Robert Fisk: Telling it like it isn't (Los Angeles Times)

[Wordie]

December 27, 2005

2005: SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Telling it like it isn't
By Robert Fisk, ROBERT FISK is Middle East correspondent for the London Independent and the author, most recently, of "The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East," published last month by Knopf.


I FIRST REALIZED the enormous pressures on American journalists in the Middle East when I went some years ago to say goodbye to a colleague from the Boston Globe. I expressed my sorrow that he was leaving a region where he had obviously enjoyed reporting. I could save my sorrows for someone else, he said. One of the joys of leaving was that he would no longer have to alter the truth to suit his paper's more vociferous readers.

"I used to call the Israeli Likud Party 'right wing,' " he said. "But recently, my editors have been telling me not to use the phrase. A lot of our readers objected." And so now, I asked? "We just don't call it 'right wing' anymore."

Ouch. I knew at once that these "readers" were viewed at his newspaper as Israel's friends, but I also knew that the Likud under Benjamin Netanyahu was as right wing as it had ever been.

This is only the tip of the semantic iceberg that has crashed into American journalism in the Middle East. Illegal Jewish settlements for Jews and Jews only on Arab land are clearly "colonies," and we used to call them that. I cannot trace the moment when we started using the word "settlements." But I can remember the moment around two years ago when the word "settlements" was replaced by "Jewish neighborhoods" — or even, in some cases, "outposts."

He goes on to list these other examples:
The "occupied" Palestinian land has become "disputed," instead.

The "Wall" has become a "fence" or a "security barrier."

An illegal Jewish "colony" illegally built on Palestinain land is a "neighborhood."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-fisk27dec27,0,6099761.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions


On a highly interesting side note, there is this earlier article from PRWeek:

News Analysis: Can Israel escape 'war zone' image?
20 May 2005

Last week, the Israeli government announced plans for a major international charm offensive. Dan Bloch asks media experts for their views on such a campaign and Israel's perception in the international media.

The Middle East conflict has long had a stranglehold on the image of Israel. But last week it emerged that the country's foreign affairs ministry is preparing to unleash a PR offensive to combat what it perceives as negative treatment in the Western media (PRWeek, 13 May).

Ministry deputy under-secretary for media and public affairs Gideon Meir says pending financial backing from the Israeli prime minister's office, the finance ministry and businesses, it will appoint international PR and advertising agencies - or Israeli ones with international ties - to conduct an 'Israel behind the headlines' campaign in Europe and North America.

Some comments in the article by Lord Bell, Chairman, Chime Communications on the campaign's likely success:

I'm not sure that Israel knows how it wants to be seen. But there is a risk of the government getting into a situation where it surrounds itself with those who support it against the Palestinians and ignores the majority of people who just want peace.

The dispute will not be settled by PR, but by negotiations and treaties.

[Behind the Aegis]

1. .

:eyes:

[Wordie]

2. ...an unusually insightful and well-reasoned comment for you, bta. eom

[Behind the Aegis]

3. ditto. eom

[Jim Sagle]

30. He gave Fisk about as much time and effort as he's worth.

This thread ain't nuthin' but fisk.

[Peace Patriot]

4. The RIGHTWING Likud Party has greatly imperiled support for Israel

among ordinary Americans, the great majority of whom oppose Bush and the Bush junta, and hate the war in Iraq. The Likud alliance with the Neo-Cons in the Bush junta necessarily associates the Neo-Cons' insane schemes for world domination, and their horrible and murderous war on Iraq, with Israel, which, indeed, under the Likud, bears some responsibility for drawing the US full force into the Middle East and into the Iraq disaster--and God knows what other horrors. A nuclear exchange with Iran that could threaten all life on earth? (See Carl Sagan's "The Cold and the Dark," about the impacts to our atmosphere of even a limited nuclear exchange! Not pretty!) I myself see Israel as a wily player using Bush's weakness and stupidity, and crazy religious notions, in combination with the out of control ideologues, liars and thieves who are really running things (Rumsfeld, Cheney and their aides), to employ US forces to destroy Israel's enemies (excepting, of course, the Bush Cartel's Saudi cronies). I think Israel has made a "devil's bargain" with these Neo-Cons (and I do mean "cons"), and will truly regret it, in repercussions both in the Middle East and here.

Israel cannot be made safe by US military conquests. In fact, it has never been more UNsafe, with the jihad and chaos stirred up in Iraq, and fear and paranoia in Iran.

Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, STUPID policy, all around!

Nor can Israel's problem in the US be solved by a P.R. campaign.

Israel is in an untenable position, as a Likud-fostered, armed medieval fortress in the midst of hostile neighbors. The Middle East has been turned into a tinder box by the combined stupidities of Likud and Bush. The logical conclusion of those stupidities is a nuclear holocaust. And the ONLY way out of it--the only solution to Israel's long term and short term problems, and its disrepute in the US, and the only way to prevent such a holocaust--is patient, painstaking diplomacy, GREAT WISDOM, generosity, and a quest for the common good of all Middle Eastern peoples.

The long time policy of both the US and Israel, to foster dictatorships in the countries surrounding Israel, and to destroy democracy and self-determination in those countries (as was done to every one of them--also with British collusion) must be stopped! That would be a good beginning to a wise diplomatic policy: For instance, an APOLOGY to the Iranian people for the CIA's destruction of their democracy in 1953. The Iranians have NOT FORGOTTEN--though many Americans likely don't know about it. 25 years of tyranny and torture under the Shah--deliberately inflicted on those poor people.

I have always been a supporter of Israel, as the rightful homeland and heartland of the Jews, but what I feel now is that, for all the billions of US dollars and military aid to Israel, and for all the international political support of Israel by the US, what we, the American people, have gotten in return is a weak partner who can only think to solve its problems by violence, and by having a big bully older brother--the US--backing it up. It is not a very good bargain for us.

What I WANT to see--in my own country, and in Israel--is a recognition that violence, torture, bullying, bombing, an escalating arms race, a hogfest of war profiteering, and military actions are NOT THE SOLUTION TO THIS OR ANY OTHER PROBLEM, and that the only solution is a commitment of justice and to peace. And I won't take P.R. as a substitute, thank you very much. We've had enough of propaganda and Rovian "talking points"!

[bemildred]

5. Oh, now you have done it.

:applause:

[Wordie]

6. Excellent.

I especially like this:
And the ONLY way out of it--the only solution to Israel's long term and short term problems, and its disrepute in the US, and the only way to prevent such a holocaust--is patient, painstaking diplomacy, GREAT WISDOM, generosity, and a quest for the common good of all Middle Eastern peoples.

It troubles me deeply that at the same time as Sharon was claiming to be committed to peace, he was urging settlers to steal additional by exhorting them to "grab every hilltop" in an effort to circumvent Palestinian claims, violating the spirit of the quest for peace. Most Americans are completely unaware of this, but I imagine that every Palestinian knows it. I sincerly hope that whoever becomes the new leader of Israel will recognize the foolishness and danger of such an approach.

The Palestinians themselves had "no partner" in Sharon.

[Colorado Blue]

10. Where is the Palestinian partner? Where?

Have you read Bill Clinton's opinions on this matter?

The Israelis have had Rabin, Barak, and Sharon working for viable solutions.

Where is the Palestinian counterpart?

Where?

[Englander]

14. In prison. n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

15. Abbas is in prison?!?! n/t

[Colorado Blue]

36. And you speak of whom?

[Englander]

53. Marwan Barghouti.

You've heard of him, yes?
Wasn't that completely obvious, that my comment referred to him?
He's a Palestinian leader of a political party, & he's in prison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marwan_Barghouti

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x111693

[pelsar]

12. your right...

sharon is not the palestenain patner...he did the worst thing possible...he gave them gaza to govern with a border to the outside world...He gave them, and their supporters a chance to prove themselves that they can live in peace with israel....

the result...not only are missles being shot daily into israel, not only has the PA made it clear that its not their problem, not only do the "pro palestenain crowd" not offfer solutions (that are realistic)-usually it "silence..not only are the intls leaving gaza as the chaos is too much.....

thats what sharon gave to the palestenains....he put them and their supporters in to a position of proving that its not all retoric about living in peace with israel, about democracy etc.....-which we havent seen yet.

he also gave the palestenains a chance to learn how to govern before they have the westbank, shoot kassams at the knesset and have reprisal raids the consist of more than a mere bulldozer, couple APCs and a tank.....and totally destroy their society

Sharon did the palestenain in the westbank a favor..he showed them what to expect from an immediate israeli withdrawl: GAZA without the inevitable IDF reprisal raids that would have resulted from kassams and mortors on israeli population centers (unless of course someone here has a brilliant alternatie solution to incoming mortors and kassams...but i expect the answers will be ....silence)

[Wordie]

21. A partner negotiates and discusses and compromises. Sharon was no partner.

Gaza disengagement was for Israel's benefit only, both in terms of saving the costs of occupation, and for the PR value, which your post attests to. And Israel still controls much of Gaza anyway: airspace, utilities, etc. Have you ever looked at just how many Gazans have lost their work since Gaza? A partner would have engaged in negotiations, whereby the economic concerns of the Palestinians could also have been considered.

Unilateralism is not partnership.

[pelsar]

23. the partner?

you mean abbas, who said the incoming kassams are not his problem but israels?...thats hardly a partner

news flash: countries do whats in the own best interests...all of them.

as far as gazans losing their jobs....do you really expect me to feel sorry about them on a national level?...they cant keep their sucide bombers out of our cities, we dont have to employ them...utilities?...they can connect to the Egyptian grid. Air space?...keep the kassams from flying into our cities

a "partner" doesnt laud suicide bombers, encourage them, tell the neighboring country, our bombers are your problem....

the palestenains got the "dream" gaza free of israelis, what was to negotiate?...they got all they wanted....(except we took away the "excuse factor"). We even keep the karmi border crossing open for the products, even though they 've tried to blow it up several times...maybe we should close that and let them go via egypt?

_________________________________

palestenains dont need a "partner" they need to learn how to govern without the excuses...its really that simple (and sharon gave them their chance, irreguardless of what his motives were)

[eyl]

25. Let me get this straight

Israel supplying electricity and such to Gaza is an indicator of occupation. Yet if Israel cuts that off - it's a war crime? Under that logic, is there anyhting Israel can do so that it isn't occupying Gaza?

[pelsar]

26. or...

along the same lines..providing electricity is an indication of occupation and not concern for the well being of the palestenains......

seems we cant get it right.

ok wordie so which is it...do we cut off the electricity and no longer have the electricty as an active part of the occupation or do we keep it on for the benefit of the palestenians?

cant have it both ways (though your trying very hard to make us evil no matter what we do....)

[Wordie]

27. Here are some legal thoughts on the matter:

First some background on conditions for Pals under Israeli occupation:

The U.N. Human Rights Committee concluded in July that discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel had produced “significantly lower levels of education, access to health care, access to housing, land and employment” compared to Jewish Israelis...

Workers’ groups like the Tel Aviv-based Kav La’Oved/Workers’ Hotline continued to criticize government labor policies which left foreign and Palestinian workers vulnerable to exploitation by employers and labor contractors...

http://www.hrw.org/worldreport99/mideast/israel.html

Israel neglected it's responsibilities to under international law to Gaza for decades, while Gaza sank economically to become what is now one of the most desperate and poorest places, not just in the region, but on all earth. International law requires that the occupying power not discriminate against the occupied. After years of neglecting responsibilities, including those of development and maintenance of infrastructure, Israel now decides unilaterally to dump Gaza (more for reasons having to do with the demomgraphic threat Gaza represented than any terrorist threat), and wipe it's hands of the entire area, yet maintain military control at the same time??? I call that continuing occupation. So does international law.

II. THE GAZA STRIP WILL REMAIN OCCUPIED TERRITORY EVEN AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE “DISENGAGEMENT” PLAN

A. Israel Will Retain Effective Control over the Gaza Strip and Will Therefore Remain the Occupying Power

Under the “Disengagement” Plan, Gazans will still be subjected to the effective control of the Israeli military. Although Israel will supposedly remove its permanent military presence, Israeli forces will retain the ability and right to enter the Gaza Strip at will.<28>

Further, Israel will retain control over Gaza’s airspace, sea shore, and borders.<29> Under the Plan, Israel will unilaterally control whether or not Gaza opens a seaport or an airport. Additionally, Israel will control all border crossings, including Gaza’s border with Egypt.<30> And Israel will “continue its military activity along the Gaza Strip’s coastline.”<31> Taken together, these powers mean that all goods and people entering or leaving Gaza will be subject to Israeli control.

Finally, Israel will prevent Gazans from engaging in international relations.<32> Accordingly, if it enacts the “Disengagement” Plan as envisaged, Israel will effectively control Gaza—administratively and militarily.<33> Therefore, Israel will remain the Occupying Power of the Gaza Strip...

B. Israel Will Remain the Occupying Power of the Gaza Strip so long as Israel Retains the Ability to Exercise Authority over the Strip...

C. As an Occupying Power, Israel Must Protect Palestinians and Their Lands

Since Israel will continue to occupy the Gaza Strip, Israel will still be bound by its obligations under International Law—namely 1907’s Hague Regulations, the Fourth Geneva Convention, and international customary law. Under international law, an occupying power must uphold certain obligations to the people and land it occupies. For example, an occupying power must maintain the status quo of occupied territory and may never unilaterally annex territory or transfer its civilian population into occupied territory.<36> Moreover, the occupying power’s activity in occupied territory must, inter alia, be for the benefit of the population it occupies.<37>

http://www.palestinemonitor.org/new_web/disengagement_plan_gaza_Palestine.htm

[pelsar]

34. wordie..you didnt answer the question:

in two different posts you claimed israels an occupying power because it gives the palestenains electricity..and then you claim that israel is not concerned with their welfare:

so make a decision, which do you support israel giving them electricity or not?

_______________

the articles not up to date...get with the program of Jan 2006, the article is dated October 2004

going back 2 years to complain about something that never happened is very telling of ones attitude and the inability to open ones eyes to the new reality.

[eyl]

35. Nope

First of all, nothing in international law requires occupied teritories to be developed the same as the occupying country. If you maintain otherwise, please indicate what instrument of international law states this (note - a statement by UNHRC or HRW et al does not apply unless they cite precisely which treaty requires that).

Second, far from "neglecting" the Territories, a comparison will show you that quality-of-life indicators went up after 1967. To take one example you cited - education. How many Palestinian universities are there now? In 1967 there weren't any (save a few colleges) - higher academic institutions were forbidden by Jordan.

And again - by the standards you cite, Israel can never cease occupation of Gaza. Israel will remain the dominant military power for the forseeable future - that means it will always retain the "ability to exercise authority over the strip", as well as the "ability to enter the Gaza Strip at will", as well as control over Gaza's borders with Israel (the Gaza-Egypt border is not under Israeli control, contrary to your cite) and the ability to control Gaza's airspace.

I whould also note that the standards for "occupation" the NGOs you cite maintain are in disagreement with the definition of occupation as found by the ICJ in its recent ruling on the matter of Uganda and the Congo, which state that a power must maintain control over the day-to-day administration of the territory for it to be considered occupied, and that even the mere presence of troops restricting movement is not sufficient, in itself, to constitute a military occupation.

[Wordie]

41. It is a question of common sense...

There seems to be a memory lapse among some posters who have apparently forgotten that Gaza comprises only a small percentage of the total Occupied Territories. Until the entirety of those territories - Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan Valley, and East Jerusalem - are returned to their rightful owner, the Palestinians, any withdrawal can only be considered partial and incomplete.

If a foreign power invaded the entire US, but then withdrew from the state of Rhode Island, I'm sure we would be grateful for the withdrawal, but hardly would be likely to see it as such a dramatic and meaningful gesture that we would be willing to simply give up our rights to any portion of the rest of our territory in return. The foreign power would still be seen as an occupier. The foreign power would not be likely to be taken seriously by the world if it attempted to mount an argument that the entire state of California should now belong to that foreign power as a reward for withdrawing from the state of Rhode Island! Only upon a full and complete withdrawal would the US be considered to no longer be occupied. One doesn't need to refer to legal treatises to grasp this obvious fact.

Here's more:

Israel's "Disengagement" Plan - Occupied Gaza Strip

Israeli Military Control to Remain: Because Israel intends to maintain control over Palestinian territorial waters, airspace, borders and international relations, the Gaza Strip will continue to be “occupied territory” under international law. Israel’s duties as an Occupying Power, pursuant to the Fourth Geneva Convention (including the duty to protect and ensure the well-being of the Palestinian population under Israel’s control) therefore remain for as long as such control is exercisable. Israel has also reserved the right to militarily invade the Occupied Gaza Strip under the undefined pretext of “self-defense” (including “preventative steps”), while simultaneously demanding that the Occupied Gaza Strip be demilitarized, with no means to protect itself from an Israeli invasion.

Now, I can predict what you will reply here. You'll go on about something that disqualifies the Palestinians from being covered under the Geneva Conventions, etc. etc., much like our own country engages in gymnastically contorted reasoning and definitions in order to escape it's own responsibilities toward prisoners in Guantanamo and to try to rationalize the use of torture. Don't bother, if that's what your intention is; let me tell you now, I don't buy it.

Quality of life issues: again, I'm not certain where you are getting your information. Palestine and particularly Gaza have suffered tremendous economic hardship under the occupation. Here is accurate information:

Infrastructure

E. Water, Electricity, Gas and Fuel to Remain Controlled by Israel: Israel states that it will maintain the existing Oslo arrangements regarding water, electricity, gas and fuel. These existing arrangements ensure that Israel maintains economic control over Palestinians and their natural resources.

Electricity - Israel's refusal to allow Palestinians to use their natural gas resources off the Gaza coast has prevented Palestinians from developing their own electricity infrastructure. Consequently, Palestinians remain dependent upon Israel for most of their electricity needs and the rates Israel charges the Palestinians are among the highest in the world.

Gas - Offshore gas has not been extracted because Israel has refused to allow Palestinians access to their natural resources located offshore.

http://www.miftah.org/Doc/Factsheets/Other/gazaJun142k4.pdf

Poverty

* 75 % of the Palestinian population living in the Occupied Palestinian Territories lives under the poverty line ($2 per person);11
* Alarming development:
› September 2000: 600,000, or 20%, of about 3 million Palestinians lived in poverty
› End of 2002: 1.5 million, or 50%, of the population lived in poverty
› April 2002: 75% of the population lived in poverty
› By May 2002, following the Israeli large-scale invasion: 84.6 % of households in Gaza and 57.8% of households in the West Bank live below the poverty line12
* 58.3% of Palestinian households (of which 45% were in the West Bank and 86% in the Gaza Strip) received some form of humanitarian aid during the Intifada. 81.2% of the households are in need of assistance13
* Disproportionate affect of poverty on children: due to the fact that a large proportion of the Palestinian population are children (53% of the Palestinian population is below 18 years) more than two-thirds of Palestinian children live in poverty14
* The United Nations World Food Program (WFP) has launched an emergency operation to help the most impoverished Palestinians, about 500, 000 people, in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The WFP says the situation is alarming and hunger and malnutrition is increasing15
* Malnutrition and Anemia:16
› 30% of children under five suffer from chronic malnutrition, 21% from acute malnutrition;
› 45% of children under five and 48% of women of childbearing age suffer from moderate to mild anemia.
* More than 30% of Palestinians depend upon food handouts from NGOs and 50% of all Palestinians require external food assistance to help meet their minimum daily caloric intake.17

http://www.palestinemonitor.org/new_web/factsheet_poverty.htm

(I've only included a small part of the information on Palestinian poverty offered by this site; it would be worthwhile for everyone to read the full factsheet to understand what the Occupation has created. Further, these figures are indeed relatively old, from 2002. Most reports say the situation has only deteriorated since then. If you wish to quibble with that, I'm sure I can find more up-to-date figures. I have posted this because of the detail included.)

And I'll state again that as long as Israel maintains control over any portion of the Occupied Territories, the occupation can't be considered to be over, and Israel must be considered the occupying power.

[pelsar]

42. still didnt answer the question..

seems to be a problem of communcation here:
the discussion is about electricity:

i refer you to the previous posts of yours claiming that israel is still occupying because it supplies electricty..

and once again your using out of date old information: 2004 is TWO years old.

Gaza has complete access to egypt and its gas and electricity infrastructure if it wants....


and to go off topic for a sec: yes gaza is a percentage of the territories..and if the PA cant even control that, one can only image the chaos and violence that will happen with their "independence in the westbank..mayhem!

[Wordie]

43. No, you fixated on the electricity issue; for me the issue is far larger

The entire infrastructure and economy of Gaza have been destroyed over the last few years by Israel. Gazans have been driven by Israeli actions into what is close to the most dire situation of poverty in the world. Israel then decides it doesn't want to be responsible for the inevitable breakdown (for which Israel really is responsible, of course). The Gaza disengagement occurs, but Gazans control little more of their own lives than they did prior to it, and in fact because of further restrictions on passage into Israel, more Gazans are now unemployed than before, causing even more suffering. Then, after this nearly total destruction, as Gaza struggles to regain equilibrium, Israel points to the situation and asks the world to give a pass to the plan to take MORE from the Palestinians, because the horrible conditions in Gaza lead to such a horrible situation (which any society, placed in the same circumstances, would experience).

I think there is especially intense focus on the problems in Gaza now, because Israel realizes that there are only 2 more years left of GWB in the White House, and it's important to try to seize as much of the West Bank as possible before he leaves, as Bush is easily convinced of the Israeli side of things. Israel may not get such a chance again once he is gone and there is a chance (hopefully) of a President who actually knows something about the world coming to power.

pelsar. You essentially keep asking the question over and over about what a solution should be. The implication seems to be that since there is disorder and violence in Gaza, Israel is now justified in refusing to return the West Bank. Here's how I see that. Essentially you are saying that here are these two countries that have a war going on, but one country should cease to fight, and after years of brutal occupation must IMMEDIATELY reorganize to bring the society up to a standard set by one party to the war, and if they don't, well, that justifies the other country seizing even more land, which was what the entire war was about in the first place. It's a circular argument, pelsar; it makes no sense.

[pelsar]

47. you know very little about what your writing about:

Then, after this nearly total destruction.....

Gaza has hi rise buildings, nice central squares etc...all during and after intifada I and II....your "total destruction did not touch the infrastrucure nor the rich areas, nor the police and security apts, nor the poor neighborhoods, etc nor the areas of squalar... (you either dont know or are having problems with the definition....).

i find your exagerations or lack of knowledge (which is it?) rather difficult to argue with, you should get your facts right.

they're unemployment is simply they're problem,,,one shouldnt declare war on ones employer..cant try to kill him then ask for work.(simple logic?...in the real world we call it consequnces for ones actions, its part of the responsability thing, which you keep finding excuses for)

and your completly mistaken (again) about the westbank. Israel is completly justified in not returning the westbank because we dont need kassams on jerusalem.....israel has been in the west bank before we gave gaza back (btw you keep doing that, ignoring the actual times involved to try to prove something...its proves quite the opposite, that you have no point, as your just making up things)..any settlement movement there is irrelevant to gaza.

and your some how hinting that war is about 'settlements"...once again you've either confused your dates or ignore what you dont want to hear:

1948 and 1967 were not about settlements. There is a war thats been going on since 48, and one country keeps losing. They've now been given a chance, they can do two things: one is keep on fighting and keep on losing or they can prove to us (if possible) that they can live in peace with us and get more land. Its not 'circular logic"..its straightforward: cause and effect

the choice is theirs; personally, i would prefer they open their eyes to their options and possibilities of living in peace with us, if not, well if the past is any indication then their lives will just get to be more and more miserable, their choice.

_____________________________________________________
as far as the occupation of the electricity, you can show your own ability to "make an accusation and either support it or say your wrong...ignoring it or pretending you didnt say it or pretending that all of a sudden its not important is hardly being responsable:

...it was your accusation and you can still answer the question, it will only take you a few sentences: should israel cease is electrical occupation or not "....just answer the question: The gazans now have a choice.

[eyl]

45. You might argue whether the US is occupied or not

under those circumstances, but that would be moving the goalposts. The question would be whether Rhode Island is still under occupation. Everything else you mentioned is besides the point. And again, under the standards you support Israel will be in ocupation of Gaza (and the west Bank) in perpetuity, merely by being the dominant military power.

As for the porverty statistics you cite, all of them indicate massive poverty from the beginning of the intifada. I was referring to the time before that. I guess it's not too smart to start a war with the country were most of your employment is.

As for your last sentence, I refer you again to the aforementioned ICJ ruling. It states an occupation need not be completely over in order for a specific area to not be considered occupied.

[Wordie]

46. Hardly besides the point.

Israel is trying to get full credit for only a partial withdrawal, and at the same time trying to use a partial withdrawal to justify permanent occupation of other parts of Palestinian territory. It just won't fly.

As far as your comments about poverty are concerned, you appear to be saying that the collective punishment of all Gazans for continued resistance to the occupation was legitimate. I disagree.

As you know, the ICJ has made no specific ruling on the status of Gaza since the disengagement. Your attempt to apply the rulings that have been made in other situations is apples-to-oranges, as the circumstances of the I/P conflict differ so substantially. The Quartet, however, has made it clear that the disengagement is only one step among many that need to be undertaken by Israel in order to achieve a just peace:

The Quartet reaffirms its encouragement for Prime Minister Sharon’s intention to withdraw from all Gaza settlements and parts of the West Bank and reiterates that withdrawal from Gaza should be full and complete and be undertaken in a manner consistent with the Road Map, as a step towards an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 (emphasis mine), through direct negotiations between the sides leading to the goal of two States, Israel and a sovereign, independent, viable, democratic and territorially contiguous Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. The Quartet urges both Israel and the Palestinian Authority to coordinate closely preparation and implementation of the withdrawal initiative.

...The Quartet reaffirms its commitment to a just, comprehensive, and lasting settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict based upon resolutions 242 and 338, and will remain engaged with all parties to help ensure that progress towards this goal is achieved.

http://www.cnionline.org/learn/withdrawal/documents/quartet-statement.htm

[pelsar]

48. again you seem not to understand...

Israel is trying to get full credit for only a partial withdrawal

israel has been given credit (by those who understand the meaning of the word responsability and consequence for ones actions) for giving the palestenains a chance, for breaking the cycle....thats what israel did.

its now up to the palestenains and their supporters,those who actually care about citizen palestenian, to take advantage of this break to make a law abiding society out of gaza that can live next to israel. At that point we can move on.

but the whole idea of expanding the chaos of the gaza to the westbank is not someone who actually has the palestenain at heart would want to do at this point (shall i refer you to several comments of the palestenains in gaza today?...or "dont the people living there count?)

[eyl]

50. Israel is trying to get credit

for Gaza not being occupied. Once more - given the criteria you gave above (those of which are correct, at least) under what circumstances would Israel not be considered to occupy (A) Gaza and (B) a future Palestinian state?

As for the ICJ ruling - in what relevant way are the occupations different? Or are you saying international law does not need to be self-consistent?

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Colorado Blue]

9. With all due respect...

People posting here have tried to explain what it is like having a bus blow up in your face, to stand where a suicide bomber has wreaked havoc, to see body parts in the streets, to worry about your children when they go off to school in the morning.

The idea that this "tinder box" was caused by Bush or by the Likud is, to put it politely, ABSURD. Violence throughout the Middle East has been endemic for decades.

Violence against Israel started on day #1 of her existence and hasn't ceased. Violence throughout the Middle East started long before the Likud was a dream.

Early in the 20th century, nearly a million Armenians lost their lives; 700,000 Assyrians. Greece invaded Turkey in 1920 and was chased away and all Greek-speaking citizens - residents of Asia Minor for centuries - were evicted and their cities burned. Turkish residents of Greece were expelled.

I don't know if perhaps you remember the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's, in which we saw, beginning with the 6 Day War in 1967: the Yom Kippur War which nearly destroyed Israel; the Lebanese Civil War; Black Septemmber in Jordan; the war between Iran and Iraq which claimed 1,000,000 people and the Soviet war in Afghanistan with its untold casualties, that virtually destroyed the economy of that nation, brought down the Soviet Union and opened the door to the Taliban and al Qaeda. Of course this also includes the intifadas and the endless acts of terror which began in the 1920's and continue, with barrages of rockets, shootings, suicide bombs and continual threats.

In the Sudan, one of the Arab League states, 2,000,000 people have lost their lives to civil violence. Terrorism and internal violence stresses many nations and it started long before now.

All this talk about talking points fails to address this violence, which started against Jewish people in the Palestine Mandate in the 1920's and lasted through the war of 1948 and up through many wars, acts of terror and intifada, to this day.

It surely fails, now, to address the internal problems in the P.A. It fails to address the genocidal rhetoric which continues to flow from Middle Eastern states. It fails to address the incitement - easily verified - which is preached and taught throughout the region. Historical revisionism is attempting to rob Jews even of our history.

Yet, through all of this, Israel has managed to create a vital and creative democracy, in which more than 6,000,000 citizens from all over the world: Arabs, Jews from everyplace, Christians, people from Asia, Ethipians, Europeans, Russians, Americans - have intermeshed, against all the odds. The ancient Hebrew language has been resurrected and breathtaking poetry created. Science, medicine, art, music, education and technology in Israel are all first rate, though the country struggles with poverty and constant war, with next to no natural resources and extremely limited space. Israeli irrigation and desalinization techniques are the best in the world and could provide a desperately needed boon in the desert-rich Middle East.

I am terribly sorry that you feel you haven't gotten "a good bargain."

For my part I am increasingly glad that Israel exists, especially in view of posts like the one to which I am responding.

[pelsar]

11. so much for knowledge of israelis....

I'm not sure that Israel knows how it wants to be seen. But there is a risk of the government getting into a situation where it surrounds itself with those who support it against the Palestinians and ignores the majority of people who just want peace.

i hate to break it to the writer...but the vast majority of the israelis want peace...and support our govt in its war...his knowledge of us is either blinded by wishful thinking or he just cant see, either way hes simply wrong.

[Colorado Blue]

13. I think that's pretty obvious.

Both that Israelis want peace and that many people don't have a clue what they're talking about, I mean.

It worries me that so many who write stentoriously about "Israel" don't realize that Israel is not a thing, but has actual human beings living there.

During the wars with Iraq, the bombardments and the violence absolutely made me cringe. I couldn't believe that people like me were undergoing such awful violence. I made a painting of it, of a helicopter flying through fire, with a woman standing helplessly on a building, caught in the spotlights in front of its deadly engines and the blades of its rotors. I didn't think I would be able to finish the painting because I'd cry and I couldn't see the painting for my tears.

I think a lot of Americans feel the same.

So why can't they "feel" Israelis?

[Behind the Aegis]

16. "So why can't they "feel" Israelis?"

I think you and I, and a few others, know the real answer to that question...sadly.

[Coastie for Truth]

18. They never could feel for Jews, Israelis. or Zionists

[Wordie]

28. Your story contradicts Ben Gurion's...

The reality needs to be faced head on. �The Jewish philosopher and leader of cultural Zionism, Martin Buber, wrote to Prime Minister Ben Gurion in March of 1949, �We will have to face the reality that Israel is neither innocent, nor redemptive. And that in its creation and expansion, we as Jews have caused what we historically have suffered; a refugee population in Diaspora.� David Ben Gurion, the first Israeli prime minister, knew this and wrote: �If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been anti-semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?�

http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=1626

[Colorado Blue]

38. Even if this were true, and ALL the blame for this situation

rests on Jewish heads - which it manifestly doesn't - shall we be damned forever for wanting and needing a home?

Nothing will undo the 2,000 years of being hunted, unable to set down roots or live like normal citizens. To say that Israel isn't redemptive is just wrong.

My grandfather went to Israel as an old man and planted trees. For him - for this brave little man who survived the pogroms - who walked out of Russia to save his life - for millions of us around the world, Israel represents a new opportunity, a rebirth and the birth of a new culture, as well as a desperately needed sanctuary.

To deny that people suffered during her creation, because of her creation, would be wrong. But similarly it is wrong to deny the greater sin that has driven the constant violence against us.

I do not understand, Wordie, the purpose of your attacks on my people.

If you were Palestinian we could talk, because the Palestinians are my brothers, my blood and my skin, and someday we will find each other again, in spite of all the hateful words that divide us, and in spite of all these attempts to keep us at each others' throats.

[Wordie]

49. You miss my point, CB.

Over and over again, I read the things you write about the Palestinians and the Arabs. You repeatedly have pointed out how Israel was attacked after the partition, as if this proves that the Israelis were confronted with a totally aggressive and unreasonable enemy, hell-bent on the distruction of Israel for only nefarious reasons: either "anti-semitic" ones, or selfish ones (not wanting to "share" the land). All I wish to point out is the the situation was not as clear-cut as you have been presenting it to be. These were people for whom the creation of Israel represented being driven out of their own land. There were good reasons for the Palestinians/Arabs to behave as they did.

It just wasn't a case of the Israelis as the completely innocent victims and the Palestinians as the horrible, hateful agressors. The suffering of the Jewish people was something that the Palestinians should not reasonably have been asked to atone for. The Europeans, yes, they had something to atone for, but the Palestinians, for the most part, did not. (And of course you can provide examples of violence before the partition, but my point is that was the result of the loss, or threatened loss, of land and jobs that was the cause of that.)

My purpose in posting the ben Gurion statement was not to attack Israel or her supporters, but to bring a little bit of balance back to the discussion. I believe there is a blindness to the failings of Israel among some that does much to perpetuate the problems. That is why I posted the OP articles, too. It is very hard to talk about those things, as I've said before. I understand the deep love of Israel that many feel. But Palestinians feel a deep love for the same land, and therein lies the tragedy. You talk about the Jews suffering; is it right to make the Palestinians suffer too, because of it?

To deny that people suffered during her creation, because of her creation, would be wrong. But similarly it is wrong to deny the greater sin that has driven the constant violence against us.

See, right there, that's what I mean. Why do you think the "sin" is greater on the Palestinian side? Is it a "greater sin" that Palestinians want their land back? Is it the violence you see as the "greater sin"? The Israelis engaged in violence to take Palestine from the British, and was that something you condemn? And of course, you simply fail to see the Israeli violence against the Palestinians (or excuse or dismiss it, as the Israeli suffering is so much more important).

That's why I posted this article. I want to call things what they really are, because as long as an "illegal colony" is a "neighborhood" and the "wall" is a "fence" and "civilian deaths" are "collateral damage," and their are PR campaigns to pretend the violence isn't really happening, we will never understand what is really happening - we will have insulated ourselves from the ugliness of it - and we need to understand what is really happening in order to stop it.

If you were Palestinian we could talk, because the Palestinians are my brothers, my blood and my skin, and someday we will find each other again, in spite of all the hateful words that divide us, and in spite of all these attempts to keep us at each others' throats.

CB, I've had Arab friends, and believe me, if they read some of the things you have written about them and the conflict, they really would talk, but what they would tell you is many of the things I already have been saying. They would not agree with the version of history you present or the conclusions you draw either. You will not be able to find each other until the occupation is over.

And was that "attempts to keep us at each others throats" thingie aimed at me??? Really, CB, I sincerely hope not. It defies understanding how my efforts to try to get you to see the Palestinian POV could be described as "attempts to keep us at each others throats" so I can only presume there is some other explanation for that comment.

[Colorado Blue]

52. I don't think I miss your point. I think I get you. Loud and

clear.

The problem is you don't get mine. Nor do you look back before 1948, to the origins of the violence against the Jewish people who lived in Israel for thousands of years, as well as against the desperate newcomers.

There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides. Unfortunately you are only seeing and writing about one.

[Englander]

54. Oh, the irony. (slight return).

--There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides. Unfortunately you are only seeing and writing about one.--

Hugh!!11, &tc.

:)

[bemildred]

55. Our violence is good violence, because We were victims..

Palestinian violence is bad violence, because Palestinians were not victims.
So, what are you confused about?

[Colorado Blue]

57. Oh, don't.

Please see my post # 56.

[bemildred]

59. The argument is perfectly clear.

You can blather around it all you want, but that's the argument being made.

[Colorado Blue]

60. No. It isn't. You would like to see it that way but that is

NOT what I am trying to say.

What has angered me from the start of my tenure here on I/P, has been the REFUSAL of the antiIsrael posters to acknowledge the violence against Jews in the Mandate Era, and against Israelis from day #1 of her existence, as a major factor for the problems between Israelis and Palestinians today.

Our losses have been regarded as just if not well-deserved, our rights as human beings, let alone as people with rights in our homeland, are completely disregarded. The entire Zionist philosophy is misrepresented to the point of being distorted beyond recognition. Antisemitism worldwide is just brushed aside. Recognition of the horrors of the Holocaust turn into dissertations on the "genocide" of the Palestinians. Historical revisionism is apparently completely acceptable as long as it empowers the antiIsrael point of view. Any articles complimentary to Israel are characterized as "biased" or "hateful" - even if they're written by Muslims.

I believe one of the first things Englander ever said to me was, "Jew-hatred is so last century." Give me a break.

Meanwhile, you characterize my attempts to communicate as "blather". That's just wrong. It reflects the complete lack of respect I mention above.

Meanwhile - care to join me in my comparative study of Israel vs. the other nations of the region? Maybe we could start with the problems of the Berber in North Africa, or maybe the 2,000,000 dead in Sudan. How about the situation of women in Saudi Arabia or the oppression of Assyrians in Syria and Iraq?

I think it would be a juicy piece of work.

[bemildred]

67. Sure it is.

I do see it that way. And it's a perfectly sensible and reasonable way to look at it. The notion that the history of oppression of the Jews in various times and places, which I am more than willing to acknowledge, somehow justifies the dismissal of the similar oppression of the Palestinians is what I disagree with. One does not have to compare the displacement and oppression of the Palestinians to the Nazi Holocaust to conclude that wrong was done, nor does the fact that Israel is better run than Saudi Arabia change that at all. The governance of Saudi Arabia is about as disfunctional as you get short of a "failed state".

There is a fundamental conflict that originated with the founding of the Israeli state, in that Israel wanted the land, but it didn't want all the people then living on the land. If all the natives were allowed to be citizens, you wouldn't have your Jewish state. The problem still persists to this day, that you can't have your Jewish state if all the residents of the area that you would like to incorporate in your nation are allowed to be citizens, too many of them are not Jews, that is what all the fighting is about, and the situation is getting worse.

Nobody ever figured out what to do with all those people, so there they still sit in their ghettos. Looking at the situation in retrospect, there was a willful refusal to deal with the question of what to do with all those people, and to be sure that failure was not just Israel's doing, and that is why we are where we are today.

My point is that if you want Israel to be a viable Jewish state, you still need to solve that problem, and that continuing with the policies of oppression and repression which have been pursued for the last 55 years without success has no chance at all of doing the job. Some new ideas are needed.

[Colorado Blue]

73. Willful neglect - at the very least. I think it was more a matter

of Cold War politics. Either way it's terrible. The camps, the ghettos - bad news.

New ideas are most definitely needed.

I have a lot but they all involve a framework in which several neighboring states can work together and act like human beings.

It could happen.

Meanwhile I have read that Lebanese politics are once again becoming tenuous and the British, Australian and Canadian embassies have closed in Jordan, due to fears of violence.

Well, this is the land of miracles.

[Englander]

80. No, I didn't.

--I believe one of the first things Englander ever said to me was, "Jew-hatred is so last century." Give me a break.--

Here's what I wrote;

Thread;Rash of anti-Semitic vandalism and threats seen across Houston area - Thu Feb-24-05
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=87114#87140


I think, CB, if you're going to attempt to quote other posters, you should
at least afford them the courtesy of getting the quote correct.

[Colorado Blue]

92. Thank you for clarifying that!

As I said in my post, I said I "believed" that you said xyz, not that you DID say it.

In fact, you said that "blaming Jews" is last century, not that "hating Jews" is last century.

Well, I guess you were wrong, huh.

And thanks for resurrecting that article about Houston. It does sort of reinforce my point.

[Englander]

98. I would ask, again, that you not misquote me, please.

What you believed I said is not relevant, you made a false claim with regards
to my previous comments, would it be alright if I, or other posters were to
do the same for your previous comments? I think it wouldn't. So, please do not
misquote me. There's a difference, subtle as it may be, between your claim &
the actual quote.

--Well, I guess you were wrong, huh.

And thanks for resurrecting that article about Houston. It does sort of reinforce my point.--

No, I wasn't. The point I was making, was that the days of persecution, & pogroms
by *governments* & *political*parties* are over. That, after all, is where the power
lies, with governments, & parties with mass support. There aren't *any* political
parties with mass support, that have an anti-Jewish agenda. The point I was making was
that the scapegoat is now muslims, or refugees, or immigrants. Which political parties
are "blaming the Jews"? Are there any, beside the neo-Nazis?

Which point? How does a dozen cases of anonymous vandalism "reinforce my point",
whatever it is? I say it doesn't.

[Englander]

99. For the record, here's my 1st response to your posts -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=86897#87113

I gave you the benefit of the doubt, then. I definitely wouldn't do that, now.

:)

[Englander]

81. That's it, without the 300+ word lyrical pleas.

I think I know which version is preferable.

[Colorado Blue]

56. Give me a break. There are plenty of people in this forum

who are quite adequately arguing the Arab point of view, and doing a darn good job of crucifying and distorting the Zionist ideal in the process, which is wrong.

I am trying to defend the Israeli point of view. I have NEVER asserted that this is a perfect situation, that blame can't be assessed to both or either side.

But I will not lie down and be run over by a truck either. The days when Jews marched peacefully into the ovens are OVER. And it's getting a little bit boring to constantly be battling rhetoric empty of real meaning and devoid of real ideas as to how we can help both groups of people without doing further harm to either.

My goal is to try and get people to stop demonizing Israel and start focusing on solving regional problems, to get people on their feet economically. I'm worried about long range environmental problems, about how to integrate modern industries into regions still reliant upon subsistence farming and semi-nomadic pastoralism, about techniques to improve agriculture. I want to deal with real world problems.

I'm perfectly willing to agree that many of the problems faced by the Palestinians are traumatizing and unfair, that the behavior of many of the settlers is wrong, and that the security needs of the Israelis often harm innocent Palestinians. BUT - it is wrong to ignore the long term violence and rejectionism toward the Jews and toward the state of Israel. It's wrong to ignore the historical revisionism and the incitement that fuels yet more violence. Singling Israel out as the scapegoat of nations is bigoted, wrong and unfair and it prevents us from dealing with the real world problems I mentioned above, that threaten the lives of hundreds of millions of people: poverty, famine, illness, hunger, drought, civil strife and war.

Beyond that, I think it would be interesting, since everybody is determined to reveal Israel as a racist, evil, apartheid state that should be wiped off the map, to do a side by side comparison with the 22 Arab League States, Iran, the P.A., and Israel, in terms of human and civil rights.

Would you like to join me in this project?

[Englander]

79. No. n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

63. That "ALL" is well needed, I think

Both sides clearly have acted blameworthily, but Israel far more so than the Palestinians.

While it's not the case that ALL the blame rests on Jewish heads, by and stretch of the imagination - many people are far to willing to condone or ignore attrocities committed against the Israelis - the problem in the Middle East boils down to illegal and immoral occupation of Palestinian land by Israelis, and as such most of it does.

I am not naive enough to suppose that if the Israelis were to withdraw to the Green line and endeavour to help in the establishment of a functional Palestinian state (as opposed to the current policy of attempting to appear to be doing so, while ensuring that it doesn't actually happen) then the attacks on Israelis would disappear overnight, but this is the only possible first step towards a lasting peace. The immediate reduction in attacks on Israel would be considerable, and the long term gain even more so.

There is not, and never has been, a corresponding step the Palestinian leadership can take - any Palestinian leader who had said "stop the violence, and we'll see what we can get the Israelis to concede by peaceful means and the inherent justice of our claim" would be ignored by his populace, who would quite rightly believe that the answer is "nothing whatsoever".

Not all the blame is Israel's, but it is responsible for the majority of the injustices, and it has the possibility to end the conflict, which the Palestinans
don't.





P.S. Even if I "want and need a home" (and I would strongly dispute the "need" in this case) that doesn't give me any right whatsoever to take yours. I don't want to see Israel damned, but I hope it's never forgotten that its founding was an evil action and a great mistake. The Palestinian refugees nowadays genuinely do need a home; more specifically they need their own home, that has been stolen by Israel.

[Coastie for Truth]

64. I think the Western Progressive Democracies do have an obligation

after first totally messing up the Post WW 1 Middle East map (see ) for the most short range petro-colonialist, petro-imperialist reasons, and then totally and completely ignoring the International Humanitarian Law doctrine of ASYLUM (read about the ). And I don't see a heck of a lot of of or other .

[Colorado Blue]

72. Good heavens.

Hello?

Your comment,

"P.S. Even if I "want and need a home" (and I would strongly dispute the "need" in this case) that doesn't give me any right whatsoever to take yours. I don't want to see Israel damned, but I hope it's never forgotten that its founding was an evil action and a great mistake. The Palestinian refugees nowadays genuinely do need a home; more specifically they need their own home, that has been stolen by Israel."

sucks.

Nobody was trying to take ANYBODY'S home in the 19th century when the Zionist movement began. According to all reports and population figures there was ample space and there STILL was, in the 1940's. The point was to SHARE, not to simply take. The war forced the actions in 1948. Can you imagine what would have happened had the Israeli defenses failed? You blow me away, you REALLY do.

That you can make the above statement is astonishing to me, in view of history. The lack of empathy for the state of the Jewish community is amazing to me.

The Palestinian refugees have ALTERNATIVES. HAVE YOU LOOKED AT A MAP? The vast majority have never set foot in a "homeland" their ancestors may only have lived in since 1946. MILLIONS of people were displaced by WWII, including almost 1,000,000 Middle Eastern Jews. NONE OF THEM are still living in camps, except these.

Suggesting that there is no other alternative for THESE refugees damns us all. And meanwhile, what will happen to the Israelis if people continue to limit these refugees to the notion that they have only one possible place to go, and nobody else wants them or will help them? What, ultimately, will happen to THEM?

Once again, we are damned forever, and carry this burden of "evil" and "mistake", that we have since we "killed Christ". In view of your words the statement that you don't want to see Israel damned rings completely false. You have just damned it, and us.

If you can't see the injustice in that I really don't know what to think. And if you don't think that comment is beyond prejudiced I give up.

[Wordie]

74. Perhaps the Zionist purchase and theft of every bit of land they could

and kicking the Palestinians off land that their families had farmed for generations, just wasn't the Palestinians idea of "sharing." If there was so much room, why did the Zionists even need to do that?

[eyl]

77. Glad to know

you're against land purchase.

[Wordie]

82. Sheesh, no wonder its so hard to talk to you guys. If you could conclude

that I am "against land purchase" from what I said, you aren't following the conversation very well.

[eyl]

86. First sentence of post 72

"Perhaps the Zionist purchase and theft of every bit of land they could and kicking the Palestinians off land that their families had farmed for generations, just wasn't the Palestinians idea of 'sharing'"

If you don't have anything against Jewish land purchase, why did you include it in that sentance?

[pelsar]

83. so now jews buying land....is now bad?

yes those evil zionists actually bought land sold to them by "gasp" palestenians. ..chalk up another intl crime to the israelis.

your wrote it......not us

(but then you also wrote about israels total destruction of the gaza infrastructure...was that too some kind of "misunderstanding?)

[Wordie]

94. Read the thread! Is what the Zionists did "sharing" as CB says she

expected the Palestinians to do? Is kicking a people off land they've farmed for centuries "sharing"? If there was so much land, why did the Zionists need to purchase and steal land that Palestinians were already farming? If there was so much land, couldn't they have purchased land that wasn't being farmed? (Hint: the answer is that the "Land without a people..." stuff just wasn't true.)

That was my question, too subtle for some, apparently.

[pelsar]

97. "why did the Zionists need to purchase..."

perhaps because that is how we exchange goods and services in the world......obviously to some, zionists arent even allowed to purchase land.... (i believe its traditional to buy land and good for ones own needs and not for the needs of the previous owners..unless of course your a "zionist")

btw are arabs from syrian and jordan allowed to buy land in "palestine" or is this simply a "zionist/jew thing"

interesting viewpoint...perhaps a list of what zionist are allowed to do is in order?

[Colorado Blue]

89. By your definition, nobody should ever sell a farm or a ranch

or a factory or an airline, is that right? Because then the workers might have to move and/or get new jobs? What about buying land that isn't even being used?

Let me get this straight: What you are implying is that change per se is evil.

Let's start with this assumption.

Then we'll get into specifics concerning the purchase of land in Ottoman and Mandate Palestine.

First I want to hear from you on the basic premise: Is it wrong to buy and sell anything because the people working there (land, factory, business) might be inconvenienced?

[pelsar]

84. cb .....at least some things are now clear...

but I hope it's never forgotten that its founding was an evil action and a great mistake.

_____________________________

thats settles it.....us israelis are the incarnation of the evil.....i'll remember that (but why does it sound so familiar?....it seems thats been following us around for centuries....yep, nothing new here, just the latest variation on the "evil jew theme"....

[Donald Ian Rankin]

85. Something that really, really infuriates me

Is the attempt to portray all criticism of Israel as motivated by antisemitism without evidence. My hostility to Israel has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that it is Jewish, and everything to do with the fact that it behaves attrociously.

And "incarnation of evil"? There are a great many states that behave even worse than Israel; the reason I get more angry about Israel that about e.g. Burma or Zimbabwe is that a) Israel is an international flashpoint in a way no other country is, and b) Israel is a rich Western democracy (the exact opposite of "Israel is Jewish" - I'm critical of it because it's just like the nominally Christian western states, not because it's different to them).

For your information, I *am* Jewish, at least ethnically. Not merely is your accusation is completely unfounded; the only conclusion I can draw is that you didn't *care* whether it was founded or not - after all, there's no evidence for it whatsoever. I suspect it was an attempt to negate what I actually said by launching an ad hominem attack.

I would suggest that an apology is in order. By all means disagree vehemently with my views, but don't accuse me or anyone else of anti-semitism unless you have at least some evidence.

As an aside, many of the people responsible for the foundation of Israel were *not* Jewish - the allied commanders at the end of WWII bare a great deal of the responsibility. And virtually no-one living, Jewish or otherwise, was involved in that decision - although many of the decisions made after it compounded the mistake.

[pelsar]

87. being called evil....

but I hope it's never forgotten that its founding was an evil action and a great mistake.....


basically your telling my few aunts and uncles that survived the holocaust (and those that survived the progroms previous to that) that, "that lack of ability to defend themselves is "perfectly ok with you"....and that its just fine if we continue as "always".....keep the head down shylock, stay out of our clubs, hymie, etc. True many jews feel that way, and did in the past and hoped the cossacks would by pass their villages, sent their sons to convents, hid away in the forests, changed their names....

some of us simply believe that, we shouldnt have to and have decided to do something about it. Given that it couldnt be done within the confines of another country, it became obvious it was time to return home.

your belief that there is a definitive difference between us jewish israelis and "other jews" doesnt work. Its a muddy division, where the palestenians call us jews (not israelis), where anti semitism is now "simply critisim of israel". Where jews cant go to saudi arabia, etc.I have no problem with legit critisims of israel, be it the settlement policy or health care issues...i do take part when the countrys founding is considered "evil"

.....our "attrocious behaviour" given our environment and our potential destruction that seems never to go away (see irans latest.....) is very well restrained. (try comparing to other countries in similar situations.....)

_______________________________________
I could go into a narrative about the palestenains...but its really so simple to take a look at the goings on in Gaza today, bring that environment over to the westbank and the whole narrative about "return the westbank and there will be peace"....falls apart.

unless of course missle attacks on israeli settlements are considered "ok" and retilation a "war crime", internal tribal warfare a govt policy, etc.

[Colorado Blue]

90. I think it is you who owes us an apology. Being called evil

and a mistake is pretty clear. The fact that the meme applies in this case to the Jewish state and the Jewish people just makes it all the more painful. And as far as "atrocious behavior" is concerned, perhaps a look at the other side of the atrocious coin would be order?

Moreover, the philosophy you espouse concerning the fate of the Palestinians condemns them, and it condemns the Israelis, and the region, to disaster. I note you haven't answered me on that. It is a pattern I have noticed, among those who condemn Israel. Nobody is willing to think of creative ways to help fix this situation and HELP THE PEOPLE. Sitting around pointing the accusing fingerbone at Israel, condemning her very existence as an evil mistake, is easy. Finding real world solutions is hard. But it's the real challenge here, not throwing around inflammatory words.

With all due respect: I do not care if you are the second son of Mary and Joseph. Being "ethnically" Jewish doesn't give you or anybody else the right to make such a broadbrushed condemnation, let alone such an oversimplication of the facts.

And the facts at the end of WWII were pretty obvious and pretty clear. 2/3 of European Jewry had been exterminated. Survivors were being stashed in concentration camps. Nobody wanted to help them before the Holocaust and nobody wanted them afterwards.

It is impossible to separate the creation of Israel from the status of the Jewish community, especially during the past 2,000 years but of course most acutely during the past couple of centuries. I'm not even touching on the spiritual and religious aspects of Israel's creation, or the manifest need of a hunted minority to live someplace where they can have some prayer of self-defense.

Also, I completely don't get your hostility to Israel based on the fact that it is a "rich" Western state. First place, it isn't rich. It's about on the level of Greece, poor by Western standards, and struggling with poverty, lacking in resources, and mostly desert, most of its budget going for defense. The Arab League states, on the other hand, have enormous territory and resources, yet really are poor. The richest have a per capita income about the same as Israel's.

Whose fault is THAT? Maybe the Arab League states need to reform and distribute their wealth a little better. And maybe, if Israel is "rich", it is because her people value education, accept progress and change; and have chosen to move into the 21st century, rather than away from it. Instead of clinging to subsistence farming and semi-nomadic pastoralism that simply won't support large populations, the Israelis moved forward into the modern world. Instead of simply accepting desert and mosquito-ridden swamp, the Israelis transformed them. Is that wrong?

Or is it wrong to continue living on the edge of disaster, with growing populations confronting famine, drought, disease and death by the millions?

Secondly, what is wrong with being a Western democracy? What is so terrible about democracy, women's rights, the right to vote, the right to practice your religion in peace? More than 1.2 million Israeli citizens are Muslim. There are Christians, Buddhists, people of all races, who together have forged a new society.

It seems to me maybe you have a problem with Western civilization? If that is the case, please don't blame the Israelis for it. If you prefer non-western civilization, go for it. There are lots of places in the world where, no doubt, a Jew would be greeted with open arms. Like Saudi Arabia, perhaps. Do you think those societies better exemplify Jewish values?

Beyond that, I would like to see an example of a nation whose founding WASN'T in same way controversial, whether it occured overnight or over centuries. Look at modern Greece, for example, or England, or Russia. Look at Turkey. Turks actually come from Mongolia. Is Turkey an evil mistake?

Applying terms like "evil" or "mistake" is the same kind of b.s. absolutism that characterizes people like George W. Bush. In the first place it is absolutely guaranteed to provoke a reaction. One suspects that is at least partially the goal and it succeeded.

Secondly, it obviously overlooks a key fact of human life: "evil" to somebody, for example the Native Americans when they lost their culture, land and freedom to incoming Europeans, was a godsend to the Europeans, who were fleeing famine, persecution and poverty.

So, are the United States, Canada, Mexico and all the Latin American nations, evil mistakes?

Life is full of ambiguity. See my yin-yang symbol? It means the acceptance that things are not "either/or". They are "both/and."

Finally, I'm curious.

Leave Israel out of it. Do you think it is better for people to be hungry and poor, living in tribal societies, than to live in the Western world or adopt modern ways?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

93. An interesting post.

My apologies for the somewhat rambling nature of this post; it's quite late and I'm having trouble structuring my ideas. I'll try to respond to as many of your points as I can; my apologies if I miss any.

I don't know much about the foundation of Canada or Mexico; the foundation of the USA was definately evil (more so than that of Israel; it was based on genocide whereas Israel only involved ethnic cleansing). I don't know about the foundation of the Latin American states, but what I do know inclines me to believe that their founders probably behaved even worse than the founders of America.

Of the top of my head, I think that the schism of Czechslovakia was relatively uncontroversial, although I'm not willing to swear to it; I can't come up with many better examples of bloodless foundations of nations. Changing national boundaries is nearly always bloody *and is therefore a bad thing*. The reason I single out Israel for more criticism e.g. India and Pakistan (millions of people died in that partition) is a) that is the most egregious example in recent times, b) as I've said, that it's a modern Western democracy and thus should be held to higher standards (see below).

I believe that the longer ago something happened the less account of it should be taken in politics; if Israel occupies it's current territories for another 50-100 years I would -reluctantly - support its - or rather its descendants - right to keep them, but currently I think it's not too late for ammends to be made.





There's nothing wrong with being a democracy, obviously; it's by far and away the most desirable form of Government to live under. However, whereas when Burma, say, or Syria, commits an atrocity it's not fair to blame Burma or Syria as institutions as opposed to blaming their rulers, when a Democracy does so it's reasonable to spread the blame more widely.

Taking an active role in establishing a democracy is praiseworthy, living in one is merely fortunate - it's like being born rich. I'm not sure this has any relevance, but it may do.

I have the exact opposite of a problem with Western civilisation - I think the Western democratic model is the one that best provides opportunities for a state to behave in a moral fashion, *and as such I think states run on that model have the most obligation to do so*.

That doesn't mean that other nations should apply sanctions to them for bad behaviour more readily; it does mean that I get more angry when they don't.

I completely agree that the Arab nations need to reform, to become more democratic and redistribute wealth. I am not for one minute denying that Israel has set up a much better society than almost any of the Arab nations, I am denying that this is a mitigating factor for their behaviour.






I do agree that I've been using language more one sided (similar, but not quite the same, as absolutist) than is justifiable, and I apologise therefor. However, what I should have done is acknowledged that the Palestinians have done a great many evil things too, rather than not stating that Israel has. I don't think evil is too strong a word to involve the large scale ethnic cleansing by force and the threat of force that characterised the foundation of Israel, I'm afraid.

You accuse me of a "broadbrushed condemnation"; I would claim that my condemnation was very narrow indeed: I said - and stand by - that Israel has done many bad things. This in no way translates into "Jews are evil", or "Israelis are evil" or "Israelis, except those responsible for their government's policy are evil", or even "Israelis responsible for their government's policy are guilty of more than a specific set of evil acts which may well be outweighed by other things they've done". On what grounds do you question my right to say it?




Lastly, and most interestingly, your point about the philosophy I espouse condemning the region to disaster, and my lack of constructive suggestions. I've already made what I think is obviously the only possible constructive suggestion in a previous post; I'll make it again in more detail: a unilateral withdrawal by Israel to the Green line and offering joint sovereignty of Jerusalem; provision of funds by the US, EU and UN to set up a reasonably stable and democratic Palestian state, largely dependend on aid and external resources for its survival and thus with a strong vested interest in not biting the hand that feeds it; joint Palestinian/international security forces. Hamas etc need to be encouraged to split - those who are willing to lay down their arms need to be allowed to run for election, those who aren't need to be arrested, by Palestinians (although the PA would need considerable outside support to make this possible). It wouldn't be perfect - there would still, initially, be attacks on Israel, although far fewer than there are at present and decreasing as time goes on - but it's the only possible way to start, I think. The Palestians - whether or not they should - will not take the first step of ending violence without Israel returning the occupied territories, because they believe, as do I (do you?) that if they did then there would be no second step.

[Colorado Blue]

95. First, thanks for the response.

Of course you have the right to speak your mind. And I have the right to be upset:)

We disagree about both America and Israel. America has been such a godsend to people from all over the world. I wouldn't have been born except for America. My grandparents on my mother's side fled here from Czarist Russia - fleeing the pogroms. My Irish grandmother's family came to escape famine and my German father's family were dispossessed aristocrats who ran afoul of the government. They'd probably all have died, had America not existed. And the melting pot that has resulted from this influx of humanity is amazing and it's continuing to grow richer.

I wish you could visit my neighborhood. We have people here from all over the world. Riding the bus downtown is like passing through a string of global villages: Indian, Pakistani, Mexican, Chinese, Vietnamese, Jewish, Arab, Swedish, Turkish, Ethiopian, Greek, Nigerian, Japanese, Russians, Poles. There's a whole street of Persian carpet businesses, Armenians, Assyrians, Croats, Serbs.

We live here together, we work together, ride the bus together, support each other's businesses. I made a dance and music company, North African, African American, Jewish, Arab, Turkish, to celebrate all this richness. We performed in the streets, at the Cultural Center, at fairs, in neighborhoods so poor the kids scrambled for the sequins that fell off our girdles. Always there is movement, up, down, sideways: a sense of life.

At night, the city sparkles, reflected in the giant lake that forms its border, its rivers glassy and dark. You can stand on a bridge over the highway, watching the world move by below.

My husband's father flew for the Luftwaffe. He was born in the ruins of postwar Germany. They came here to build a new life. Here, in America, a Jewish girl could find happiness with the son of Hitler's pilot. And he, in turn, works for a Muslim from Pakistan.

Millions and millions of people have been saved because America was here to welcome them, and that remains the case today. People flee to America for sanctuary, to grow their families, to live under these big skies.

Our Native people have suffered, it is true. For a long time, they were portrayed as savages, as enemies, people to be conquered. Our history was completely one-sided and bigoted and wrong.

Increasingly, though, people are becoming aware of them, aware of their beauty and their accomplishments, aware of what transpired and of what was sacrified to build this nation. Those who would ignore that are living in a state of denial. But, increasingly people are learning, and are reaching out to those who remain - sadly, they now number I think about 1.2 million people or thereabouts. The days when the Native Americans were regarded as disposable trash, I think, are over. Many of us were fortunate to grow up near them, and to have absorbed the beauty of their culture from childhood. Increasingly people are seeing this. But they remain under tremendous pressure. And the children of slaves still struggle.

In spite of that, it wouldn't be right to say that America, whose constitution was based partially on the wisdom of the Algonquin Confederation, is an evil thing. We represent too much that is hopeful and good in the world, and we have so much to give. The descendant of slaves serves as Secretary of State - a woman, unthinkable even a generation or two ago. We are progressing, blending a hundred cultures.

And think, too, of moribund and hungry Europe, of Asian people seeking hope, of the millions who live today, because America was here.

I don't know if you're aware of Buddhist imagery and philosophy. I study and meditate especially, on the tantric images of Tibet. They are challenging, brutal in their directness. But they give a vision of wholeness, that day and night are all part of one thing, that vulture, lion, life and dying, are all part of one great cycle.

That is also true of good and evil. People migrate, immigrate, they move here and there. To judge America, or Israel, and say they're evil because people suffered in their creation, is to miss the point - which is that for some, there was tragedy, for others, new life. It's been this way since humans first walked this earth. It's this way for the lion and the gazelle.

That's why Ha Shem didn't want people to mess with that tree - because of the burden of being able to see.

It's hard. But until people stop changing, until life stops being a process, the process will bring pain to some and happiness to others. Focusing anger at that process on America, or on Israel, is wrong I think. What we can do is go foward, and try not to harm each other anymore. But we can't stop the process of change itself.

And any attempt to create justice, that creates yet more victims - I'm very wary of that. For example, attempts to create economic justice by forcibly removing people's property, or dragging people from their homes, I think are more reactionary than creative. What they create is more harm. So shall we knowingly create more harm, in our attempts to do good? The icon of Palden Llamo says, in the service of compassion, sometimes great evil is done.

It is a conundrum.

And finally - speaking from America The Evil:) A special howdy to y'all over there in Britain. Hello? Remember us? My dad flew in the 8th Air Force, 32 missions in a B-24 over Europe, along with thousands of others, thousands who didn't come home. We sacrified our best in two wars.

Should we have left you to the Germans?

I'll get back to Israel in a bit.

Later.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

100. Three points, I think:

Firstly, I didn't say (and don't think) that America or Israel were evil; I said that I thought that founding them were evil actions. To generalise an entire nation of millions of people as evil (or as good) is foolish, I think.

While many people undoubtedly benefitted from each - certainly more than have suffered in the case of America; debateable and highly contentious either way in the case of Israel - I don't think that justifies either, for the same reason that disemboweling someone isn't justified even if you can save the lives of five innocent people who will otherwise die by using their organs for transplants.

And while you might not have been born if it weren't for the colonisation of America by Europeans, somewhere in a parallel universe a native American is making the same claim mutatis mutandis.



Secondly, I don't understand the relevance of your WWII point, but I would like to point out that, while it was shameful of France and the UK to wait until '39 to declare war on Germany, it was still more shameful of the US to attempt to sit the whole thing out until '42, and probably to have waited still longer if it had not been attacked itself. If it had been America who had initially stood up to the Nazis, and the UK and France who had let short-term national self-interest prevent them from doing so initially, it would probably have been my ancestors who came to the rescue of yours, rather than vice versa (this argument of course ignores the geographical factors involved, but I hope you see my point). And if America had stayed out of the war, and the Axis had won, how long do you think it would have been before Hitler decided he needed still more lebensraum? While my ancestors andd I undoubtedly have great cause to be grateful to yours, the reverse is also true. However, as I've said, I'm not sure of the relevance of this to Israel.



Thirdly, I do agree to some extent about being wary of attempts to create platonic justice that create more victims - see my point about supporting Israel's continued occupation of the territories in 50-100 years. However, at present I think it's not reached that point yet - the original victims of displacement still exist, and it's better to let them have their land back (admittedly creating a new lot of displaced, but a group likely to have much less trouble finding new homes, and a group being displaced from land they had no legitimate claim to in the first place).

[Colorado Blue]

88. Uh huh. Same ol' same ol'.

Get's tiresome, doesn't it?

[pelsar]

40. what you dont get....

and its quite simple: two people want the same piece of land...both have claims..its that simple.

whether one history is older or younger is irrelevant, non has a "better claim" (as you have suggested).

the facts are quite simple, listen up: after being kicked around for 2,000+ years including the climax of the holocaust the jews came back to the homeland after the realization that nobody will protect them from anti semtism...its that simple.

the arabs and palestenians had two options (and still have) stop the influx of jews and attempt to massacre them, kick them out, etc or accept them.

they chose the first option..and are still choosing the first option. Now we dont know if they're ever going to accept us, so far it doesnt look so hot, kassams from the south, katushas from the north, suicide bombers inbetween and threats of nbombs from iran....and this has been going on since pre 1947 (so forget the excuse of the wall or settlements...)

Choosing that first option wasnt such a great idea, as the palestenain land mass keeps shrinking and their lives seem to be getting more and more miserable. It might be a good idea to change philosophy and try to get along with us, they dont have to of course, but we're not going anywhere, its just a suggestion.

and thats all there is to it..its that simple.

[Jim Sagle]

32. And I'd like to see the same in Iran, and Syria, and among the

Palestinians.

But I won't be holding my breath.

[Coastie for Truth]

17. Absolute Racism

I'm not sure that Israel knows how it wants to be seen. But there is a risk of the government getting into a situation where it surrounds itself with those who support it against the Palestinians and ignores the majority of people who just want peace.

The dispute will not be settled by PR, but by negotiations and treaties.

Lord Chime should see a good neuro proctologist and have his head removed from his rectum. The majority of the people want peace.

The original situation was not of their making, but handed to them by the WW1 Victiors in their geo-political, petro-political cartography.

[Wordie]

19. You dilute the meaning of the word "racism" by using it inappropriately.

It will soon lose it's meaning when it is used in this manner.

[Coastie for Truth]

20. I am not going to get into a rhetorical battle with you.

But, I do invite your attention to:

1.

2. - I know, it's on the RW side of the spectrum, but this is an article worth reading - even if you don't buy into it.

3. - I know, same thing, it's on the RW side of the spectrum, but this is an article worth reading - even if you don't buy into it.

But I gave you the courtesy of actually taking away from my grand kids and billabe hours to get and read - on your challenge and recommendation - America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order by Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, which was an utter waste of my quality time. So please at least click on the above.

Remember some simple facts:

1. America's Jewish voters were more loyal to the Democratic ticket then any other white demographic - no matter how hou slice it - voting, financial support. We didn't buy into the Bush, neocon crap.

2. Don't blame America's Jews for Leo Strauss and his Neocon progeny, unless you're prepared to also give us credit for my cousin Lev Davidovitch Bronstein.

3. Don't blame America's Jews or Israel for BushCo's illegal natural resource war for oil in Iraq.

*There ain't no Jews in meaningful jobs in "Big Oil" - I was part of the class in the successful Texaco Class Action Discrimination Law Suit
*I gave you an extensive bibliogaphy that shows that the illegal natural resource war of agression in Iraq was just that, an illegal natural resource war of agression - and you cited America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order by Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke. Come on.

4. Don't assign 100% of the blame for stealing the Palestinian's land to the Jews, Zionists, and Israelis. I have provided you with an extensive bibliogrphy of the geo-politics and petro-politics leading up to WW 1 and the fall of the Ottoman Empire - creative cartography of the victors - and how it tied into their colonialism and "divide and conquer" style of governing colonies. and you cited America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order by Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke. (Which I gave you the courtesy of reading - you at least owe me a latte :))

On the subject of the latte you owe me (for wasting my time on America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order by Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke.- I will be at Nancy Pelosi's Town Hall Meeting tomorrow in the Marina. No, I won't be on the Answer sie - I'm the slightly older guy, with the white goateeand the "Coast Guard Veteran" ball cap. See you in the Marina for my latte.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Coastie for Truth]

24. I am not defending them

and Zeevi and Eitan are not DUers or Progressives, and they are not posting on Progressive web sites.

[Jim Sagle]

33. It's not your call. Racism is racism no matter how you FEEl about it.

[Wordie]

51. As an example of my point, one might turn to these recent LBN threads:

about Chavez' recent remarks, claimed by many, including the Simon Wisenthal Center, as being anti-Semitic:

Posted on January 4:
Wiesenthal Center slams Chavez "anti-Semitic" talk
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2020953

And then this, posted on January 13:
Venezuela's Jews Defend Leftist President in Flap Over Remarks
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2040871

If you'll observe, there were many who were absolutely certain that Chavez' remarks could be nothing else but anti-Semitism. There was no possible other explanation. In fact, everyone was so certain that these remarks were anti-Semitic that nobody bothered to ask, or to try to obtain clarity on the intent of the words - the meaning the speaker meant to convey. Then, once cooler heads involved themselves in the issue, we find out those words were not anti-Semitic at all.

I in no way mean to imply that anti-Semitism is not a very real thing and I stand with you in deploring it when it does rear its ugly head, but I would like to again point out that in not all those instances when people are absolutely convinced that anti-Semitism is at play are the claims accurate.

And, I would especially like to commend bta, who had the presence of mind not to get swept away in the claims about Chavez, urging caution before jumping to conclusions (he actually took the time to investigate the claims) right from the very beginning. We often disagree, but in this I can only express my admiration and appreciation.

[Colorado Blue]

58. I think you should continue reading through those threads.

The fact that the Jews in Venezuela couched their objections to the SWC in terms of the "safety" and "security" of their community, speaks volumes.

[Wordie]

65. You need to read the actual article.

Pressner said that the Venezuelan Jewish confederation was not caving in to the government. He cited several protests by the confederation against antisemitic remarks broadcast on radio and television in recent months. "We are not afraid, but we need to be fair," he said.

In the Venezuelan situation, American Jewish groups might be reflecting the Bush administration's displeasure with Chavez's anti-American pronouncements. But while Chavez's politics may not appeal to mainstream American Jewish groups, several spokesmen warned that labeling him antisemitic for no obvious reason is likely to prove self-fulfilling by provoking a backlash against Jews. (emphasis mine)

"It appears to us that Chavez did not intentionally speak about Jews," said David Twersky, director of the AJCongress's Council on World Jewry. "I don't think we should raise the flag of antisemitism when it doesn't belong."

Those comments about "safety" and "security" apparently had more to do fears of a backlash caused by imprudent claims of anti-Semitism. The claims had the potential consequence of isolating the Venezuelan Jewish community.

[Colorado Blue]

66. Right. Any society that would produce a backlash against its

Jewish community because of critical comments made about a speech, has a problem.

A critique by the SWC in and of itself wouldn't create a backlash in a society like America. The fact is, this community already IS isolated. And it's very small and it's vulnerable.

Already, Jews were blamed for Chavez' temporary ouster and a Jewish school was invaded because they were blamed for the shooting of Anderson. And I'll use your own quote here: there have been, "antisemitic remarks broadcast on radio and television in recent months."

The fact is, it appears they are in a delicate situation. There are times and places when "speaking truth to power" can be very dangerous. Making a mistake or embarrassing power can be fatal.

The community has fallen from 22,000 to 15,000, according to TAU, in just a few years. Probably this is due primarily to the fact that the community's economic conditions are falling. But the reports cite other problems as well. People don't just up and leave for no reason or merely for financial reasons. After all lots of us suffer economic reversals and we don't pack our bags and leave the country.

Why won't people listen? Over the long span of our Diaspora, these things have flared up periodically. It appears to be starting again. I don't understand the refusal to acknowledge a danger that has potentially devastating consequences.

We see it here all the time. I can't tell you how many "discussion" threads have gotten completely out of hand, with Jews being blamed for Iraq, for American oil imperialism, for 9/11, for suicide bombings all over the damn map including within Israel. But people are in denial about the seriousness of the problem or even that they HAVE a problem.

It ticks me off. It reminds me of the book "Black Like Me," where the author had to disguise himself as an African American in order to understand their point of view. A little empathy would go a long way without such drastic measures - empathy and a little reading of not-so-ancient history. Also, just a bit of awareness would help.

[Wordie]

68. Those arguments are based completely on your personal opinion, not facts.

Has it never occured to you that there could be a backlash because other Venezuelans might consider them complicit in the attack upon the President of Venezuela by the American Jewish community? After all, the attack on Chavez claimed to be protecting all Jews.

A problem for the Venezuelan Jewish community was brought about by the meddling of people who apparently didn't even check with them for their opinions before trying to start an international issue over comments they clearly didn't understand. The Venezuelan Jewish community stood behind Chavez. What facts have you presented that prove any different. You are stating facts, but there is nothing that shows that those facts are connected to what you say they are.

[Colorado Blue]

69. What?

I don't see how you are missing my point so completely.

The fact that the Jewish community in Venezuela could be attacked FOR ANYTHING or suffer a BACKLASH, isn't right. And what do you mean, the American Jewish Community attacked Chavez? The Simon Wiesenthal Center, a watchdog organization, attacked the terminology in a SPEECH.

Or do you mean, we, all 5.2 million American Jews, attacked President Chavez and drove him out of office or something? Like we attacked Iraq? Of course, SOME PEOPLE seem to believe this. They can go climb a tree.

Dang.

As far as Venezuela is concerned, can you at least admit that there is the possibility that people are missing something here?

The fact is, if the situation is so sensitive SWC should have checked first with the Venezuelan community. But give them SOME CREDIT when it comes to interpreting speeches. They're not idiots and we've heard that kind of speech before. How do you know they lack Spanish speakers, or experts on Latin America, on their staff? I do agree with the letter, the Jewish community needs to work more closely together to avoid the possibility of stirring up a dangerous hornet's nest. The fact that we have to tippytoe is upsetting though. People should be allowed to say whatever the hell they want without fear of their entire community being subjected to a backlash.

The fact that we have to worry about subjecting an entire community to a backlash, or being subjected to one ourselves, as in the 9/11 or Iraq conspiracy theories, is disgusting. And it follows to the letter the pattern of prejudice against Jews. It is classical scapegoating, classical stereotyping, classical conspiracy theory victimization of an entire people.

And it is WRONG. Can you see that?

[Wordie]

71. Many things in life are not right, but they all aren't about anti-Semitism

That was my point. You presumed that any backlash would be about anti-Semitism. And as far as the interpretation of the speech is concerned, I'll go with what was said by actual Venezuelans, who are going to be able to understand the cultural context and idiomatic speech unique to Venezuela better than SWC.

...and surely better than you or I.

[Coastie for Truth]

76. And. likewise, many things in life are not right, but they aren't

ALL caused by Israel, Israelis, Zionists, Jews, settlers. or RW American Jews masquerading as LW Jews, or conspiracies thereof.

[Wordie]

78. Who said they were? You're reacting to things that exist only in your own

imagination. Only black and white thinking could lead you to imagine I claimed any of those things. Sheesh.

[Colorado Blue]

91. You know what? Baloney.

Even in spite of the above patronizing remark, I am going to point out some facts.

A person who has made it his or her business to deal with a particularly Jewish situation: Eretz Israel, needs to wake up on the topic of antisemitism, and can't simply dust it under the rug like this.

A person who has made a number of comments concerning the relationship of the Jewish community to the "best interests of America", using terms like "undue influence" and explicitly reminding me that the Jewish community in America, after all, only amounts to a relatively few votes, needs a little consciousness raising on the topic of bigotry against Jews.

A person who has commented on the fact that Israelis and Kurds are working together on some projects and commented on the supposed role of American Jews and Israel in the Iraqi war, needs a little consciousness-raising.

Now, in a post about the purchase of land in Ottoman Syria and Mandate Palestine, this person has made comments that imply that such purchases are inherently wrong.

THIS PERSON is trying to avoid the issue by making the above-referenced patronizing comment, suggesting that some extremely inflammatory language is merely culturally relative and that a backlash against the Jewish community wouldn't be because they were Jewish, but because other people who ARE Jewish were complaining about insults to Jews.

Sorry. It isn't that easy. I suggest, as I mentioned, some consciousness-raising.

[Wordie]

96. FACTS

Even in spite of the above patronizing remark, I am going to point out some facts.

FACT:

Main Entry: fact
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum deed, real happening, something done, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere to do, make
1 : something that has actual existence : a matter of objective reality (emphasis mine)
2 : any of the circumstances of a case that exist or are alleged to exist in reality : a thing whose actual occurrence or existence is to be determined by the evidence presented at trial

A person who has made it his or her business to deal with a particularly Jewish situation: Eretz Israel, needs to wake up on the topic of antisemitism, and can't simply dust it under the rug like this.

FACT:
That I am more willing to listen to the comments of the Venezuelan Jewish community, people in a position to know what is going on more than you, is simply not saying anything about anti-Semitism per se. Further, this is the I/P forum, not the I forum.

Here's more of what they had to say:

...Both the AJCommittee and the American Jewish Congress seconded the Venezuelan community's view that Chavez's comments were not aimed at Jews. All three groups said he was aiming his barbs at the white oligarchy that has dominated the region since the colonial era, pointing to his reference to Bolivar as the clearest evidence of his intent.

...One official noted that Latin America's so-called Liberation Theology has long depicted Jesus as a socialist and consequently speaks of gentile business elites as "Christ-killers."

...Prior to Chavez's remarks about the Wiesenthal Center, senior Venezuelan government officials met with Israeli diplomats in Caracas and said that the president's remarks had no antisemitic intent or meaning, according to Livia Link, deputy chief of the Israeli Embassy. She declined to be more specific or to provide the embassy's views on the affair, saying that it was a Venezuelan issue.

Pressner said that the CAIV sent letters both to Sobel and to the Wiesenthal center urging prior consultation but failed to get a response.

http://www.forward.com/articles/7189

A person who has made a number of comments concerning the relationship of the Jewish community to the "best interests of America", using terms like "undue influence" and explicitly reminding me that the Jewish community in America, after all, only amounts to a relatively few votes, needs a little consciousness raising on the topic of bigotry against Jews.

FACT:
It is undeniable that there are several powerful organizations that exert a great deal of influence on American foreign policy. To state this fact is not evidence of bigotry.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a special interest group that lobbies the United States Government on behalf of a strong U.S. - Israel relationship. It describes itself as "America's Pro-Israel Lobby"...It is considered one of the most powerful political lobbies in the United States.

...The New York Times described AIPAC in 1987 as "a major force in shaping United States policy in the Middle East" They also stated "The organization has gained power to influence a presidential candidate's choice of staff, to block practically any arms sale to an Arab country and to serve as a catalyst for intimate military relations between The Pentagon and the Israeli army. Its leading officials are consulted by State Department and White House policy makers, by senators and generals."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee

And here are some opinions about AIPAC from the same wiki article(notice that I know the difference):

..."Aipac has a lot of influence on foreign policy," says JJ Goldberg, editor of the Jewish newspaper The Forward. "They work hard to ensure that America endorses pretty much Israel's view of the world and the Middle East."

"Fully three-fourths of America's foreign aid budget is devoted to Israeli security interests is a tribute in considerable measure to the lobbying prowess of AIPAC and the importance of the Jewish community in American politics." — Prominent conservative lawyer and political commentator, Benjamin Ginsberg.

..."AIPAC's Israel lobby has the power to pump up to a million dollars into the campaign coffers of any friendly member of Congress, or into the campaign of the opponents of an unfriendly member." — Richard Curtiss, executive editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

And...

Never in the history of the United States had so many leading Congress members from both parties pledged their support for an organization under suspicion of spying, based only on information supplied by the suspect and in total ignorance of the federal prosecutor's case. Contrary to the bipartisan Congressional support for AIPAC, a poll of likely voters found that 61 per cent believed that AIPAC should be asked to register as an agent of a foreign power and lose its tax exempt status. Only 12 per cent disagreed. Among American Jews, 59 per cent were not sure, while 15 per cent strongly agreed and 15 per cent strongly disagreed (Zogby International, Sept. 25, 2004). Clearly many Americans have serious doubts about the loyalty and nature of AIPAC activities, contrary to their elected representatives. The federal spy investigation proceeded despite Executive and Congressional opposition, knowing that it had the backing of the great majority of US citizens.

...Despite AIPAC being named in a major espionage indictment involving Steve Rosen, head of its foreign policy department and Keith Weissman, head of its Iran desk, US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice gave the keynote address at AIPAC's convention (May 22-24, 2005). Leaders from Congress and the Republican and Democratic parties also spoke, declaring their unconditional support for AIPAC, Israel and Ariel Sharon. The list included Senator Hillary Clinton, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican) and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid. Based on previous year's attendance, more than half of the US Senate and one-third of US Congress members were in attendance.

Clearly AIPAC, with 60,000 wealthy members and $60 million annual budget, (emphasis mine) had more influence on the political behavior of the US executive, political parties and elected representatives than a federal indictment implicating its leaders for espionage on behalf of Israel.

http://www.palestinechronicle.com/story.php?sid=01100601043

A person who has commented on the fact that Israelis and Kurds are working together on some projects and commented on the supposed role of American Jews and Israel in the Iraqi war, needs a little consciousness-raising.

FACT:

The neocons and Israeli support for the war
We know that the Iraq invasion was pushed forcefully by the neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration. Many of the neocons are Jewish, though not all of them. But when it comes to US Mideast policy, there is virtually no disagreement among them in relying on a powerful Israel as a key component. This, in and of itself, would fly in the face of the notion that Israel and Israeli interests were completely removed from the decision to invade Iraq.

A number of key figures among the neocon wing of the Bush Administration were involved in writing an advisory paper for the Netanyahu government in 1996 entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”. This paper listed removing Saddam Hussein from power as an “an important Israeli strategic objective.” It defies logic to believe that the same people, in their push toward war on Iraq, simply didn’t think about this. Writers involved in the “Clean Break” paper included Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David and Meyrav Wurmser and James Colbert. All of them were powerful proponents, in and out of government, for the war on Iraq.

Israeli support for the invasion was never a secret. Both the Sharon government and a clear majority of the Israeli populace favored attacking Iraq. A Guardian (UK) report on the undermining of US intelligence agencies in order to provide “evidence” to support the invasion describes how Americans working outside the CIA worked with Israelis operating outside of the Mossad to help produce that “evidence.”Reports before the war indicated that Israel was playing a key role in preparing for the invasion, and other reports indicate that Israeli operatives have been working among Iraqi Kurds.

http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_237.shtml

And please note that neither this article nor I have ever said that Iraq was a "war for Israel" or that "Israel controls the US government," just in case you were tempted to go there.

Now, in a post about the purchase of land in Ottoman Syria and Mandate Palestine, this person has made comments that imply that such purchases are inherently wrong.

FACT: I asked if you thought the Zionist practice of purchase of land and the subsequent kicking out of Palestinians (who had farmed that land for centuries) from that land was consistent with your claims that the intent of the Zionists was to "share" the land. You twisted my words.

You said:
Nobody was trying to take ANYBODY'S home in the 19th century when the Zionist movement began. According to all reports and population figures there was ample space and there STILL was, in the 1940's. The point was to SHARE, not to simply take.

To which I replied:
Perhaps the Zionist purchase and theft of every bit of land they could
and kicking the Palestinians off land that their families had farmed for generations, just wasn't the Palestinians idea of "sharing." If there was so much room, why did the Zionists even need to do that?

No reasonable person could miss my point there.

THIS PERSON is trying to avoid the issue by making the above-referenced patronizing comment, suggesting that some extremely inflammatory language is merely culturally relative and that a backlash against the Jewish community wouldn't be because they were Jewish, but because other people who ARE Jewish were complaining about insults to Jews.

FACT:

"Having served in a Jewish community in Latin America that always welcomed cooperation with international and American Jewish organizations, I understand the urge to help a community," said Dina Siegel Vann, director of the AJCommittee's Institute on Latino and Latin American Affairs and a former political adviser to the Mexican Jewish community leadership. "But it has to be tempered by the realization that many times, those organizations do not have the full picture of the local dynamics. And the basic courtesy is to call the local Jewish community and ask what they can do to help."

http://www.forward.com/articles/7189

Sorry. It isn't that easy. I suggest, as I mentioned, some consciousness-raising.

It's interesting that a thread about the use of semantics to avoid dealing with the ugly realities of the Israeli occupation gets turned into a discussion where inaccurate claims are made about what "THIS PERSON" said. It appears that Fisk's title, "Telling It Like It Isn't," was all too apropos.

[Colorado Blue]

70. Objecting to provocative verbiage = Republicanism?

I think it is BIZARRE and it's reflective of conspiracy theory thinking, that objections to provocative verbiage in a speech can be regarded as some sort of process by which to advance President Bush's policies.

Hello?

[Wordie]

75. And I think its BIZARRE that you are reacting to things I never said. eom

[Colorado Blue]

37. Indeed. One could say the same of those who insist that

"Zionism is racist".

[Coastie for Truth]

39. Back in 1970 - as the ripples of Brown v Board of Education

were rippling through the ethnic enclaves of the Rust Belt - I attended an ACLU meeting where;

Thomas Kerr, Esquire (National ACLU and NAACP Board Member),
Byrd Brown, Esquire (President of the Local NAACP),
Molly Yard (NOW Founder), and
Monsignor Charles Owens Rice (Priest, Holy Rosary RC Church, Board member, ACLU and NAACP)

made it very clear that RACISM IS IN THE EYES, EARS AND PERCEPTION OF THE TARGET.

[Wordie]

44. The entire point of Fisk's article was the re-definition of words

to suit Israeli government purposes (such re-definition being aided and abetted by hyper-pro-Israeli writers here). He focused on how substitute words are being used that sanitize the true meaning of events, and hence obscure the actual facts of a situation. You seem to have done just the opposite with this unsupportable claim of racism, yet you no less prove the point of the article. I find your response quite ironic.

AND it is quite interesting how you and the other pro-Israel posters on this board now appear to be claiming to "own" the word "racism," to be defined any way that suits your purposes. "Racism" is now to be defined only by your own subjective response, and any outside attempt at bringing objectivity to the discussion is to be promptly de-legitimized. Yet let the word "apartheid" be used, and there is a paroxysm of indignant and outraged objection from the very same posters! Has Israel now occupied the dictionary too?

Why the double standard?

And don't say that I am an "Israel-hater" because I object so strenuously to such nonsense. My beliefs are not unlike many of those on the Israeli left. If I speak out strongly it is primarily a push-back against those who go way too far to support the far right in Israel, and present an unreal air-brushed picture of Israeli perfection in order to make a case for the loss of Palestinian lands.

[Colorado Blue]

62. Please see post #61.

[Jim Sagle]

29. Robert Fisk: Telling it like it isn't .

Well, at least he's up front about it.

[Colorado Blue]

61. Indeed. Speaking of word twisting...

http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief2-5.htm

Durban's Troubling Legacy One Year Later:
Twisting the Cause of International Human Rights Against the Jewish People
Irwin Cotler


The World Conference Against Racism in Durban was originally planned as a platform to focus on the world's underrepresented human rights causes. Yet what was supposed to be a conference against racism turned into a conference of racism against Israel and the Jewish people.





Prelude to the Durban Conference
The Durban World Conference Against Racism (August 31-September 7, 2001) tells us something not only about the position and status of Israel and the Jewish people in the world of human rights, but also about the world of human rights inhabited by Israel. It not only tells us something about the relationship of Israel to the Middle East, but also about the understanding of the Middle East in relationship to Israel. Yet, in fact, if September 11 overshadowed Durban and the World Conference Against Racism, Durban foreshadowed September 11.

When the World Conference Against Racism was first proposed in 1997, I was among those who greeted it with anticipation, if not excitement. This was going to be the first international conference on human rights writ large in the twenty-first century. Anti-racism was finally going to be a priority on the human rights agenda. The conference, to take place in Durban, South Africa, was going to commemorate as well the dismantling of South Africa as an apartheid state. It was going to give expression and a platform to the underrepresented human rights causes that would finally be given a profile at the conference.

Yet what was supposed to be a conference against racism turned into a conference of racism against Israel and the Jewish people. A conference to commemorate the dismantling of South Africa as an apartheid state called for the dismantling of Israel as an apartheid state. A conference that was supposed to be dedicated to the protection and promotion of human rights increasingly spoke about Israel as being a meta-violator of human rights and as the new anti-Christ of our time.

How did this happen? Where did it begin? What does it mean?

snip