next »

[kantoine]

In order for Americans in the United States to talk about Israel, we must start with asking how did Israel come into existence. Unlike the American Declaration of Independence of 1776, there was no revolutionary war in which Israel defeated its colonial ruler and declared independence.

For over 2000 years there was no Jewish nation in the Middle East. Historically, the Jewish people who lived in Palestine since before the Common Era until World War II converted to Islam. Those that migrated to Europe or were dispersed by the Romans mixed with other European cultures. That mixture explains the development of the Yiddish language. Yiddish is derived from Germanic peoples around the 10th century and has no linguistic connection to Aramaic the language spoken in Palestine during the time of John the Baptist.

The immigration of Europeans to Palestine immediately following World War II, created a security and border problem for Palestine that the newly formed United Nations was unprepared to solve. The Haganah and the Stern para military units of the Jewish Agency in Palestine used terror tactics including bombings(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2486589.stm ) to force Palestinians from their lands.

In 1948 the European immigrants, a minority of the population in Palestine, unilaterally called itself Israel. The only country to immediately recognize Israel was the United States, then the world’s lone nuclear power.

The majority population in Palestine and the other countries in the surrounding region were stunned.  The Allies of WWII specifically Britain and France had promised independence to the North African and Arab countries for siding with the Allies in both WWI and WWII.
We should talk about this history (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2486589.stm). European immigrants a minority of the population in Palestine unilateral declaration of independence has created a chilling affect for the United States be a facilitator for peace with clean hands in the area. Three years after the end of WWII the European immigrants unilaterally created a new nation. Fifty years later the Palestinian people are still nation less. The Palestinian should also unilaterally declare themselves into statehood.

[solly]

Rabbis ban use of schoolbooks showing pre-1967 border

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/796919.html

[not_a_gradstudent1]

The immigration of Europeans to Palestine immediately following World War II, created a security and border problem for Palestine that the newly formed United Nations was unprepared to solve. The Haganah and the Stern para military units of the Jewish Agency in Palestine used terror tactics including bombings(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2486589.stm ) to force Palestinians from their lands.

In 1948 the European immigrants, a minority of the population in Palestine, unilaterally called itself Israel. The only country to immediately recognize Israel was the United States, then the world’s lone nuclear power.

The majority population in Palestine and the other countries in the surrounding region were stunned.  The Allies of WWII specifically Britain and France had promised independence to the North African and Arab countries for siding with the Allies in both WWI and WWII.

That's a rather selective and not quite accurate account of the postwar developments. Really, you don't make your case stronger by misrepresenting the history.

[kantoine]

There probably new facts for you. That's ok.

[kantoine]

In order for Americans in the United States to talk about Israel, we must start with asking how did Israel come into existence. Unlike the American Declaration of Independence of 1776, there was no revolutionary war in which Israel defeated its colonial ruler and declared independence.

For over 2000 years there was no Jewish nation in the Middle East. Historically, the Jewish people who lived in Palestine since before the Common Era until World War II converted to Islam. Those that migrated to Europe or were dispersed by the Romans mixed with other European cultures. That mixture explains the development of the Yiddish language. Yiddish is derived from Germanic peoples around the 10th century and has no linguistic connection to Aramaic the language spoken in Palestine during the time of John the Baptist.

The immigration of Europeans to Palestine immediately following World War II, created a security and border problem for Palestine that the newly formed United Nations was unprepared to solve. The Haganah and the Stern para military units of the Jewish Agency in Palestine used terror tactics including bombings(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2486589.stm ) to force Palestinians from their lands.

In 1948 the European immigrants, a minority of the population in Palestine, unilaterally called itself Israel. The first country to recognize Israel was the United States, then the world’s lone nuclear power.

The majority population in Palestine and the other countries in the surrounding region were stunned.  The Allies of WWII specifically Britain and France had promised independence to the North African and Arab countries for siding with the Allies in both WWI and WWII.
We should talk about this history (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2486589.stm). European immigrants a minority of the population in Palestine unilateral declaration of independence has created a chilling affect for the United States be a facilitator for peace with clean hands in the area. Three years after the end of WWII the European immigrants unilaterally created a new nation. Fifty years later the Palestinian people are still nation less. The Palestinian should also unilaterally declare themselves into statehood.

[kantoine]

don't take it personal

[b_damon]

“It is difficult to know why honest discussions about Israel have become so difficult to conduct. Is it, perhaps, because the rise of the Christian right, no matter how ostensibly supportive of Israel it claims to be, reminds Jews that they live in a Christian country and thereby makes them more likely to circle the wagons? Or does the reason perhaps lie in the fact that Jews have become part of America's multicultural mosaic, one more group proclaiming its identity and difference?”

I recently read an article by Samuel Freedman, author of Jew vs. Jew, in which he discusses precisely the scenario named by Alan Wolfe above. When Wolfe suggests that Jews have become “part of America’s cultural mosaic, one more group proclaiming its identity and difference,” his suggestion should clearly be read as an indirect lament that Jews have become just one more group proclaiming its identity and difference. As Freedman observes, there used to be alternative means of self-identification as a Jew besides attachment to religion or defense of the state of Israel, but the reality of those options, including identification as a secular Jew promoting Yiddish, rather than Hebrew, as the lingua franca of the Jews, has since largely receded into the past. Academia might be the one place remaining in which it is possible to question such verities as the right of the Jewish state to exist, because, on the outside, it has become all too clear that the asking of such questions provides a stage, however inadvertently, for Holocaust deniers and old-fashioned anti-Semites to strut upon. Those Americans who lack the intellectual facility to grasp the possibility of Jewish self-identification outside the boundaries of religion or Zionism tend to see such Jews as betrayers of the faith, because such views conform to the parameters of debate set by Israel’s mortal enemies, who seek not an alternative means to self-identification as a Jew (an absurdity), but the elimination of half of world Jewry, as the only possible outcome of the destruction of the state of Israel could be the destruction of the people now living there, naïve protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. Just as a good Jewish joke can only be understood by a member of the community, however universal the logic of its syllogism in merely formal terms, so too are questions like Alan Wolfe’s best debated within the community, so as not to arouse the ire of those vexed by their inability to appreciate its nuances.

[taxguy1]

How many of you have been to either Isreal or the West Bank? How many of you have met with Isreali government officials and got the real scoop about what is going on?
 

I have. Let me share with you my thoughts.

Isreal would LOVE to settle their differences with the Palistinians. Giving them a homeland is certainly wanted by Isreali politicians. Thus, what is the problem?

Check your newspapers. Every time some big peace initiative occurs, there is a major suicide bombing inside Isreal. In fact, there is usually a series of suicide bombings, which derail the peace process. This has been a major problem.

If the United States were being bombed by Mexico while we were negotiating a treaty, would we put up with this?

Secondly, who does Isreal negotiate with? Even if they get the current president, Abbas, to agree to a settlement, one of the many extremist parties will attack Isreal at every conceivable opportunity. Abbas no longer controls the Palistinian parliment. Isreal now doesn't have a negotiating partner that can truly secure peaceful borders.

This can be seen also in Lebanon. It was Lebanese extremists that started the war with Isreal by kidnapping several Isreali soldiers and killing several civilians WITHIN ISREAL. Isreal did not first attack Lebanon. The press also didn't note that there have been dozens of missile attacks from Lebanon over the years against Isreali civilians without Isreali reprisals.

Third, every major terrorist country in the middle east such as Syria, Iran etc., are funding Palistinian attacks on Isreal. In fact, until recently, Saddam provided money to the families of suicide bombers. Until this flow of "dirty" capital stops, Isreal with always be attacked.

Yes, I think that the Palistinians should have their own country. They just need to get a lot more realistic in negotiating with the Isrealies and find a way to enforce a true peace treaty.

[solly]

taxguy1

Using a technique pioneered by larryc, I have a some questions for you.

1. How many Israeli civilians have been killed by suicide attacks and rockets versus Palestinian civilians killed by the IDF etc?

2. Where are Israel's borders?

3. How many Israeli homes have been destroyed by Palestinian forces versus Palestinian homes destroyed by Israel?

4. How many Palestinians have forcibly settled on Israeli territory versus Israelis on Palestinian land.

5. What is your view on a one-state solution with right of return and universal franchise?

6. How many U.N. resolutions are critical of Israel and how many critical of the Palestinian Authority?

7. How long does it take to plan a military attack such as that carried out on Lebanon in July.

[dark_globe]

taxguy1

Using a technique pioneered by larryc, I have a some questions for you.

1. How many Israeli civilians have been killed by suicide attacks and rockets versus Palestinian civilians killed by the IDF etc?

2. Where are Israel's borders?

3. How many Israeli homes have been destroyed by Palestinian forces versus Palestinian homes destroyed by Israel?

4. How many Palestinians have forcibly settled on Israeli territory versus Israelis on Palestinian land.

5. What is your view on a one-state solution with right of return and universal franchise?

6. How many U.N. resolutions are critical of Israel and how many critical of the Palestinian Authority?

7. How long does it take to plan a military attack such as that carried out on Lebanon in July.

8. How do you spell "Israel?"

[jonesey]

I'll just add this; I disagree with much of what Solly has to say, but I find it disconcerning that the Powers that Be deleted an entire thread he started (that several people were taking part in) for what, I can only assume, to be "politically correct" reasons. 

I had no idea that censorship of ideas was part of this forum...

[pyshnov]

I have a terrible feeling about the deletion of the thread. Indeed, it was a branch, so to speak, of this thread.
The deleted thread, in my view, was the result of a situation where a person has a burning desire to break a taboo on some subject, but he is so irritated by the prohibition itself that he begins with climbing fences. He, from the start, does not make a logically justified contribution, but only breaks barriers. The responses were equally illogical: instead of understanding the above situation and returning to the subject, or not responding, people bullied the rebel in a brutal manner.

If the above was the reason for deleting, I would wish the moderator say so. Is it possible to leave the thread title and make a note giving the reason for deletion? I saw one forum where there was a category "Deleted threads", a sort of a recycle bin with actual threads.
I can often refrain from saying something on a subject, but can not refrain from making this note.

[solly]

Jonesy, Pyshnov.

Thanks for your support. In case you did not see my last post in that thread Jonesy, thank you for your courteous post to which I replied just before it got shut down.

I was a bit perturbed when it suddenly disappeared without warning. I had been deliberately provocative with the title “Jews think”. It had been my intention to follow up with another thread called “Kiwis think” in order to highlight the astonishing sensitivity that is brought to anything Jewish. As it happened, posters dragged me out for a drubbing on matters irrelevant to the topic. Unfortunately, I think we had just about dealt with the digressions and were getting into the heart of the matter, origins of Neo-Con thought, when the boom got lowered.
I regret losing several hours of writing on which I had hoped to base an essay and I would like to know what particular rule I transgressed but what the hell. The blogosphere is huge and suppression of ideas has a long but not very successful history.
I subscribe to an unmoderated thread ( tumeke.blogspot.com/ ) here in New Zealand and whilst you get the odd nutter, nobody gets hurt so I don’t see the need for censorship.

By the way, I think our orthographically challenged friend above might be what I was suspected of being. I doubt he’ll come back to answer the questions.

There are many learned Jewish commentators out there who write about the misuses of the “anti-Semitism” veto. Finklestein, Pappe, the aforementioned Tony Judt to mention a few. It is only the uninformed who place their faith in prohibition to support their view and I believe they do their cause a disservice.

Kia ora.

[pyshnov]

The posting of taxguy1 on Dec. 10 gives the Israeli position on the main points that you rarely see made in just a few sentences.

This position is arrived at by supposing that it is OK to take the land by force, then - to declare it a dispute, then - to demand from the people who were robbed "to get a lot more realistic in negotiating" (as taxguy1 said).

Obviously, such position is unlawful. Absolutely clearly, the land was taken by force at the moment of establishing the Israeli state, not in response to anything that Palestinians did. I think that the attempts to take the land back can not be called "terrorism", even, though, obviously Palestinians are trying to terrorize Israel to the point when it gives the land back. And, I have no doubt that Israel knows very well  that its position is far outside of the law, i.e. it makes arguments without belief in their legitimacy.

I do not think that even the expressed desire to negotiate is sincere. I do not think that as long as Israel maintains the overwhelming superiority in military technique, it will negotiate in good faith, although I repeat that something stolen/taken by force can not in principle be made a subject of negotiation. In fact, it is not only Palestinian factions who make  negotiations impossible (and, justly so, for the above reason), but mainly the Jewish nationalists who killed their own Prime Minister, I. Rabin, and who would not permit negotiating God-given territory.

I do not think that Jews, Zionists never had a humanly justifiable point that was not possible to advance by legitimate means. I went to Israel myself, but having only the conviction that KGB is deceiving people by anti-Israeli propaganda. You know my opinion now. It is this: one must stop taking Israeli arguments seriously.
----------
solly:

It had been my intention to follow up with another thread called “Kiwis think” in order to highlight the astonishing sensitivity that is brought to anything Jewish.

Don't you think the thread Why can't we talk about Israel? is not enough? I think it's, so to speak, extremely enough.
Shakespeare already wrote an encyclopedia of human sin, including Jewish, well, but not in one posting.

[zharkov]

The posting of taxguy1 on Dec. 10 gives the Israeli position on the main points that you rarely see made in just a few sentences.

This position is arrived at by supposing that it is OK to take the land by force, then - to declare it a dispute, then - to demand from the people who were robbed "to get a lot more realistic in negotiating" (as taxguy1 said).
...

Pretty much how the United States was settled, and ditto Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, just to name a few.