Meanwhile, many Palestinians still live under occupation.

MMMMMM

10-31-2005, 07:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Either way it appears we've reached an impasse since these points aren't even CLOSE to justifying the creation of Israel for me, EVEN without knowing of the horrors it would lead to. We've laid out the facts, so anyone reading can make the call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Impasse agreed upon.

[ QUOTE ]
As it turned out, the creation of Israel completely [censored] up the Middle East, resulted in millions of causualties and millions of refugees, and finally played a large role in fostering an Arab extremist movement and Islamic terrorism. Meanwhile, many Palestinians still live under occupation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the Middle East has been f'd up for hundreds of years. Yes, the creation of Israel created some new problems, and a focal point for hatreds; but many of those hatreds had long seethed below the surface anyway and had occasionally boiled over in riots against the Jews.

Also, maybe I consider the worse-than-Jim-Crow-laws, which are so prevalent in the Middle East, as more of an affront than you do. I think the Muslims and Arabs have no right especially in modern times to have those laws on the books and to enforce them. So maybe I look at it something like: if they're going to be so oppressive against non-Muslims in their countries, and especially against Jews, and refuse to reform, well then they deserve to lose a tiny sliver of land to those to whom they so oppress and deny civil rights. This isn't ancient times anymore. Some cultures need to get with the program, and cut out the institutionalized double-standard bullshit. And yes I find such institutionalized double-standards to be highly offensive, both personally and from a perspective of the entire human race.

I agree it's not fair that a few hundred thousand Palestinians were uprooted some 60 years ago, but it wouldn't have been fair to not grant the Jews a tiny sanctuary either. No perfect solution existed no matter how you slice it. As for the Palestinians today whose grandfathers were once displaced, I would strongly suggest they emulate the Boat People and hie themselves to a better place, to start new and better lives--that's what I would do in their shoes, anyway: see you later adios and ciao baby.