next »

[solly]

Zharkov.

I would probably make a case for New Zealand being an exception to the list based on one of our founding documents, the Treaty of Waitangi. This document, signed in 1840, laid out the rights of Maori to possession of their lands, fisheries, rivers and streams etc. It is still a big part of our law and has it’s own Tribunal to settle any outstanding grievances. New Zealand’s handling of these matters has been widely used as a model by Canada and other States seeking to bring closure to outstanding colonial grievances.
You can get a brief overview here:
http://www.treatyofwaitangi.govt.nz/story/shortstory.php

Our situation, although it is not perfect, seems to be workable.
This may be the reason why Kiwis are less sensitive in matters of race-relations, a little iconoclastic perhaps. As  a pakeha New Zealander who has married into Maoridom, I have little patience with what I perceive to be clashes of culture or race and believe that, ultimately, Palestinians and Jews are going to have to learn to live together in one State. I see no signs that Israel has accepted that possibility. As the more powerful partner, I believe it is their responsibility to take the lead.

[jonesey]

And, similarly, the Palestinians have shown no willingness to live with Israel.  Even "moderate" Palestinians express their fervent desire to "drive Israel into the sea." 

In other words, there is no moderate Palistinian solution to the issue.

Also, I get so tired of people talking about how Israel "stole" land from the Palestinians.  The land has, historically, been Jewish since the Torah was written, despite being taken from the Jewish people time and time again.  The UN set up the State of Israel in 1948.  The. U. N.  As in; the entire world and all the nations in it through a neutral, sovereign, governmental body composed of every nation on the Earth.

There is not now, and has never been, a Nation of Palestine.  There are, however, many, many Islamic countries surrounding Israel that the Palestinians are free to go to, many of which have the same sort of Fundamentalist Islamic government they would like to establish where Israel currently exists. 

Israel is the only democracy in the region.  From a national security standpoint, even if you disagree with Israel's right to exist as a nation, Israel must be supported in her efforts against those who would destroy it.  Make no mistake, the surrounding nations would like nothing better than to kill every Israeli citizen and bulldoze the entire region. 

Now, does this mean that Israel is infallable?  No, of course not.  However, since they've been fighting a "war on terror" since 1948 (as Israel, for thousands of years as Jews before that) I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. 

The issue seems to come from people who think that Hezbolla is some kind of political party, rather than a murdering terrorist organization that takes pride in killing people and launching rocket attacks into civilian areas.  Or that Hamas has any purpose other than the destruction of every Jew on the planet.  Or that Iran can be reasoned with.  Iran, who funds these terrorist organizations and supplies suicide bombers with the equipment to carry out their deeds.  Iran, where children are taught to sing "Death to America" in pre-school.  Iran, who's leader recently stated that one of his goals is to "destroy Israel." 

[solly]

Jonesy

Up until a year or so ago, I would have agreed with all that you have said.

I suggest you first read this interview with Israeli historian Ilan Pappe for a brief historical overview.
 
http://www.labournet.net/world/0209/pappe1.html 

In your country, Finklestein, himself the son of Holocaust survivors is in the forefront of the fight for a fair hearing for Palestine:

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/ 

If you feel moved to read more, try my blog:

brewerstroupe.blogspot.com/

 ....where I describe my journey from a position very similar to that you have written above to where I am today.


Kia ora

[pyshnov]

zharkov,

Quote from: pyshnov on Today at 03:08:44 PM
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.

Yes, but there have been recently some protests against slavery. People are confused, don't know what to say.

----------
jonesey, you describe the Arab feelings that exist today. I don't think they can be different. But, you are wrong if you predict always the same for tomorrow. It depends entirely on Israel. Egypt is one example. The countries that were enemies in WWII are another example. It is patently  untrue what you are saying about eternal hatred. I said it before: the dead are forgotten because otherwise it would be impossible for 3/4 of the world to live. Supporting status quo means supporting the progressing war. There will be no status quo, forget about it.
You say:

There are, however, many, many Islamic countries surrounding Israel that the Palestinians are free to go to...etc.

Are you aware of the fact that every Israeli who has money to travel abroad has a foreign passport and many have several passports? Women go for a month to Europe when they are pregnant so that the child will get some other citizenship.
In Israel they say a Zionist is a man who gives money to the second man in order that the third man will settle in Israel.
Don't think that they are happy now or will be tomorrow.

[jonesey]

For solly and pyshnov, news from Reuters, 12 December 2006:

TEHRAN, Iran (Reuters) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday told delegates at an international conference questioning the Holocaust that Israel's days were numbered.

Ahmadinejad, who has sparked international outcry by referring to the killing of 6 million Jews in World War II as a "myth" and calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map," launched another verbal attack on the Jewish state.

"Thanks to people's wishes and God's will, the trend for the existence of the Zionist regime is downwards, and this is what God has promised and what all nations want," he said.

"Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out," he added.

His words received warm applause from delegates at the Holocaust conference, who included ultra-Orthodox anti-Israel Jews and European and American writers who argue the Holocaust was either fabricated or exaggerated.

His remarks were condemned in Washington, where U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters that the Iranian president's behavior was "despicable" and called his comment "absolutely outrageous."

The Vatican, Germany and the European Commission added their voices Tuesday to others -- such as the United States and Israel -- who have condemned the Tehran meeting.

Iran says it organized the conference to shed light on the reasons behind the formation of the state of Israel after World War II and to allow researchers from countries where it is a crime to question the Holocaust to speak freely.

"Iran is your home and is the home of all freedom seekers of the world," Ahmadinejad said. "Here you can express your views and exchange opinions in a friendly, brotherly and free atmosphere."

He urged countries where Holocaust denial is a crime to respect freedom of speech and not to take action against any of the conference participants on their return.

Human rights groups frequently number Iran as one of the world's worst violators of free speech, where scores of newspapers have been closed, journalists jailed, access to Web sites blocked and government critics hounded out of the country.


So, these are the people we should be friends with? 

Also, I'm not sure what the relevance of Israelis having other passports is.  I hope, sincerely, that these organizations can and will change their minds regarding Israel, but make no mistake, they're only considering talking because Israel has a tough military and they are backed up by the United States. 

[solly]

Jonesy,

Sorry to take so long, grandkids visiting at the moment.

You will notice that even Reuters, despite it’s pro-Western slant, reported that Ahmadineajad referred to the “Zionist Regime” and compared it’s downfall to that of the Soviet Union. This is consistent with his assertion that change in Israel will come about through the ballot box, not war.

Here is an article that deals with the spin that has been put on Ahmadineajad’s words:
http://www.counterpunch.org/tilley08282006.html

I ask you to consider whether there is any spin on what the West is saying to Iran:

Bush: “I would understand if Israel chose to attack Iran”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/789940.html

In the current issue of Foreign Policy, Joshua Muravchik, a prominent neoconservative, argued that the Administration had little choice. “Make no mistake: President Bush will need to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities before leaving office,”
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/061127fa_fact

“It’s 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs.” Referencing Ahmadinejad’s assertions that Iran will never give up its nuclear quest, Netanyahu said, “Believe him and stop him….he is preparing another Holocaust for the Jewish state.”
http://www.thelandofthefree.net/conservativeopinion/2006/11/30/will-israel-attack-iran/

'US planning strike against Iran'
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1135696369601



Consider the following facts.

The CIA has declared that there is no evidence of an Iranian Nuclear Weapons program.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6167304.stm

The IAEC was moved to write a letter to Congress calling such allegations “outrageous and dishonest”.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/13/AR2006091302052_pf.html

The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali. Khamenei, has declared a Fatwah against the development or deployment of nuclear weapons:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/nuke/mehr080905.html

Iran has not attacked any other state in over a century yet it has been attacked by Saddam using weapons supplied by the U.S. The democratically elected Mossadeq Government of Iran was overturned by the U.S. and the Shah and his Savak installed. Despite this, the present administration supported both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and denounced 911.

There have been two concerns raised by the IAEA in the course of nearly 2000 inspections in the past few years. One concerned minute traces of weapons grade material found in a centrifuge. This was traced to Pakistan, from whom Iran had purchased the centrifuge. The other concerned a document describing the hemispherical nature of a warhead. That document is available freely on the internet. The only other matters raised are minor procedural ones and the IAEA has stated that Iran has exceeded it’s responsibilities under the protocol. Incidentally, Iran has opened it’s nuclear facilities to tourists:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217700,00.html#

Having swallowed the WMD bait prior to Iraq, are we now being tempted by the same fare? 
I don’t know.

Iran is a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty. It does not have a weapons capability and, by best estimates, is five to ten years away from one should it so desire.

Israel does not allow IAEA inspections and is not a signatory to the NPT. It has nuclear weapons, as confirmed by Olmert’s slip of the tongue this week.

Are we allowed to talk about this?

[jtsmr]

Has anyone discussed the controversy of Christmas lately here that's been in the media?

And, in light of Solly's previous posting, it does appear, just recently that the moderator(s) appear to be needlessly censoring posts and editing them. Has anyone else noticed that?

[mkbrussel]

Commenting on the statements: For many Jews, such positions come close to denying Israel's right to exist. Why have Israel at all if it is not to be Jewish, they ask? And, given low Jewish birthrates and high Arab ones, wouldn't a binational state eventually lead to the persecution of a Jewish minority? As the journalist Leon Wieseltier put it in the generally pro-Israel The New Republic last month: "I have never met anybody of any persuasion who believes that Judt's call for a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 'Israel: The Alternative' was not a call for the abolition of the Jewish state."

The notion of a Jewish state is racist, is it not? The evidence is clear (Who is a Jew?). Can it be democratic when it denies fundamental rights to many of its demi-citizens?

Many have discussed the meaning of "Israel's right to exist" and pointed out that no state has a "right to exist", especially one that came into existence so recently, displacing others, and denying rights to many of its (non-Jewish) inhabitants. And with indefinite and growing boundaries which deny others the right to exist. But one can indeed recognize the existence of a land; there is a difference in bestowing upon it a right. (The earth has no right to exist, yet we live with it, neither does the USA). On the other hand, we believe people may have a right to exist…. Palestinians have a right to exist, and with fair rights in Israel. Israel has no more intrinsic right to exist than a state of Palestinians, or American Indians, or… Palestinians especially can argue that Israel had/has no right to take its land to make a "state". Who can blame them?

Having initially been sympathetic to the state of Israel, somewhat out of ignorance and because of propaganda, I've seen gradually since 1967 that Israel has become a rogue state and a client of the United States foreign policy establishment, and that its origins were deceptively proclaimed as just. Arguments in support of the latter statements should be widely disseminated, which is the reason why their suppression  (by Judt and others) ought to be condemned.

[solly]

During the past week, Israel’s Nuclear Weapons were referred to by Robert Gates during hearings on his confirmation as U.S. Secretary of defense.

“During his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Gates mentioned why Iran might be seeking the means to build an atomic bomb: "They are surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons: Pakistan to their east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the west and us in the Persian Gulf," he said.”

The remark led Israeli news bulletins. State-run radio suggested Gates may have breached a U.S. "don't ask, don't tell" policy that dates back to the late 1960s.”

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsone&storyID=2006-12-07T152207Z_01_L07899735_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-ISRAEL-GATES.xml&pageNumber=1&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage1

The history of this "don't ask, don't tell" policy can be examined here:

http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mj06cohen

It seems that the Symington, Glenn, and Pressler Amendments prohibit aid to countries involved with Nuclear weapons.

So there’s a dilemma. If you talk about Israel’s nukes, the juice might get turned off. Estimates range from 2 to 5 billion U.S. taxpayer dollars flow to Israel annually.

"It's quite unprecedented," a retired Israeli diplomat told Reuters on Thursday when asked about Gates's testimony. "I can only assume he has yet to get to grips with the understandings that exist between us and the Americans."

May we assume “the understandings” are that some topics are not permitted to be discussed – even at official level?

[depauluniversit]

 Israel, just like any other nation should not be immune from unbiased, objective criticism from Jews or non-Jews. The sensitivity
on the part of many supporters of Israel, is, I believe, a function of
past and present biased and non-objective reporting and opinion,
especially from the European and American Left. I would submit that
journals, such as the respected Nation and similar publications, wear
ideological blinders when the subject of Israel v. Palestinians is discussed. From my readings of this and other similar publications, it
seems to me that Israel can do nothing right and that the Palestinians always have truth and justice on their side. Many American and European Jews tend to be liberal to left and feel betrayed by their ideological brethren when the Israeli - Palestinian
issue is discussed. To cite a recent example- as a result of the
shaky truce arranged between Israel and Hezbollah, Israel has met
all of its committments but Hezbollah has not met one. Hezbollah
has not disarmed, it has not ceded its territory to the Lebanese
forces, nor has it returned the Israeli prisoners! Hezbollah has gained
tremendously in prestige and stature while attempting to topple the
dully chosen Lebanese government. I have seen very little commentary on these issues, but Israel continues to be criticized
for its actions. Hezbollah has not been criticized for its role in
fommenting the huge and destructive response by Israel and the
unnecessary destruction of innocent lives!! Yes, the Israeli lobby
within the U.S. is influential and seeks to impact American foreign policy vis-a-vis Israel. On the other hand we see minimal criticism
on other nations or entities which also have seek to influence our
foreign policy. The Irish lobby, the Polish lobby, the oil companies,
investment firms, and many others are active in lobbying for their
agendas. Arab rulers, terrorist organiztions and various militias have
killed many more Arabs, destroyed many more mosques and national
treasures, than Israel has during all of its existence. Let us by all
means criticize Israel when necessary, but let us also attempt to
be objective and fair.

[solly]

“Nation and similar publications, wear ideological blinders when the subject of Israel v. Palestinians is discussed. From my readings of this and other similar publications, it
seems to me that Israel can do nothing right and that the Palestinians always have truth and justice on their side..”

The statistics given in my previous post (Reply #23 on this thread) would seem to be at odds with this.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/net-report.html

Israel has met all of its committments but Hezbollah has not met one.

Israel Strikes Deep in Lebanon
“Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora told reporters in Beirut that the attack was a "flagrant violation" of the U.N. cease-fire and that he planned to lodge a complaint with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan.
Later Saturday, Annan said that he agreed the raid violated the cease-fire agreement and that he was "deeply concerned."”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/19/AR2006081900217.html

nor has it returned the Israeli prisoners!

"So far, The ICRC has received no response from Israeli authorities on its demands for access to alleged Hizballah prisoners. To strengthen their bargaining hand, the Israelis carried out a commando raid in Baalbek valley, seizing five members of the Nasrallah family"
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1531734,00.html

Hezbollah has not been criticized for its role in
fommenting the huge and destructive response by Israel and the
unnecessary destruction of innocent lives!!

It is now well established that the incident that supposedly sparked the conflict took place on the Lebanese side of the border.

“The verbatim Army communique' to the Lebanese government follows: " 'At 9:03 or 9:05am in the vicinity or in front of Ayt Al Shaab village the members of the resistance have abducted two soldiers. At 9:15am the resistance shelled the position of the enemy in the occupied territories. At 10:10am the Resistance and Israeli forces clashed with each other in the area of Naqoura,' on Lebanon's side of the border."


In his article "Casus Belli", IDF Brigadier General Moshe Yaalon wrote: "The present crisis was initiated......... in southern Lebanon " New Republic, July 31
 
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/83985-1/

An attack such as Israel launched against Lebanon in July is militarily impossible without months of planning.
Tanya Reinhardt of Tel Aviv University had this to say:

“The Israeli government knew right from the start that launching its offensive would expose the north of Israel to heavy Katyusha rockets attacks. This was openly discussed at this first government's meeting on Wednesday: "Hezbollah is likely to respond to the Israeli attacks with massive rocket launches at Israel, and in that case, the IDF might move ground forces into Lebanon".[8] One cannot avoid the conclusion that for the Israeli army and government, endangering the lives of residents of northern Israel was a price worth paying in order to justify the planned ground offensive. They started preparing Israelis on that same Wednesday for what may be ahead: "'We may be facing a completely different reality, in which hundreds of thousands of Israelis will, for a short time, find themselves in danger from Hezbollah's rockets', said a senior defense official. 'These include residents of the center of the country.'"[9] For the Israeli military leadership, not only the Lebanese and the Palestinians, but also the Israelis are just pawns in some big military vision.

The speed at which everything happened (along with many other pieces of information) indicates that Israel has been waiting for a long time for 'the international conditions to ripen' for the massive war on Lebanon it has been planning. In fact, one does not need to speculate on this, since right from the start, Israeli and U.S. official sources have been pretty open in this regard. As a senior Israeli official explained to the Washington Post on July 16, "Hezbollah's cross-border raid has provided a 'unique moment' with a 'convergence of interests'
http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_684.shtml

Uri Avnery, ex-Knesset Member said:

“Now it is not a secret anymore: this war has been planned for a long time. The military correspondents proudly reported this week that the army has been exercising for this war in all its details for several years. Only a month ago, there was a large war game to rehearse the entrance of land forces into South Lebanon”
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1153678193


The conflict resulted in the deaths of 1500 Lebanese civilians and 41 Israelis, 18 of whom were Arab/Israelis. Nearly a million Lebanese were made homeless. Even if Hezbollah provoked Israel, which I dispute, is this an appropriate response?

The statement quoted above looks to me like a case of “blaming the victim”. I am not surprised that Hezbollah have not been criticised for Israel's actions.

Yes, the Israeli lobby within the U.S. is influential

“Jewish Americans have set up an impressive array of organisations to influence American foreign policy, of which AIPAC is the most powerful and best known. In 1997, Fortune magazine asked members of Congress and their staffs to list the most powerful lobbies in Washington. AIPAC was ranked second behind the American Association of Retired People, but ahead of the AFL-CIO and the National Rifle Association. A National Journal study in March 2005 reached a similar conclusion, placing AIPAC in second place (tied with AARP) in the Washington ‘muscle rankings’.”
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

I’m afraid I have been unable to find any reference to the Irish and Polish lobbies on the internet. If you have information on their respective importance I would be interested to see it. I am not aware, however, that either Poland or Ireland are receiving aid or using U.S. weapons to implement foreign policy so I am usure as to the relevance of this point.

Arab rulers, terrorist organiztions and various militias have
killed many more Arabs, destroyed many more mosques and national
treasures, than Israel has during all of its existence.

Again I am unsure whether this contentious statement has any relevance to the issue. Should we count the 600,000 Iraqi victims? One could argue that Israel bears some responsibility for the U.S. involvement there.

[depauluniversit]

The above response to my post contains many disputable issues. It is not my intent on this site to confront all of these contentuous
assertions. My point was to answer the question about criticizing
Israel and I wanted to illustrate the fact concerning biased reporting
on the issues. The respondent to my post does raise interesting
issues but does not directly refute many of my facts. This what
many Jews see a one sided. It is interesting that at a time in the past when Jews were victims of anti-semitism and pogroms, the left
and much of the world had sympathy, but when Jews attempt to
establish a homeland and do what every sovereign nation does it is criticized. In other words the world loves Jews as victims but not as
a nation.

[solly]

depauluniversit

The respondent to my post does raise interesting
issues but does not directly refute many of my facts.

Maybe I am missing something but I failed to find anything of fact in your first post. You have made a number of unsubstantiated assertions, to each of which, I have posted a referenced counter. These I submit as evidence of the contrary to your position.

To rebut your primary assertion that there is a pro-Palestinian bias in the press I have provided the results of a survey that establishes the opposite. (To read the complete article it is necessary to follow the link.)

You assert that Israel has met it’s commitments in terms of the ceasefire. I counter with a statement by Kofi Annan about Israel’s violation of the ceasefire.

To you assertion that Lebanon has not returned prisoners I provide information that the Red Crescent Society has been prevented from visiting the Israeli-held Lebanese prisoners. This provides an explanation of Lebanese reluctance to comply.

And so on.

To assert that I and others criticize Israel for “attempting to establish a homeland” is quite simply nonsense. I and many others who supported Israel up to and including the 1967 war are now critical of Israel for depriving up to a million Palestinians of their homeland and for continuing expansion into neighboring territory.

The subject of this debate is “Why can't we talk about Israel?” but I feel I cannot let assertions such as your go unchallenged. My preference however, would be to discuss the “Don’t ask, don’t tell policy” regarding Israel’s Nuclear Weapons. This, I contend, is very pertinent.

[pyshnov]

It is interesting to see how strong is the unwillingness of pro-Israeli posters here to admit any of the facts posted by solly. I wander if Israel had ever admitted any wrongdoing on the part of Israeli Government.

I wander if this has a connection with the absence in the Jewish tradition of the concept of Confession which is so significant in the Christian tradition. Indeed, the Christian tradition stands on the concept of Salvation and this, in its turn, depends on coming to Confession. Moreover, it seems to me that the greatly diminished influence of this Christian concept and tradition on the mind of people everywhere has brought the world to the new ruthless pragmatism we have to deal with today. Some examples, although even unconnected but still pointing to the same deficiency and impossibility of reconciliation come to mind here.

One is the problem of stating the facts of the Holocaust. It seems that several facts as they were stated initially were subsequently proved non-existant (such as soap made by Germans from the human fat and some others). Why then it is so impossible for Israel to admit that, yes, some exaggerations took place, rather than trying to impose total ban on any research and revision of the facts?

How is it possible to talk about the situation in the Middle East when US Government stands on total denial of obvious facts? Just what it means by saying that it has not yet achieved its goals in Iraq? Years ago Iraq was completely destroyed. It is doubtful if Iraqi even have now any desire to survive and have children after the country was sprayed with Uranium that will cause cancer and developmental abnormalities there for thousands of years. Is it not clear to everybody that US goal always was to incite fighting between Moslems and the civil war and that this goal has been achieved as well?

Is it not clear that the world has become a place where reconciliation simply can not happen because of the absence of the great tradition of coming to Confession? It is clear to me that any talk is completely futile when Confession never takes place.

[zharkov]

I wander if this has a connection with the absence in the Jewish tradition of the concept of Confession which is so significant in the Christian tradition. Indeed, the Christian tradition stands on the concept of Salvation and this, in its turn, depends on coming to Confession.

If those Jews and Muslims just started acting like good Christians......

As if Christians haven't done their share of butchering each other.