Moment of truth for leftists

[shira]

Moment of truth for leftists
Op-ed: Following attack, leftists must decide whether they're 'useful idiots' or anti-Semites
Assaf Wohl
Published: 03.12.11, 23:39 / Israel Opinion

Hello there, global leftist:

Almost every day, Israel's citizens are told of more displays of hostility by you against us. Often we are informed of various boycotts imposed on Israeli goods, the cancellation of cultural events in Israel, and even attempts to boycott Israeli academia.

This past week I watched Pink Floyd's Roger Waters urging a boycott on Israel. His arguments included an embarrassing combination of charges, including the finest lies taken from al-Jazeera's propaganda. The most prominent argument was Israel's portrayal as a racist "apartheid state" that sets up a wall separating Arabs and Jews.

Now, listen to what happened Saturday. One or more terrorists infiltrated the community of Itamar, which is located beyond the protective fence. They butchered five family members with knives, including an 11-year-old child, a four-year-old boy, and a three-months-old baby girl.

Gaza residents celebrated the massacre, so this is not a case of individual madness. These are the same Palestinians who celebrated the death of thousands at the Twin Towers. These are the same people who are standing at the squares of Tehran, Damascus, Beirut and even Istanbul, screaming "Death to Israel." As it turns out, "Israel" can also be a baby.

more...
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4041263,00.html

[azurnoir]

1. a word from one of victims brother

Motti Fogel, brother of Udi Fogel, eulogized his younger brother but warned that his death cannot be used as a tool in a national struggle.

"All of the slogans we hear are trying to efface the simple fact that you're dead, and nothing can efface that. This funeral has to be a private affair," Fogel said, adding: "A man dies to himself, to his children. Udi, you are no a national event. You're horrible death mustn't make your life into a tool."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/protester...


perhaps Mr Wohl would be inclined to listen, but it appears not

[inademv]

2. I'm quite insulted

by this black or white characterization. I don't support Israel as a Zionist theocracy, which it most certainally is, but I do not consider myself an anti-Semite by any measure. I also think that if they receive funding from the US government they damn well better behave in a civilized way and stop trying to keep Gaza on the edge of economic collapse.

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. This is a terrible thing

which would not have happened if the illegal settlement of Itamar had not been built.

[LeftishBrit]

5. Nothing, however wrong or illegal, can excuse such an act.

Ever.

[RaleighNCDUer]

100. Of course nothing excuses it.

The fact is, however, that if Israel (or the conservative expansionist parties there) was not trying to annex the West Bank, that settlement, that family, those babies would not have been there to be a target for madmen.

It need never have happened.

[LeftishBrit]

4. Any genuine points of this article are invalidated by the last paragraph:

'By the way, guess what the next target for extermination is? You really don't know? Go ahead and look in the mirror. In Brussels, Paris, London and Malmo you shall soon be an extinct species fighting for its survival under Islamic laws...'

This is extremist rubbish. I don't know whether the author is implying that Islamist armies are about to invade Europe, or that the Muslim immigrants in our countries are a force of treacherous evil, who will 'take over'. I suspect the latter. If so, it is exactly like the attitude of antisemites through the ages, who treated and in many places still treat Jews as 'enemies within', suspect in their loyalties, controlling the government and media of countries that 'harbour' them. Xenophobic 'culture wars' are always a danger to minority groups (by the way, Muslims constitute only 3 per cent of the British population) and a morally corrupting influence on the wider society. (And in case you are wondering, I am a strong secularist who strongly opposes any pandering to either the Christian or Muslim Right in British laws and institutions; this still does not mean treating Muslims - or Christians or any group - as an enemy.)

Moreover, anti-Zionism and indeed antisemitism are not specific to the left! The implication of such articles is 'If you are left-wing, you must be anti-Israel' - which like all such statements risks being self-fulfilling.

I am against boycotts of Israel, and especially academic boycotts - but most proposed boycotts have come from noisy minorities and have been rejected or come to nothing.

And of course the murder of children is vile and inexcusable.

[shira]

12. Genuine points remain genuine despite the stupidity of the last paragraph. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

13. That's not what you say when it comes to articles containing any antisemitism n/t

[LeftishBrit]

80. I disagree

You have often drawn the distinction between 'criticism' and 'demonization' of Israel. This last paragraph (and a few other things in the article) turn the article from 'criticism' to 'demonization' of Islam.

[shira]

97. Good point. n/t

[Name removed]

6. 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.

[shira]

10. Almost all Israeli Jews serve in the IDF in one way or another.

What do you think you know that they don't know?

Even Israel's politicians all have friends and family in the IDF. But you think they're all heartless warmongering animals.

[Violet_Crumble]

11. You don't know what yr talking about. A lot of Israelis aren't Jews...

I don't know why you continue to pretend that Israelis = Jews. Around 25% of the Israeli population isn't Jewish....

[Ken Burch]

15. And a growing number of Jews, around the world no longer support Israel

or at least don't support it blindly, as you do from your settlement on the West Bank of the Charles.

[shira]

19. Some 99% of Jews worldwide are Zionists, Ken. What do you know that they don't? n/t

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[shira]

27. I oppose the settlements and occupation and you call me pro-oppression? n/t

[Ken Burch]

34. You go along with all the attacks on people who oppose the settlements

And I've read many, many posts where you defended the Occupation and pretended that the whole issue was about nothing but the "Palestinian leadership", as if the Palestinians had no legitimate reasons to oppose the Occupation.

[shira]

37. I'd love for the occupation and settlements to end immediately but I'm not willing to see Israel...

...commit suicide in order for that to happen.

I was for Barak's 2000 proposal, Olmert's in 2008, and I'm for the Geneva Initiative.

How about yourself?

[Ken Burch]

42. See? You just defended the Occupation.

You don't get it that perpetuating the Occupation doesn't HELP Israel stay secure.

[shira]

44. Unbelievable. n/t

[Ken Burch]

46. You also just admitted that you don't have a case against what I just said.

The Occupation DOESN'T protect Israel, and you just defended it.

There's no difference between saying "I support the Occupation" and saying "I'm against the Occupation, BUT..."

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[Shaktimaan]

64. How can you be so certain about that?

would you have said the same about the occupation in Gaza? I think there's little question that Israel's security deteriorated following the 2005 pull-out. Just ask the citizens of Sderot.

I disagree with your premise as well. One can dislike the occupation while still recognizing its function. I certainly don't like the occupation but I absolutely see that it plays a critical role in Israel's security. Should Israel's military pull out entirely then it would not just be Sderot in range of Qassam rockets, but places like Ben Gurion airport. How does preventing that scenario not impact Israel's security?

[Ken Burch]

69. Things got worse after the Gaza pullout because Sharon's government

went about it in a deliberately arrogant and inflammatory way. It chose to do so unilaterally, refusing to even liase to any serious degree with the PA, and Sharon often implied that Gaza would be ALL Palestinians were going to get for a state.

If Sharon had treated the PA with respect and as an equal entity during this disengagement, I truly believe the story would have been different. But the Likudnik/early Kadimite attitude towards the Palestinians, both leadership and rank-and-file civilian, during that was basically SCREW YOU, BUDDY. If you provoke people, you're not going to get them to send you love notes.

[Shaktimaan]

101. Great answer.

I think you illustrate an important point here. Which is that no matter what concessions Israel makes, if the result is increased violence people will always find a reason to shift the blame on to them. In this case Sharon made a major (and irreversible), contribution to the two state solution. He openly defied the settler faction, pushed through an action that had a tremendous political, social and monetary cost to his country and provided the Palestinians with a historic opportunity to prove to Israel, themselves and the entire world that they were capable of building a peaceful society alongside Israel. The fact that they fulfilled the worst predictions of Israel's hard right politicians is an unfortunate but undeniable truth.

Your post actually reinforces the argument I was making. You are essentially saying that unless the Palestinians demands are met in full, without any compromise that could give one of its myriad violent factions reason to reject peace, there is a good chance that any concession will be for naught. Not only that, but any violent Palestinian reaction will be seen as justified and excused by many. The fact is there will ALWAYS be a reason for disgruntled Palestinians to attack Israel, no matter how sweet the deal offered. In this case Israel gave over all of Gaza, at great expense. The infrastructure was left intact, complete with greenhouses; investments and aid offered from the west; they had a real opportunity. No one promised it would be perfect. How could they? But to say that they failed because Israel was not polite enough... that they didn't offer enough respect, that their rhetoric could be inflammatory... that is truly the height of scapegoating. If the Palestinians are unable to mitigate political speedbumps as miniscule as those without instigating a war they have no hope of winning, before their nascent state is even fully formed, at the expense of their entire national dream, then they have no hope of truly governing themselves regardless of what Israel does.

And the truth is that Israel DID work with the PA! Let me ask you something... had Sharon somehow been more accommodating to the PA, what significant differences would you have expected to see in the withdrawal? What else could the PA have possibly wanted from it?

If Sharon had treated the PA with respect and as an equal entity during this disengagement, I truly believe the story would have been different.

Really? No, REALLY?! Good Lord why?!

You think Hamas made good on the rhetoric they have been championing since their inception; that they continued a policy that they have forever followed, because Israel didn't give the PA enough respect? Hamas doesn't even like the PA. They started murdering them in the streets the first chance they got! They reject the entire concept of Israel's existence on historic Palestine and have made clear their agenda of ridding Palestine of the Zionists. This isn't about Israel not giving them enough land or not giving it fast enough or not involving them in the political process enough. It's about Israel being there at all.

And here we get to the real nut. If Hamas' (or any future major militant Palestinian political group's) goals hinge on a rejection of the two state solution then the scenario I described is virtually guaranteed. If Israel gave back the entire West Bank tomorrow there is a good chance that we would see a repeat of what happened in Gaza.

You said that the occupation doesn't help Israel's security. But the truth is that you have no idea what would happen in its absence. There is certainly no reason for you to think that peace would break out because of it. For decades everyone demanded a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the OPT. So Israel tried it. But no... that one was TOO unilateral. Of COURSE it resulted in terrorism, Gawd! But the next one is SURE to guarantee peace, right? Thus far any and all of Israel's attempts at concessions have increased violence. And your post implies that the blame for it will consistently be placed on Israel, regardless of the circumstances.

[Ken Burch]

102. Palestinians couldn't have built anything that mattered in just Gaza alone

by itself, Gaza is worthless.

I don't condone much of anything Hamas has done, and never have. Saying that Israel would need to negotiate with them once they won the elections is not the same at all as saying that Hamas is right.

[Shaktimaan]

103. so...

you don't think that the Palestinians ever could have made Gaza into a peaceful, competent model of Palestinian governance? Why not? And why is it worthless? If that's the case then why even bother pushing for withdrawal?

It didn't have to be switzerland you know. It just had to refrain from expending all its energy and resources on attacking Israel, build its economy and infrastructure, etc. The settlements there were doing just fine. There's no reason Gaza was doomed to fail.

Palestinians couldn't have built anything that mattered in just Gaza alone

So wrong. They could have shown Israel that the Palestinians were capable of governing without making the destruction of Israel a keystone in their platform. They could have proven the Israeli left correct instead of the hardline right. They could have supported the land for peace concept, instead of effectively killing it for the time being.

How can you honestly look at the mess they made of Gaza and still assume that a withdrawal in the WB would be a success? Or that the occupation plays no role in Israel's security?

Saying that Israel would need to negotiate with them once they won the elections is not the same at all as saying that Hamas is right.

Well, Israel only should have negotiated with them in the event that Hamas agreed to abide by the treaties set up previously. Instead Hamas began attacking Israel as soon as they were out of Gaza. Far, far before they won the election. Israel is under no obligation to work to support a government actively committed to destroying it. The election is irrelevant. Hamas still has to abide by the agreements that brought about the concessions, including refraining from firing rockets at Israeli towns.

[Ken Burch]

104. The Palestinians never pushed for Gaza withdrawal BY itself.

That was Sharon's arrogant idea. Then again, it was ol' Arik who invented the settlement idea in the early 70's. There should never have been such settlements.

(The question of allowing the return of the indigenous Jewish communities would have been far easier to pursue without the settlements, and had a greater liklihood of being accepted. Or, at the bare minimum, if the Israeli government HAD to have settlements, they should ONLY have been open to those whose families had been forced out in the 1948-67 period.)

[Shaktimaan]

108. They certainly accepted it.

Phasing in sovereignty was a key element of both the roadmap and the oslo accords. And blaming the Palestinians' inability to refrain from terrorism on the premise that they didn't receive enough land is nonsensical.

(The question of allowing the return of the indigenous Jewish communities would have been far easier to pursue without the settlements, and had a greater liklihood of being accepted.

What are you basing this theory on?

Or, at the bare minimum, if the Israeli government HAD to have settlements, they should ONLY have been open to those whose families had been forced out in the 1948-67 period.)

You say that as if we should discount the fact that sharon closed down all of the Gazan settlements. Whatever your view on the settlements is you have to admit that they do exist, and have to be considered a part of negotiations. What sharon did in gaza was a substantial concession. One that Israel has paid a much steeper than expected price for... terrorism increased as a result. And you wonder why the Israeli peace movement is in shambles?

I'm curious. Back in 2005, did you support the decision to withdraw from gaza? Or did you reject it as part of an "all or nothing" approach?

[azurnoir]

51. of course your for Olmert's proposal could that be because it still would not have happened under

its caveats?

[Violet_Crumble]

62. Please explain what you mean when you talk about Israel committing suicide...

Sorry, but that's such a weird thing to add as a BUT after claiming you oppose the occupation and I'd like you to clarify what you mean by it. How does a state 'commit suicide'? It comes across as more than a bit hyperbolic...

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Being a Zionist doesn't mean one has to blindly support Israel...

Blindly supporting Israel is as screwed up as blindly supporting the US, no matter what it does...

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

28. It's a good thing there are, coz that belief is heading down the path to fascism, imo...

Discouraging people from questioning or criticising authority is a sign of fascism, and should be rejected by everyone...

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

30. I'm still waiting patiently for you to explain what the difference is n/t

[shira]

31. When you believe Goldstone WRT Gaza, or that the IDF murdered peace activists on the Marmara...

...or that there was a massacre in Jenin, then there's no amount of fact or logic that can be used to convince you that your criticism is OTT demonization.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. I've asked you to give examples of what is acceptable criticism...

I'll repeat what I've already asked...

It's just that I see just about every criticism labelled as exaggeration, hyperbole and lies, so I'd be really interested to see what you consider to be acceptable criticisms of the IDF. I don't want you to give me names of people you think give acceptable criticism, I want you to list what sort of things you find to be acceptable (eg the IDF treats Palestinians differently than Israelis in the West Bank)...

[shira]

36. Not worth my time. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

38. I thought you'd refuse to do it seeing as how you find all criticism to be demonisation...

Pathetic...

[shira]

When B'tselem, Breaking the Silence, and Rabbis for HR's think Goldstone is full of shit...

...and you pretend his criticism is credible, where else is there to go with this?

[Violet_Crumble]

43. Try to stay focused and don't change the subject...

You were asked to give examples of what you consider to be acceptable criticism of the IDF. You refused to do so. There's no reason for anyone who actually believes there is acceptable criticism of the IDF to refuse to give even one example, so you've made it very clear that you indeed do consider any and all criticism of the IDF to be demonisation. I find that sort of attitude totally unacceptable as it's the same as that of conservatives who insist that any criticism of the US military is an attack on the American people. That sort of level of discouragement of questioning or criticising authority is going down the path of fascism and every DUer should be opposed to it.

[Ken Burch]

59. Nothing in your links

demonstrated that the OFFICIAL position of B'tselem, Breaking the Silence, and Rabbis for Human Rights was that "Goldstone is full of shit". All that they showed was that some individuals within the Israeli Left criticized the report's findings. Had it not occurred to you that perhaps those individuals spoke as they did because they were afraid of being demonized within Israeli politics if they took an explicitly pro-Goldstone position? It's comparable to the American Civil Liberties Union, during the depths of the Red Scare, betraying its historic support of civil liberties by forcing Communists out of the ACLU. Or of liberal politicians in the U.S. in the last two decades disgracing themselves by supporting the death penalty because "we can't get elected to to any of the good things" if they didn't agree to be pro-murder.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ken Burch]

33. Are you really saying that a fair-minded person HAS to reject Goldstone's findings?

Goldstone is just as loyal a Zionist as you are, shira. What was he supposed to do, just STOP the investigation when the Israeli government refused to cooperate?

And there were peace activists who were murdered on the Marmara. You can't really describe ALL of the victims as terrorists, or even most. You don't know for sure if ANY of them were. It's not like the soldiers were going to admit it if they killed innocent people. Few soldier anywhere ever do.

[shira]

35. Yes. Not even the heads of B'tselem, Breaking the Silence, Rabbis for HR's...

...buy into the report's conclusions.

The Marmara activists killed told or wrote to their families that they were going to fight and become martyrs. There's even a video of them on the ship, before reaching Gaza, singing songs about killing Jews.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. You've been corrected on yr false claims before...

Apparently while it's not worth yr time to give even one example of what you consider to be acceptable criticism of the IDF, it's well worth yr while to keep on repeating the same rubbish you've been repeatedly corrected on in the past.

[shira]

41. For anyone interested in facts WRT Israel's Left and their view of Goldstone

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=295131&mesg_id=295299

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=295131&mesg_id=295179

[Violet_Crumble]

45. We've talked about yr confusion between facts and opinion before...

If people want to see rather silly opinion, I'd encourage them to click on any of the multitude of links to yr own posts you pepper this forum with. If people want to see factual stuff, I'd strongly encourage them to go and do their own research...

Now, back on track again. Can you explain how it can be that you find any and all criticism of the IDF to be demonisation? And don't try saying you do think there's such a thing as acceptable criticism, as you've refused to give even one example of it and I can't remember seeing you do anything but label any criticism of the IDF posted in this forum as being demonisation. See, if you think all criticism of the IDF is demonisation, then why wouldn't you feel the same about criticism of other militaries? And if you do feel that Israel is different, then that's just holding Israel to a different standard than anyone else, and that's totally unacceptable imo...

[shira]

50. You've proven my point once again, as those links prove exactly what I claimed...

...and yet you continue to pretend demonization of Israel and the IDF WRT the Gaza war is legit criticism.

As I wrote, this is a waste of time.

======

You asked for one example....

The cluster bombs left in Lebanon is legitimate criticism IMO.

[Violet_Crumble]

52. No, I proved you can't tell the difference between fact and opinion.,

And that you have an annoying habit of claiming that things you post support what you say when they don't at all...

Seeing as how you refused to explain what you consider to be the difference between demonisation of the IDF and acceptable criticism, I'll give you another chance to give even one example of what you consider to be acceptable criticism of the IDF. That way when you talk about demonisation and legit criticism, there's a baseline to work off and I'll have some idea what yr talking about...

You keep on writing about it all being a waste of time (apparently falsely accusing other DUers of demonising isn't a waste of yr time), so how about you stop wasting everyone's time and give just one example of something you consider to be acceptable criticism of the IDF? See, I'm pretty sure everyone else in this forum could easily do that, so I'm wondering why yr so resistant to it...

[shira]

54. You haven't proven anything.

I gave an example in my last post - cluster bombs left in Lebanon - as an example of legit criticism of the IDF.

Another example is IDF inaction during Sabra/Shatilla.

====

Meanwhile, you were provided evidence that Israel's Left thinks Goldstone's report is a piece of shit. Yet you pretend it's credible criticism.

[Ken Burch]

57. No...your "evidence" showed that a handful of people within Israel's Left

had some criticisms of the findings. Your link does NOT show that "Israel's Left" as a unified bloc, rejects Goldstone.

[Violet_Crumble]

61. You claimed earlier I had proven something. I wish you'd make yr mind up!

And going back and editing something into yr post at a later point while I'm replying to what you'd originally posted is a recipe for not having something noticed. Ijust want to make it very clear to anyone reading that you had NOT given even one example in the original post that I replied to.

So if I go back and have a search for any discussion about cluster bombs in Lebanon or Sabra/Shatilla, you'll be there alongside everyone else criticising the IDF? I'm kind of suspecting I won't find anything of the sort, will I?

You didn't provide any evidence of anything you claim. You've posted links to you posting links claiming they're proving or saying something they're not. I can go through it very slowly with you and explain it all very carefully if you want. I've got all day! :)

On edit: Just adding a question now that you listed two examples of what you claim you'd consider to be legitimate criticism of the IDF. What exactly is it about each of those two that makes it acceptable criticism to you? For example, is it acceptable to you to criticise the IDF for inaction at Sabra/Shatilla because it's possible to point out that while they didn't do anything to stop the atrocity, it wasn't the IDF who carried it out? And a question about cluster bombs. Do you think the IDF can be legitimately criticised for laying ordinance in the Occupied Territories and just leaving them there for small Palestinian children to walk on and get blown to bits? Or is it because it's cluster bombs in Lebanon that makes it different?

[shira]

75. Yeah, you proved me correct. Now when you're willing to make this a 2-way conversation...

...rather than a one-way interrogation, please let me know and we'll continue.

[Violet_Crumble]

76. You said I didn't prove anything. Remember?

You appear to have yet again totally ignored a question you were asked. Here's my questions again. They're not too difficult and anyone who's interested in a genuine and civil discussion would have no reluctance in answering it. Give it a whirl :)

'Just adding a question now that you listed two examples of what you claim you'd consider to be legitimate criticism of the IDF. What exactly is it about each of those two that makes it acceptable criticism to you? For example, is it acceptable to you to criticise the IDF for inaction at Sabra/Shatilla because it's possible to point out that while they didn't do anything to stop the atrocity, it wasn't the IDF who carried it out? And a question about cluster bombs. Do you think the IDF can be legitimately criticised for laying ordinance in the Occupied Territories and just leaving them there for small Palestinian children to walk on and get blown to bits? Or is it because it's cluster bombs in Lebanon that makes it different?'

[Ken Burch]

56. Those links represented the views of individuals within those groups

They were not the OFFICIAL position of those groups.

[shira]

74. Yeah, the leaders of those groups, who didn't have to publicize their opinions Ken.

The fact is they did publicize their opinions and they believe the unrepentant apartheid Judge is full of shit.

[Ken Burch]

77. Goldstone was anti-apartheid

It was people like Begin and Shamir who made deals with the Afrikaner devil, not Goldstone. And the Israeli government could just have cooperated with him if they wanted more of their position to be reflected in the report.

Basically, your opposition to Goldstone is based on the fact that he didn't just take Livni and Olmert's word for it on everything.

[shira]

78. Goldstone hung and lashed many blacks, so he was not anti-apartheid.

I suspect you'd never find a Zionist Judge who did that against Palestinians who you'd label pro-Palestinian.

[Ken Burch]

79. Begin and Shamir sold WEAPONRY to the apartheid state

they helped keep it power. That's far worse than anything Goldstone may have done.

And these words from Judge Goldstone's Wikipedia entry prove that he was no defender of apartheid:

"He(Goldstone) was one of several liberal judges who issued key rulings that undermined apartheid from within the system by tempering the worst effects of the country's racial laws. Among other important rulings, Goldstone made the Group Areas Act – under which non-whites were banned from living in "whites only" areas – virtually unworkable by restricting evictions. As a result, prosecutions under the act virtually ceased.

During the transition from apartheid to multiracial democracy in the early 1990s, he headed the influential Goldstone Commission investigations into political violence in South Africa between 1991 and 1994. Goldstone's work enabled multi-party negotiations to remain on course despite repeated outbreaks of violence, and his willingness to criticise all sides led to him being dubbed "perhaps the most trusted man, certainly the most trusted member of the white establishment" in South Africa.<1> He was credited with playing an indispensable role in the transition and became a household name in South Africa, attracting widespread international support and interest."

Thus, the "Goldstone was pro-apartheid" smear is discredited.

[shira]

81. Okay, so Goldstone hanging and whipping blacks makes him as anti-apartheid as a Zionist Judge...

....whipping and hanging Palestinians and being labeled "pro-Palestinian".

:eyes:

Like Goldstone, I'm sure you'd happily excuse the Zionist Judge for just following orders and trying to REALLY, REALLY change the system from within.

[Ken Burch]

82. Goldstone didn't order executions, for god's sake

I'm not sure he's even responsible for any being upheld. Goldstone is universally regarded as of of the people who ended apartheid-unlike Begin and Shamir(and at times that lovable arms merchant Shimon Peres)who helped keep the Afrikaner regime in power.

[shira]

83. He did and there's a report on it that he himself confirmed...

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3885999,00.html

Read it all.

There's no defense for Goldstone.

[Ken Burch]

84. What matters is that Goldstone worked to end apartheid

You would probably give De Klerk credit for helping end apartheid...even though, as head of the apartheid state, he was clearly responsible for the arrest, torture and death of hundreds if not thousands of opponents of apartheid.

Goldstone helped PREVENT the deaths of many, many, many Black, Coloured, and Asian(to use the apartheid system's own terminology)people by helping to bring that system to an end. That is what is imporant...not what happened in the Transvaal.

He cannot be called a defender of apartheid.

Would you call Winston Churchill a supporter of Stalinism because he sent hundreds of thousands of Eastern European refugees back to their home countries, when he KNEW those people would be murdered by Stalin and his henchmen, at the end of World War II?

There was no reason for the Israeli government to refuse to cooperate with Goldstone. And it was absurd for them and YOU to have expected him to stop the investigation just because the Israeli government refused to cooperate. If you followed that logic in the criminal justice system, every suspect would gain their release simply by refusing to talk to the police, even if she or he was sitting in the interrogation room covered with the blood of her or his victims.

[shira]

85. Goldstone never apologized for his role. He's just an opportunist...

...who knew when to switch sides and pretend he was anti-apartheid all along.

Ken, if he was truly anti-apartheid and a true mensch, he wouldn't have tried weaseling out of the accusations with his "following orders" defense.

He can't admit he was wrong.

He's unapologetic.

[Ken Burch]

87. He WAS anti-apartheid all along

Ask Mandela and Tutu.

[shira]

90. Yes of course, while he was ordering the hanging and whipping of blacks. n/t

[Ken Burch]

93. You can't just keep repeating that phrase

n/t.

[Ken Burch]

88. Shamir and Begin never apologized for selling weaponry to the regime

That is FAR WORSE than anything Goldstone ever did. You would agree that they SHOULD have apologized for ever having anything to do with the apartheid regime, right?

[shira]

91. Do you believe Goldstone should apologize profusely for his role in hanging/whipping blacks? n/t

[Ken Burch]

92. I believe anyone who takes part in the death penalty should apologize for it

but that doesn't discredit him as an anti-apartheid figure.

The Israeli government should apologize for helping arm the Afrikaner Reich.

[Violet_Crumble]

94. How dare you take this off-message like that, Ken!!

Why, it'd serve you right if yr question was totally ignored in favour of spitting out another 'question' designed to persuade the world how utterly evil Goldstone is!! ;)

[Ken Burch]

96. It sure would. What was I thinking?

:yourock:

BTW, if Goldstone's report had VINDICATED the Israeli government, shira would say that it didn't matter what he did in the Transvaal.

[Ken Burch]

86. I acknowledge that he did what he did in the Transvaal

But his work in ending the apartheid system more than outweighed that. Thousands of South Africans are alive today BECAUSE of the rulings issued by Judge Goldstone and the role they played in ending apartheid. This is why Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Tutu would never agree with your despicable characterization of the man.

[Ken Burch]

39. I DON'T demonize.

I make specific criticisms of government policies, making clear all the while that those policies are the responsibility of the government of the day, and NOT an indictment of ALL Israelis. And that, I suspect, is what really angers you about me: the fact that my position is clearly anti-demonization and draws a clear line between the Israeli people and the Israeli government, and between Zionism and Judaism. Those lines are crucial to avoid the political and moral degeneration of Zionism.

See, I'm NOT anti-Zionist. I support the only form of a two-state solution that can possibly be viable(one in which the Palestinians get all the West Bank and the Israeli government foreswears any right to shut off the water supply or blockade the Palestinian economy, and in which that government agrees never again to station IDF troops IN the West Bank(you do know that, under his current "security concept", Bibi wants IDF troops kept in parts of a Palestinian state for the indefinite future, aren't you? I assume you would agree that that is unacceptable). In exchange for this, I'd expect the Palestinians to cease hostilities. This would be a fair trade.

There'd need to be at least a symbolic right-of-return, plus compensation and apologies for those not allowed to return(there would, in my view, need to be a recriprocal agreement for any survivors of the indigenous West Bank Jewish population forced out during the conflict as well).

This is a moderate proposal that would guarantee Israel's security.

And yet, if I've understood your line of argument correctly, you've insisted that the Palestinians MUST settle for far less than that, for a large chunk of the settlements being kept in place, and I don't even know if you'd reject the Israeli government demands to control the water supply and be able to shut down the Palestinian economic structure at will. Whether you realize it or not, you, yourself, are still massively invested in "peace through victory" and still, from what I can read, believe in the delusional notion that it would be possible to use force to improve the Palestinian leadership for the better.

[shira]

48. Then why do you claim Gaza was carpet bombed and flattened?

I'm for Israel giving all that you mentioned, if that results in real peace.

But it won't, as neither the PLO or Hamas (not to mention Syria, Iran, etc) will become Zionists and agree that a Jewish State should exist in peace.

Israel conceding all the above would result in far more bloodshed than what transpired as a result of the Lebanon 2000 and Gaza 2005 pullouts.

======

Your proposal is a call for more war and bloodshed.

[Ken Burch]

49. Gaza was severerely damaged

If carpet-bombing wasn't the technical term, there still was massive damage, and far out of proportion to the small number of casualties caused by the rockets.

[Violet_Crumble]

53. Using the wrong technical term is demonisation!!!

I'm starting to get this now. It's really entertaining!

[Ken Burch]

55. They're going to hammer me on that one even though it's hairsplitting.

n/t.

[shira]

58. Odd that I never find you exaggerating Palestinian actions, resorting to hyperbole... n/t

[Ken Burch]

60. I didn't exaggerate

Gaza was heavily bombed, and it doesn't matter what term you used for that.

I don't defend violent Palestinian actions and you know it, btw. It's just that I don't choose to give up my humanity by arguing that the actions of some Palestinians justify collective punishment against all of them.

[shira]

73. Gaza being carpet-bombed and flattened is not exaggeration or hyperbole?

Also, Israel doesn't practice collective punishment when defending its citizens from Hamas attacks.

[Shaktimaan]

65. Was it that far out of proportion?

What are you basing that on?

Casualties caused by the rockets are one thing. But the point of CL was to get the attacks to stop. Saying that those attacks were ok to continue because they only caused minimal Israeli deaths is not really an acceptable POV.

[Ken Burch]

68. I wasn't saying the attacks should've been allowed to continue

But bombing Gaza wasn't the ONLY way to make them stop(and, in case you hadn't noticed, it actually DIDN'T make them stop). Negotiating with Hamas would've at least had a chance of stopping them.

And it is inherently disproportionate to kill 1400 people on the other side because of 10 deaths on your side. No matter whose side YOUR side is.

[Douglas Carpenter]

121. actually about 28% of American Jews consider themselves Zionist

Although when asked if they support Israel it is considerably higher - about 82%. Although the survey does not define to what degree they support Israel.

This from the Jerusalem Post:

In a working paper entitled “Identity, Assimilation, Continuity” prepared for the participants of the conference of the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI) in Jerusalem, professors Sergio Della Pergola and Chaim Waxman placed less emphasis on the general support American Jews express for Israel (82%), and more on the fact that only 28% of American Jews define themselves as “Zionists.” The rate of “Zionism” among American Jews drops the younger they get, just like many other aspects related to one’s connection with Israel. For older people, the percentages hover around 40%; for those under 35, it is just over 20%. In other words, for the large majority, including those who have a connection with and support Israel, this constitutes long-distance support for a state where Jews live, but not necessarily an acknowledgment that this state is the state for all the Jews. Zionist Israel may have a hard time relinquishing its perceived front seat, but Jewish America won’t settle for playing second fiddle in the Jewish world either.

http://www.jpost.com/Features/InThespotlight/Article.aspx?ID=211520&R=R1

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

20. So what according to you is acceptable criticism of the IDF?

It's just that I see just about every criticism labelled as exaggeration, hyperbole and lies, so I'd be really interested to see what you consider to be acceptable criticisms of the IDF. I don't want you to give me names of people you think give acceptable criticism, I want you to list what sort of things you find to be acceptable (eg the IDF treats Palestinians differently than Israelis in the West Bank)...

[Violet_Crumble]

9. The OP IS hate speech based on ideology. It's emotional blackmail. And it's a lie...

Do you agree with what the OP wrote in their last paragraph? If not, why would you post an article that contained anti-Muslim bigotry such as that?

[Ken Burch]

16. btw, why did you get my post deleted, and then QUOTE it?

doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of getting my post deleted?

[shira]

18. I never alerted on it. I think whatever you personally believe is all fair game. n/t

[Ken Burch]

25. Well, I'm glad you didn't alert on it.

There was nothing in it that was offensive.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[houstonintc]

24. It's not an apartheid in an important factor...

Two groups deeply hate one another and are fairly incapable of any real means of coexistence.

Peace will only be attained through a fairly rigid separation, as the two can not apparently live together.

[Ken Burch]

89. The Palestinians hate the Israelis because they've been persecuted by them

Anyone would have anyone ELSE who kept them under military occupation.

The answer is to get Israel to take the lead in working for reconciliation.

They could start by admitting it was always wrong to invoke the Holocaust in the I/P dispute, given that Palestinians had nothing to do with that.

They could ALSO admit that it was always wrong to imply that Arabs and Arab governments were the successors in villainy to the Nazis. The Arab position towards Israel had nothing in common with Hitler's feelings about the Jews.

[Shaktimaan]

98. But they haven't.

Everyone keeps/has kept the Palestinians under occupation, most to a degree that far outstrips anything Israel has done. The reasons for their hatred of Israel are somewhat more complex than merely, "The Palestinians hate Israel because Israel is oppressing them." And unfortunately they DO have a lot to do with xenophobia and anti-semitic tropes, as well as Arab nationalism and anti-colonialism politics.

They could start by admitting it was always wrong to invoke the Holocaust in the I/P dispute, given that Palestinians had nothing to do with that.

Except that the history of Israel's formation IS inextricably tied to WWII and the Holocaust. It is not unworthy of consideration that one of the few Palestinian political leaders of that time really was firmly allied with Hitler for the express purpose of ridding the Middle East of Jews. He was also instrumental in bringing European-style anti-semitism to the Arab world where it has since taken root and is widely disseminated. This does not mean that the average Palestinian in the late 30's harbored Nazi sympathies. But it does mean that the Palestinians found themselves (and placed themselves), on the wrong side of history.

Realistically, since Israel's War of Independence was a fight for the survival of the state and its inhabitants it doesn't really matter if the Arabs' motivations synced up with Hitler's perfectly. Their goals were strikingly similar, as the Mufti's deal with Hitler (to have a free hand exterminating the Jews of Palestine in exchange for his support), makes plain to see.

They could ALSO admit that it was always wrong to imply that Arabs and Arab governments were the successors in villainy to the Nazis. The Arab position towards Israel had nothing in common with Hitler's feelings about the Jews.

The Jews were/are useful scapegoats for both; neither had/have any legitimate reasons for hating the Jews. That doesn't mean we shouldn't take their threats seriously though. Look at Iran for instance. What legitimate reason could Iran possibly have for the level of outright hatred its leaders express towards Israel? It is merely the latest nation to proselytize the outright destruction of the Jewish state. Nazi-era propaganda and anti-semitic themes transplanted from Europe are commonplace in the Arab world today and are reported on their news and freely repeated by their leaders during UN Assembly speeches. Holocaust denial is being taught in their schools. The Jews' historical and religious connection to the land of Israel is constantly rejected and undermined by revisionist propaganda.

Both freely fantasized about and tried to implement the eradication of the Jews residing on their respective continents. Both engaged in the demonization and persecution of Jews living within their spheres of influence.

Have you ever tried looking at the conflict from the POV of Israel? You often seem unable to see things from this alternate perspective. Given that the Arab world's anti-semitic goals, methodology and ideology so mirror the Nazis' own, is it really so outrageous that Israel invokes that particular verbiage?

[Ken Burch]

99. It is both outrageous and self-defeating for the Israeli government to do so.

If for no other reason than the fact that you can't expect other countries to recognize YOUR country and make peace with it if YOUR country's leaders continually insult and demonize those other countries.

The whole attitude of the Israeli leadership towards the Arab world, since 1948, has been "accept us, you inferior, barbaric brutes".
Can you not see that taking such an arrogant, disdainful tone, for decade after decade, just MIGHT cause a problem?

For one thing, it is unfair to baldly assert that the Arab countries, monolithically, always, from time immemorial, "hated the Jews". They didn't.

Jews in North Africa, the Levant, Persia/Iran and other Muslim areas lived, mainly, in tolerance and in relative prosperity while the Jews of Europe faced almost continual persecution. There was no Arab/Muslim equivalent of the Inquisition OR the Holocaust.

The Jewish population of the Arab/Muslim world, unlike the Jewish population of "Christian Europe", survived the Hitler era unscathed. It would have been perfectly easy for the Meditarreranean countries to put the Mizrahi on death ships to Marseilles. If they really WERE just like the Nazis, wouldn't they have done that in a heartbeat?

Even Iran doesn't prove that Muslim countries hate Jews. Ahmadinejad hasn't opened death camps for the Iranian Jewish community. He hasn't done much of anything to them(other than preventing them to move to Israel, and it isn't clear that they necessarily even wish to do so). Is Iran Utopia for Jews? No...but it isn't Spain in 1492 OR Auschwitz. And it never will be.

It's just not valid to equate Arabs with European-style antisemites.

Finally, as to the Grand Mufti, Haj Amin Al-Husseini(btw, he was the only figure ever to be called the "Grand Mufti" of Palestine, and this pompous title was given to him by the British-all his predecessors were simply "The Mufti")this man had little if any support among the Palestinian Muslim community. He LOST badly in a vote of Palestinian Muslims to choose the new Mufti in the early 1920's, and was imposed in the job, against the wishes of the Palestinian Muslim community, by the British Mandatory governor, Herbert Samuel.
Almost no one in the Palestinian Muslim community supported Hitler in World War II-And Al-Husseini's "Arab Legion" was made up almost entirely of Bosnians and Albanians!. So no, you CAN'T use the Mufti to justify equating Palestinians with Nazis.

I know that the Jewish communities of Europe suffered horribly at the hands of Christians in Europe-and it was THIS suffering, inflicted by Christians, that inspired the creation of the Zionist movement. But this suffering was NOT the doing of Palestinians or other Arabs. Had the Christians of Europe treated the European Jewish communities in the same way Arab countries did, there would have BEEN no Holocaust. So the point stands: It was always unfair to make Palestinian Arabs suffer for the crimes of "Christian Europe". I feel deeply for the Jewish communities of the world-deeply enough to demand that those who actually persecuted them should have the responsibility of making reparation for that suffering-not those who WEREN'T, in the main, responsible for that.

[Shaktimaan]

105. Wow, really?

If for no other reason than the fact that you can't expect other countries to recognize YOUR country and make peace with it if YOUR country's leaders continually insult and demonize those other countries.

Are you honestly comparing the hyperbole of Israel's hard right politicians to the outright vilification that Israel suffers from all corners of the Arab world? There is just no comparison. Not to mention you expect Israel to accept, make peace with and even make themselves vulnerable to a new Palestinian state, despite the truly hateful rhetoric from their leaders.

The whole attitude of the Israeli leadership towards the Arab world, since 1948, has been "accept us, you inferior, barbaric brutes".
Can you not see that taking such an arrogant, disdainful tone, for decade after decade, just MIGHT cause a problem?

Nope. Really, no. Nations make peace when it is in their best interests. The fact that Israeli leaders have compared Arab leaders to the Nazis is not any real impediment to peace. Especially compared to the rhetoric coming from the other side, which amounted to a decades-long call for Israel's destruction. (Along with many attempts.) I find it absolutely incomprehensible that you really think that Arab hatred for Israel can be attributed to Israel's "arrogant, disdainful tone."

For one thing, it is unfair to baldly assert that the Arab countries, monolithically, always, from time immemorial, "hated the Jews". They didn't.

Ah, but that's NOT what I'm saying. I am saying that the level of anti-semitism in the Arab world today is astronomical. I'm saying that classic European anti-semitic memes are rampant in Arab states today. That hatred of Jews and anti-Jewish propaganda, such as Holocaust denial, is being taught to Arab children. Recent articles in Arab newspapers printed that the Jews use the blood of non-Jews to make Matzoh. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a bestseller in the Arab world and has been for years. The most outrageous things about Jews are constantly printed, aired and taught. Almost half of all Egyptians believe that Israel is behind 9/11. During a speech at the UN, a Syrian delegate accused Israel of deliberately infecting hundreds of Palestinian children with HIV.

That the Arabs historically tolerated the Jews better than the Europeans did is immaterial. My point is that an obscene level of anti-semitism exists in Arab countries today, and it does! The ethnic cleansing of the entire Arab world certainly speaks to this fact.

Even Iran doesn't prove that Muslim countries hate Jews. Ahmadinejad hasn't opened death camps for the Iranian Jewish community.

Don't you think you're setting that bar a little low? Does Ahmadinejad really deserve kudos for managing to refrain from genocide?

The fact that Iran's Jews are still "existing" in no way invalidates my argument that his rhetoric is profoundly anti-semitic and that he poses a significant danger to Israel. The man is actively engaged in an effort to destroy Israel and the time may come when he actually poses an existential threat. Iran's 25,000 Jews are the equivalent of a hardcore racist's "black friend."

Is Iran Utopia for Jews? No...but it isn't Spain in 1492 OR Auschwitz. And it never will be.

See, this is what kills me about you... "It never will be?" How can you possibly say something like that? You have NO idea what the future holds. For anyone! No one does! Yet you make these statements with such absolute certainty. "If only Israel had done this then everything would be different. Had Israel merely done that there would be peace right now." You can't know things like that. Besides, I think it's VERY plausible that Iran might have pogroms at some future point.

[Ken Burch]

106. "The fact that Israeli leaders have compared Arab leaders to the Nazis is not any real impediment

to peace"? Did you realize you actually wrote that? Please, I beg you, READ what you wrote over and over a few times and see if it still sounds sane to you.

Look, there is a problem with antisemitic rhetoric in some parts of the Arab world, and it needs to be combatted(btw, Mubarak never even tried to combat it in Egypt, and to my knowledge the Israelis never called him on his neglect of that).

But that isn't part of the question of resolving the I/P issue. If Israelis want different rhetoric and actions from Palestinians, they CAN'T get it by repressing the Palestinians collectively. You can't persecute people into liking you(and let's face it, most of the rhetoric in Arab countries that can be called antisemitic is really about Israelis, not Jews as a collective entity)and you can't make it end by building more settlements.

Arab countries and Arab leaders have made their share of mistakes, but you STILL have it in your head that the conflict is all THEIR fault. It isn't. There is equal or near-equal responsibility on both sides, and accepting that is a crucial part of ending this conflict. It can't be ended by the Israelis screaming "it's all YOUR fault!" over and over and over and over again at the Arab world.

And my point about Arab history stands: the Arab world never had a history of treating Jews as badly as "Christian" Europe has. So it's been wrong, the whole time, to imply that Arabs are the successors to the Nazis. It should have been enough to call them on their own bad choices without implying that they were on a continuum with Hitler(something people like Ben-Gurion and others in the Labor Zionist tradition often did too, so you can't palm it off on the Likudniks).

The Jews had a horrible history of persecution in Europe, and Europe never has really dealt with that. It still needs to. Demanding that they exempt Israel from criticism about what it does in the name of "self-defense" or "security" has nothing to do with redressing that. In some ways, by allowing right-wing European and American politicians(the political descandants of the Euro-Anglo-American politicians who were RABID antisemites and who are, we can assume, still deeply antisemitic in their private and personal beliefs-like George W. Bush and Le Pen)to get their political tradition "off the hook" for allying itself objectively with the Third Reich when it really mattered.

Insisting on the right to proclaim moral asymmetry is insisting on sabotaging any efforts to actually achieve peace. I didn't say Israel had to send bouquets to Arab countries...rather, just that they should speak to them as politely as France spoke to Germany after the early 1950's. Just regular diplomatic civility.

[Shaktimaan]

107. This is getting ridiculous

(and let's face it, most of the rhetoric in Arab countries that can be called antisemitic is really about Israelis, not Jews as a collective entity)

Noooo. It's about Jews. Specifically it is about dehumanizing Jews in the exact same manner that the Nazis did. Using a lot of the exact same propaganda in fact. Your attempts to minimize it suggests a kind of willful blindness. If it's about Israelis then why was the entire Arab world ethnically cleansed of its Jewish inhabitants?

You can't persecute people into liking you

No one is asking anyone to like Israel. You don't have to like someone to refrain from attacking them.

Arab countries and Arab leaders have made their share of mistakes, but you STILL have it in your head that the conflict is all THEIR fault. There is equal or near-equal responsibility on both sides, and accepting that is a crucial part of ending this conflict.

That is because the conflict was started by the Arabs. And then perpetuated since then while Israel was prepared to make peace. There's really no way around that fact, Israel accepted the terms of the partition plan and the Arabs rejected it and then attacked them. Israel has certainly done plenty to exacerbate the conflict since then, primarily with settlements, but there is no question that the responsibility for starting the conflict rests with the Arabs. There is no question that it was then perpetuated by the Arabs in their refusal to make peace after the first war, (exempting Jordan and Egypt, obvs.)

BTW, people call one another Nazis all the time. If you really think that such a thing is an issue preventing peace between arabs and jews then you must have somehow missed all of the actual issues that exist. Basically, if this was a real problem then someone would probably complain about it. The Arabs refer to Israelis as Nazis all the time. It's kind of a minor worry compared to the fact that many of the same people are actively trying to destroy Israel and kill as many Israelis as possible.

Insisting on the right to proclaim moral asymmetry is insisting on sabotaging any efforts to actually achieve peace. I didn't say Israel had to send bouquets to Arab countries...rather, just that they should speak to them as politely as France spoke to Germany after the early 1950's.

You mean AFTER France and Germany were ALREADY at peace, right? For a decade. Explain to me why Israel should take pains to be polite with nations that deny Israel's right to exist, disseminate anti-semitic rhetoric of the most vile kind at every opportunity, and actively participate in terrorism against them?

You do realize how incredibly huge your double standard is, right?

[Violet_Crumble]

109. It is, isn't it?

If it's about Israelis then why was the entire Arab world ethnically cleansed of its Jewish inhabitants?

The entire Arab world wasn't ethnically cleansed of its Jewish inhabitants. It was a mixture of push and pull. While some were forced to leave or had their lives made so miserable they left, others left willingly because they wanted to do the Zionist thing and move to Israel. All this movement happened over decades, btw.

[Shaktimaan]

119. This is true.

And it impossible to know the exact numbers of who left due to Zionist yearnings vs. expulsion or intimidation. Realistically, we do know that almost all Jews who left Arab lands lost everything by doing so. Property, money, etc. They also left a place they had been living for generations. Not something people tend to do lightly.

And the violence and intimidation against Jews during this time (that we know occurred), was intense and widespread.

The fact that so few Jews remain in the entire Muslim world tends to support that there was at least an inhospitable climate created for Jews in these areas.

And as exactly NONE of the Jews who were persecuted were Israeli, my point still stands.

[Douglas Carpenter]

110. it is still outrageous to imagine that the Palestinians would have accepted the Zionist claim

to sovereignty in Palestine - based on a 2000 year-old claim if they thought (albeit incorrectly) that they had the means to effectively resist.

No one would have accepted the usurpation of what they had every natural right to consider their homeland - whether half of it or all of it. It is equally natural that the Arabs of the surrounding countries would react the same as they did when the European crusaders attempted to usurp much of Palestine. The Crusades was certainly not about Arabs fighting Jews!

To say the Arabs started the conflict would require overlooking the reality of how all indigenous people throughout the history of the world have always reacted to colonizing movements that they had very natural right to view as foreign.


No indigenous people anywhere would have accepted such a claim of sovereignty based on the claim that the area was under their sovereignty 2000 years ago. Can the Palestinians have been expected to believe that a group of primarily very secular European Jews had sovereignty rights? If this had been in Alabama or Luxembourg would they have accepted it, based on a 2000 year-old claim?
Would the Israelis accept this today - given that they have the means to prevent it? Of course not!

If Ze'ev Jabotinsky a man who virtually founded the Israeli right --a man unashamed and unapologetic of his racism and advocacy for the use of terror -- if even he could recognize that Zionism was above all a colonizing enterprise and that all indigenous people throughout the history of the world have resisted and would resist as long as they had a gleam of hope an alien usurpation of a land they had every natural right to consider their homeland could be stopped - If even he could recognize that reality way back in 1923 when the Israeli state was still a dream...I would surmise that modern 21st century liberals 60 years after the establishment of the Israeli state should be able by means of natural human empathy to conceive of that too.

" Every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of foreign settlement. This is how the Arabs will behave and go on behaving so long as they possess a gleam of hope that they can prevent Palestine from becoming the Land of Israel".

--Ze'ev Jabotinsky 1923

In a similar vein, he also wrote in 1923:

"The Arabs loved their country as much as the Jews did. Instinctively, they understood Zionist aspirations very well, and their decision to resist them was only natural ..... There was not misunderstanding between Jew and Arab, but a natural conflict. .... No Agreement was possible with the Palestinian Arab; they would accept Zionism only when they found themselves up against an 'iron wall,' when they realize they had no alternative but to accept Jewish settlement." (America And The Founding Of Israel, p. 90)


--------

An back in 1897 following the First Zionist Conference:

" After the Basel Congress the rabbis of Vienna decided to explore Herzl's ideas and sent two representatives to Palestine. The fact-finding mission resulted in a cable from Palestine in which two rabbis wrote, "The bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man."

From page 3, "The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World by Avi Shlaim.

-------------------
David Ben-Gurion as quoted in "The Jewish Paradox" by Nahum Goldmann, former president of the World Jewish Congress:

"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but 2000 years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we came here and stole their country. Why should they accept that?"

The history of Zionism, from the earliest days to the present, is full of manifestations of deep hostility and contempt towards the indigenous population. On the other hand, there have always been brave and outspoken critics of these attitudes. Foremost among them was Ahad Ha’am (Asher Zvi Ginsberg), a liberal Russian Jewish thinker who visited Palestine in 1891 and published a series of articles that were sharply critical of the aggressive behaviour and political ethnocentrism of the Zionist settlers. They believed, wrote Ahad Ha’am, that ‘the only language that the Arabs understand is that of force’. And they ‘behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly upon their boundaries, beat them shamefully without reason and even brag about it, and nobody stands to check this contemptible and dangerous tendency’. Little seems to have changed since Ahad Ha’am wrote these words a century ago. - Avi Shlaim

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v16/n11/avi-shlaim/it-can-be-done

Who Wanted Peace? Who Wanted War? History Refutes Israel's US Image

By Sheldon L. Richman

One is that Israel has been saying yes to peace talks with Arabs decade after decade—as Anwar El-Sadat proved, to Egypt's everlasting gain. Second reality: for all those decades every other Arab nation refused to make peace, refused to talk ....

In fact, it takes an enormous evasion of reality to believe this. Arab leaders have repeatedly tried to make peace. Even Egyptian President Sadat's famous effort in late 1977 was not his first. He made a significant peace overture in 1971 and was rebuffed. But neither was Sadat's earlier offer the first from Egypt. His predecessor, Gamal Abdul Nasser, made "a major effort for a settlement with Israel" in the spring of 1955. The words are those of Elmore Jackson, a Quaker representative to the United Nations, and the go-between in Nasser's initiative.

....

The Egyptians' terms included some repatriation of Palestinian refugees, compensation for those unwilling or unable to return, and boundary adjustments to link the Arab communities. Sharett's response was generally favorable, and each side regarded the other as serious. "Our meeting closed with his saying he would go anywhere to talk to President Nasser—even to Cairo," Jackson wrote. "He said, 'Nasser is a decent fellow who has the interest of his people genuinely at heart. "'In conversations with Nasser, Jackson learned that Egyptian leaders had conducted informal discussions with the Israeli government after Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion retired and Sharett succeeded him in 1953. But the discussions broke off when Ben-Gurion returned to the cabinet as defense minister and Israel resumed attacks against Palestinian guerrillas and Egyptian soldiers in the Gaza Strip. (Palestinian refugees would infiltrate Israel to retrieve crops and property as well as to exact vengeance for their dispossession.)

The biggest Israeli attack occurred Feb. 28, 1955, at the town of Gaza, ostensibly in retaliation for Egypt's hanging of two saboteurs in the 1954 Lavon affair, in which Israeli agents tried to sabotage Egyptian American relations by planting firebombs in US diplomatic installations in Cairo and Alexandria. (Israel denounced the Egyptian charges as fabrications, only to come clean six years later. The surviving agents ' released from Egyptian prisons, were welcomed as heroes in Israel.)


Confidence-Shaking Measures

Nasser's confidence in the possibility of a settlement was shaken by the Israeli escalation of violence. Back in Israel, Sharett and Ben-Gurion told Jackson that, because of the guerrilla attacks, they had ordered a massive strike against the southern Gaza town of Khan Yunis. The order was canceled when Jackson warned that the attack would probably end the short-lived negotiations. Egypt accepted a cease-fire proposed by the UN Truce Supervision Organization, but Israel equivocated. A short time later, Ariel Sharon's Unit 101 went ahead with the attack on Khan Yunis. It struck an Egyptian police station and also terrorized a village. Thirty six people were killed, including civilians.

snip: "According to Jackson, Nasser felt increasingly vulnerable to Israeli military might (warplanes routinely violated Egyptian airspace). He could not accept the conditions the Eisenhower administration insisted on attaching to an arms sale. At a press conference after the Czech deal, Nasser said: "Egypt has no aggressive intentions toward Israel. War is not an easy decision for anybody, especially for me."
''''

Nasser's feeling of vulnerability was no fantasy. A year later, in 1956, Israel, Britain and France attacked Egypt. When the war broke out, Sharett, who by then was out of the cabinet, wrote in his diary, "We are the aggressors," Israel conquered the Sinai for the first time, but later gave it back under US pressure. Israel would conquer it again in 1967.

Nasser's successor, Sadat, would make his own bid for peace in 1971, only to have it rejected by Israel and the Nixon-Kissinger administration. It took another war to force Israel to take Sadat's bid for peace seriously. "



link to full article:

http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/1091/9110039.htm

[shira]

111. Palestinian leadership prior to 1948 and beyond has been fascist...

They didn't want to even share power with the Jews in a binational state based on the 1939 White Paper. It was the Mufti Al-Hussayni's desire to rule the nation all by himself. If he couldn't do it, no one else would. Imagine that, had Al Hussayni agreed to a binational state back then, there wouldn't be an Israel as we know it today.

Al Hussayni and his pro-Nazi henchmen even refused to participate in a representative democracy prior to 1948, a decision based entirely on his hatred of Jews and to work cooperatively and peacefully alongside them.

Instead, the Arab nations and Palestinians went to war with the hated Jews and lost everything.

Their fault, not the Jews.

[Violet_Crumble]

112. Hey, Douglas! That's an excellent post...

I'd like to say I hope anyone who responds to it takes the time to read it beforehand, but I see already that's not happened with the bizarre Palestinians = Nazi fascist antisemites post below.

Good to see you again :hi:

[Douglas Carpenter]

113. your right it is the same old crazy anti-historic nonsense everytime

It's just so tedious - under an op who entire point is to dehumanize Arab peoples in language reminiscent of old anti-Semitic propaganda of 1930's Europe.

Arabs would have been complete untermensch (subhumans) in the eyes of Hitler and the Nazis, I find it implausible that his opinion would have had much effect on a people who considered Arabs utterly inferior and subhuman.

The Stern Gang and the Irgun carried out attacks against the British while Britain was in a state of war with Nazi Germany. Does that mean that they were allies of Hitler. I really think that would be an exaggeration too. There was a great deal of active collusion between Nazi Germany and the Zionist movement to promote the common objective of Jewish immigration to Palestine. Does that make them an allie of Hitler. I don't think that would be fair either.

I would strongly recommend reading this article from the Simon-Wiesenthal Center -- HARDLY a pro-Palestinian source: Palestine and Nazi Germany by Sara Reguer - link:

http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=395105

It is undeniable that the Mufti went to Berlin and provided propaganda for the Reich. This is a matter of historic record. But even so, the Mufti was by no means the singular voice of the Palestinian people and he was deeply despised by large sections of the populace.

Thousands of Palestinians did fight on the side of the British during World War II. To allege that whatever the Mufti did or did not do or say made the Palestinians an ally of Nazi Germany is simply outrageously anti-historic.


Far more Palestinians fought on the side of the allies against the Nazis - but hey who cares about facts? And all of this under an OP which promotes a virulently racist view of Arabs just as extreme as any anti-Semitic nonsense. It's a disgrace to find this on a progressive forum.

[Shaktimaan]

114. I know this well.

What it boils down to is that the Palestinians didn't see the Zionists aim to build their homeland anywhere in Palestine as legitimate. The Palestinians felt dis-empowered by the Yishuv and its goals (not without reason either), and decided to follow a policy of rejectionism. The Palestinians didn't want the European Jews there because they feared being oppressed by a Zionist political system they didn't understand and weren't a part of.

My issue with this line of reason is that the Zionists actually DID possess a valid, legal right to go to Palestine and buy land and begin building a state. It was arranged through the leaders of the day who controlled the land in question. Both the Ottomans and the British, not to mention the LoN, legitimized this undertaking to the greatest extent that the Zionists could be expected to fulfill.

The Palestinians lived there, sure, but there was no real reason to think they were the rightful heirs to all of Palestine. That's crazy. There were 500,000 people on land that now holds 11,000,000 when the Zionists first began immigrating. They owned but a fraction of the land and played no governmental role at all. During the post-WWII drive to de-colonize the middle east there were a dozen different ideas floating around as to how that region should be allocated, who should control it, etc. But there was not a Palestinian Nationalist movement among them. And even if there had been, what gave them the right to deny the Jews their right to live there?

Douglas, you frame this as though the Palestinians had no choice in the matter. Sure, had the Jews never arrived then the Arabs never would have attacked them, I'll grant you that. But the Jews did go there, and they did so legally, and they had a right to be there. I understand that the Arabs didn't like it, it wasn't what they envisioned for themselves at all. But they had several options available to them: They could shrug, make the best of it, and integrate as a single state. (Which the Jews admittedly liked about as much as they did, but would have agreed to.) They could agree to two separate nation-states and divide the land as best they could. (Not perfect, but do-able.) They could have peacefully rejected the terms of Partition and began lobbying for alternate solutions. (This would have been interesting.) Or they could try to forcibly expel the Yishuv and claim their land.

The thing about the last option... We can see it as an understandable response to their situation, and it gives us insight as to why it is not an unreasonable action to take, but ultimately they do still have to take responsibility for choosing that path.
Whether you think it was a justified response or not, they DID start the conflict. And the Yishuv had every right to defend itself.

[Douglas Carpenter]

115. the immigration to Palestinian was still done without the consent of the people living

there - granted it might have been legal under the existing imperial order of the time - just as the acquisition of North America or Australia by Europeans was "legal" under the existing imperial order of that earlier time. It is just as outrageous to imagine that the Palestinian would have found it acceptable as to imagine anyone else in a similar situation would have found it acceptable.

It is also worth remembering that the vast majority of Jews did not initially support the Zionist cause. This of course changed in the 1920's with the rise of the most virulent form of anti-Semitism which of course created a panic and a desire to immigrate anywhere safe they could get to. It was not driven by a conversion to Zionist ideology. It was driven by a desire to find a safe haven. If someone is running away from people who are out to kill you, it is understandable that they would run away to anywhere available. Since much of the world was not open to immigration on a massive scale - Palestine offered an opportunity. Still, it is not so far out that the Arabs would ask why they should have to pay for what a bunch of Europeans were doing. After all, the political movement that brought them to Palestine - was not only about finding a safe place for refugees. It involved a movement to create a situation whereby the Arabs of Palestine would find their homeland or much of their homeland usurped from them.

Perhaps they should have reacted differently. But that would have required them to react like no other indigenous people throughout history have ever reacted.

[Shaktimaan]

117. right...

but why should the Palestinians had sovereignty over all of Palestine anyway? They lived in parts of it. They were certainly the majority, but others lived there too. And large parts of it were state owned and no one lived on them. Why is ALL of this land automatically, and suddenly, assumed to be Palestinian?

Example. In the un partition plan the jews were the majority population in the land allocated to them. Why is this all considered Palestinian land?

[Douglas Carpenter]

120. again we are asking the Palestinians to have reacted entirely differently than

how indigenous people have always reacted. There are very few places in what is now the State of Israel and the Occupied Territories in which the Palestinians had not been the majority for centuries.

[Ken Burch]

122. The issue was that they were EUROPEAN, not that they were "Jews".

It's not as if they'd have been ok with a "Christian state" being set up by European immigrants. Everybody found THAT out in the time of the Crusades.

[shira]

123. The issue with the Mufti Al Hussayni and his followers WAS that they were "Jews"...

Unfortunately, Al Hussayni and his followers intimidated and killed off all moderate Palestinian leadership of the day and threatened Palestinian dissenters with death if they strayed from the Al Hussayni line.

[Ken Burch]

124. The Mufti didn't have many followers

Can you please accept that Palestinians of today aren't responsible for Al-Hussayni? They didn't even WANT him as "Grand Mufti"-he was IMPOSED on the Palestinian Muslim community by Herbert Samuel. It's cruel to act as if all Palestinian Muslims must be forever punished for the sins of the Grand Mufti.

[shira]

125. He was in charge - his way or the highway - doesn't matter what any Palestinians wanted.

He and his followers (however many there were) were who the Jews of that time also had to deal with.

It's quite possible without him or others like him, there would be no I/P conflict.

It's silly to argue Palestinians of that time naturally reacted to Jewish "colonialists" as they would have WRT anyone else. To argue that is to assume most Palestinians were in unison with the Mufti.

As it was, early Zionist leaders managed to make fair arrangements with the moderate Arab or Ottoman leadership of that time period. They were not considered foreign invaders.

[Shaktimaan]

116. on a related topic...

there's a subject that seems to come up in these threads with some regularity. Since the current conflict stretches back to the 30's and 40's people often end up talking about historical events to bolster their claims. A common theme I see goes something like this: "The European Zionists never had any right to go to Palestine at all. The land of Israel was just illegally stolen from the Palestinians, who have every right to fight to regain their ancestral homeland. Israel's creation was just western imperialism imposed on indigenous people. Since its creation was a crime it should have no legitimate right to exist as a state."

Basically, since Israel's creation was illegitimate, Israel continues to be illegitimate now. It's funny, I see lots of people criticize lots of different countries all the time, but only Israel seems to have to constantly argue that its right to exist is legitimate.

Now, no one would say that the Jews don't have the right to self-determination. THAT would be anti-semitic. They just don't have the right to self-determination in an area that anyone else wants. (Even if it's the Jew's historic and cultural homeland?) Especially then! For instance Palestine was a bad place to pick because there were already people living there. The Jews would have to immigrate in, making them colonists and interlopers.

But the Jews would HAVE to immigrate to their new state no matter what because they are all spread out because of the diaspora. So the argument becomes, "The Jews can't practice self-determination because they don't have a state."

They don't have a state because of previous anti-semitism. So past anti-semitism now becomes the excuse for current anti-semitism.

[Douglas Carpenter]

118. well obviously, rightly or wrongly - what is done is done

Somethings are not reversible. The Zionist movement did create a state. It would be no more reasonable at this time to expect those who came and their descendants to leave than it would be to expect the descendants of the Puritan immigrants to New England to leave. Perhaps if the natives of New England had been more cooperative - they might have fared better. Again that would have been completely contrary to how indigenous people always respond to colonizing movements.

One must recognize that what was good news for the settlers in any colonizing movement is is bad news for the indigenous population. Although a different situation for African Americans who came to America as slaves - I'm reminded of Malcolm X's old cliche, "We didn't land on Plymouth Rock. The Rock landed on us."

The only relevant question today is what can be done about it now.

[Shaktimaan]

63. The fact...

that he made a single reasonable point about Rodger Water's ridiculous stand hardly excuses the thinly veiled xenophobia that this rant devolves into. Articles like these do nothing to further the discussion. Unless you're having said discussion with Peter King or his ilk.

[Violet_Crumble]

66. Clearly you've been brainwashed by Global Islam, you Global Leftist!

And what you said is exactly the point I was trying to make to the person who posted this article when they tried to argue that we shouldn't ignore the reasonable point because he said something 'stupid'. It doesn't matter how reasonable a point is, if the person coming out with it has it included in a bigoted screed, then go and find that reasonable point somewhere else, cause if it is reasonable, there won't be any trouble tracking it down. It's not acceptable if it was antisemitic sentiment, nor should it be acceptable when it's anti-Muslim sentiment. I don't care what bigots have to say, no more than I cared whether or not that porn guy in a recent thread was a neo-con or not. He was a fucking nasty Muslim-hating piece of crap, and I'm not going to waste a second angsting about whether he's been hard done by if someone mislabelled him a neo-con or not...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=344764&mesg_id=344781

I wonder if anyone else is sensing a pattern?

[Shaktimaan]

67. Ha!

While I do generally agree with you on this point I have to say that I don't know anything about that gay dude. While the linked articles were pretty damning I tend not to take at face value articles that print misleading comments about the history that I do know; namely Lucas does not name the village where the scene was shot, but my guess is it was Lifta, which was attacked by Zionist militias in December 1947 (five months before any Arab armies entered Palestine), bombed, and ethnically cleansed.

Obviously, in December of 47 the Arab armies had yet to invade but the civil war had already begun. So I'm taking anything that article says with a large grain of salt; for the same reasons I disregard articles like the one in this thread's OP. The authors have an obvious agenda which colors their journalistic integrity to an unacceptable degree.

Be that as it may, I agree with the premise of your comment. And I really don't know anything about the gay guy. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he really is a radically anti-arab racist. Regardless, I have difficulty distinguishing between an author's good and bad arguments when the bad one is overtly bigoted. It's the kind of ploy used to play down racism across the board and I reject it.

[Violet_Crumble]

95. I like these quiet moments when we agree on each other premises...

When it comes to the guy who does gay porn, I did a bit of a search on him and came up with too much stuff from too many sources, including interviews, making ugly and clearly bigoted comments for it to be in any doubt for me. Gotta give him kudos for his honesty, I guess. Not someone I'd ever heard of before, and not someone I'd be keen on hearing any more from...

Regardless, I have difficulty distinguishing between an author's good and bad arguments when the bad one is overtly bigoted. It's the kind of ploy used to play down racism across the board and I reject it.

Exactly right, and I notice we're not the only people in this thread who feel that way, as I've spotted a few other responses to the poster who started this thread pointing out similar things :hi:

[cali]

70. this is contemptible propaganda.

nothing more, nothing less.

[Ken Burch]

72. Disregard previous post

Got the threads confused for a moment.

You're right, of course.