next »

[alqahiri]

Does Israel have a right
to exist ?

NOT AS A ZIONIST ENTITY. POPULATION DYNAMICS WILL LEAD TO A ONE STATE SOLUTION. IT WILL IMPLODE JUST LIKE APARTHEID ERA SOUTH AFRICA DID.


Is Israel a historically valid territory and nation?

NO. LAND WAS TAKEN FROM PALESTINIAN ARABS AND GIVEN TO EUROPEAN JEWS BY EUROPEAN POWERS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORRY OF THE ZIONIST OCCUPATION, YOU WILL SEE THAT IT WAS A RACIST STATE FROM THE VERY START. EVEN NON EUROPEAN JEWS WERE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, WHICH WAS THE REASON FOR THE FORMATION OF LIKUD IN THE FIRST PLACE.

BESIDES, ALL IT IS TODAY IS A PROXY FOR AMERICAN POLICY IN THE REGION.

 What would happen if Israel decided to withdraw to the
original borders of 1947?

A 2 STATE SOLUTION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AT THIS POINT. THE ZIONIST OCCUPATION WON'T ALLOW IT, AND POPULATION DYNAMICS DON'T MAKE IT VERY VIABLE.

Why do we not question the arbitrary
establishment of other countries, especially those set up by The
Treaty of Versailles? Why were Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Iraq
and Jordan, to name just a few, more valid as nations than Israel?

YUGOSLAVIA AND CZECHOSLOVAKIA WERE SIMPLY NATIONS WHICH THREW OFF FOREIGN YOKES. JORDAN WAS ESTABLISHED AS A BRITISH PUPPET STATE AT THE TIME.

THE ZIONIST OCCUPATION WAS ESTABLISHED THROUGH THE DISENFRANCHISEMENT OF THE PALESTINIANS ARABS AND EUROPEAN JEWS WERE SENT IN TO OCCUPY THE LAND. BIG DIFFERENCE.


Before the establishment of the state of Israel the Grand Mufti of
Jerusalem called for the elimination of Jews and allied himself with
Hitler.

WRONG, WHAT WAS CALLED FOR WAS AIDING ANYONE FIGHTING THE BRITISH OCCUPATION, AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ARAB STATE.

 Before the 1967 war and the occupation, Arab leaders were
calling for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people.

NO, THEY WERE CALLING FOR THE COLLAPSE OF THE ZIONIST REGIME. ZIONIST AND JEW ARE NOT SYNONYMS, DESPITE THE ZIONIST PROPAGANDA WHICH WOULD LIKE US TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE.


I COVER THESE ISSUES IN DEPTH IN MY MIDDLE EAST TOPIC COURSES

[pyshnov]

alqahiri:

ZIONIST AND JEW ARE NOT SYNONYMS, DESPITE THE ZIONIST PROPAGANDA WHICH WOULD LIKE US TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE.

Generally speaking, not synonyms. But the propaganda has been so successful that the number of Jews who are Zionists (I don't like this word, partly because it was much used by antiSemites instead of "Jews" to remain within the acceptable borders) is high above 90% by my estimate. This is a tragedy and people must start asking this question: How Jews in such numbers were made to defend banditism and to stand as people in opposition to basic principles of humanity?

The propaganda says this:
You are a Jew, you can never escape your blood. Even if you take a position different from the one that we, the leaders and defenders of all Jews, are teaching you, antiSemites will degrade and kill you as a Jew. Look around, they are all antiSemites.

Somehow, some Jews now try to fight this propaganda. The key to the success lies in the support of non-Jews, but they are scared to death and usually say: Sort out your differences yourselves.

[alqahiri]

alqahiri:

ZIONIST AND JEW ARE NOT SYNONYMS, DESPITE THE ZIONIST PROPAGANDA WHICH WOULD LIKE US TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE.

Generally speaking, not synonyms. But the propaganda has been so successful that the number of Jews who are Zionists (I don't like this word, partly because it was much used by antiSemites instead of "Jews" to remain within the acceptable borders) is high above 90% by my estimate. This is a tragedy and people must start asking this question: How Jews in such numbers were made to defend banditism and to stand as people in opposition to basic principles of humanity?

The propaganda says this:
You are a Jew, you can never escape your blood. Even if you take a position different from the one that we, the leaders and defenders of all Jews, are teaching you, antiSemites will degrade and kill you as a Jew. Look around, they are all antiSemites.

Somehow, some Jews now try to fight this propaganda. The key to the success lies in the support of non-Jews, but they are scared to death and usually say: Sort out your differences yourselves.

The anti-Semitism scare is stigma attached to criticizing Israeli policy or Zionism in the states. For the most part, fear of being labelled an anti-Semitist keeps serious discussion to a minimum among academics. Simply look at the outrage over Carter's book and you see what a stigmatizing topic it is in the states!

Over 500.000 Jews worldwide belong to anti-Zionist groups. In Israel itself you have anti-Zionist groups whose members are jailed for threatening "security."

Judaism defines Jews as a community of believers. Zionism defines Jews as a race.

Zionism's appeal is complex, originally it was divisive, and many rejected it. It was the right wing Jewish intellectuals who accepted this form of national socialism while the traditional left remained socialist. However, the impact of Nazi Germany increased Zionism's popularity and that original ideological rift eventually led to internal political divisions within Israel/Palestine. To common people, the appeal has been a desire to belong to an entity of their own. Even within the Israeli left today, the trend is towards a "humane Zionism" which calls for a "kinder, gentler, occupation" and is based on the premise "Israel isn't perfect but its all we have." Israeli identity is directly linked with a cult of victimhood around the Shoa(holocaust), even Jews of non-European origin will identify with this feeling of a constant threat to their existence. The holocaust is perceived as something which can be renewed any time, any perceived threat is met with comparisons to the holocaust, the result is a nation where fear is used to motivate political and military aggression as the "only way to prevent another holocaust."

Abroad, Zionists use this same concept. Interestingly, most in the West feel so "close" to Israel they'll buy a tree and send donations but hardly ever will they offer themselves, their sons or daughters to the IDF. Such double standards have affected the way in which Israelis perceive foreign Jews.

Its all quite interesting.

[jonesey]

most in the West feel so "close" to Israel they'll buy a tree and send donations but hardly ever will they offer themselves, their sons or daughters to the IDF

They can't offer themselves or their children unless they're Jewish, and of enlistable age.  "Most in the West" aren't Jewish, so your arguement makes little sense, just like the thinly-veiled propaganda you're spewing forth in this site. 

Something that you appear to disregard is how the enemies of Israel, and, by the way, all Jews (yes, the majority of Israel's enemies seek to kill all Jews, not just to destroy the State of Israel) define "being Jewish."  By Nazi standards, even if one had become Christian, he or she was still Jewish, and still subject to death in the camps.  Similarly, Islamic terrorist organizations (i.e. Hamas, Hezbolla) make no distinction between being Israeli and being Jewish. 

You made a good point when you said that it was "too late" to turn back to the pre-1967 borders; the stated goal of these Islamic terrorist organizations is to push Israel into the sea.  There is no negotiating with them; Israeli leaders have tried, and have been met with more rocket attacks in response. 

Of course there are factions on both sides that want to come to an agreement, however, as long as there are terrorist organizations, funded by nations such as Iran and Syria, whose sole purpose is to exterminate every Jew on the planet, Israel must stay vigilant. 

You know the old saying; it isn't paranoia if they're really out to get you.   

Alqahiri; I'm assuming you have tenure, otherwise, I imagine it would be difficult to run a course like yours, advocating a one-state solution and the complete destruction of Israel, without being fired. 

Hatred and Islamic terrorist propaganda is NOT academic freedom. 

[solly]

Jonesy.

Alqahiri; I'm assuming you have tenure, otherwise, I imagine it would be difficult to run a course like yours, advocating a one-state solution and the complete destruction of Israel, without being fired.

This seems to speak to the very subject of this topic.

I am not sure that you understand what is meant by a "one state" solution.
Put simply, it means that Israel assumes control of the whole territory and guarantees universal franchise and the right of return to those Palestinians displaced in the Naqbah.

Most long-time commentators, notably Ilan Pappe (professor of political science at Haifa University ) seem to come around to this solution sooner or later.
To me it represents the only just solution as any arbitrary division of territory will only cement in the current hostilities.

One can always tell the mindset of a commentator by their reaction to this proposition. Those vehemently opposed betray a simple race-based prejudice by their unwillingness to share the plebiscite.

Any institution that would dismiss a teacher for discussing this, in my view, equitable solution would be remiss indeed.

the majority of Israel's enemies seek to kill all Jews

I have dealt with this response of yours in the "Talking about Iran" topic so will simply ask again, what evidence do you have for this belief?

[alqahiri]

I said most IN the West, as in most Jews in the West, not most of the West.

No one seeks to kill Jews, this is simply propaganda. In Middle Eastern political rhetoric, the terms "Jew" "Zionist/Israel" "state of Israel" are context dependent and don't mean the same thing.

"Death" or "destruction" are terms the Western media likes to invent, however the actual rhetoric implies what the USA would term "regime change"

I don't have tenure, I'm a visiting professor, and was chosen because of my expertise in the field.

A one state solution involves the right of return for Palestinians, free and fair elections, and majority rule. Its essentially the same solution as to South African apartheid.

[jonesey]

No one seeks to kill Jews, this is simply propaganda.

That may come as news to this guy:

"We have only one enemy. They are Jews…I will continue to carry the rifle and pull the trigger whenever required to defend my people."
--Hamas Security Forces Head Jamal Abu Samhadana (London Sunday Telegraph, 4/23/06)

[solly]

Jonesy.

"Let them tremble, let them call us a mad state. Let them understand that we are a wild country, dangerous to our surroundings, not normal, that we might go crazy if one of our children is murdered, just one! If anyone even raises his hand against us we'll take away half his land and burn the other half, including the oil. We might use nuclear arms.....
Even today I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us.... And I don't mind if after the job is done you put me in front of a Nuremberg Trial and then jail me for life. Hang me if you want, as a war criminal.
What you don't understand is that the dirty work of Zionism is not finished yet, far from it." - Ariel Sharon, interview with Amos Oz, Davar 17 December 1982.

"When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." -Raphael Eitan (Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces, quoted in the New York Times, 14 April 1983)

You can have a pissing contest about who said what if you think it will advance the debate. Personally I don't think it is helpful.

I suggest that greater understanding of Hamas is to be gleaned from articles like this one:

http://mondediplo.com/2007/01/05hamas

[alqahiri]

A lot of things are said. It doesn't necessarily mean they are believed. Lofty nationalist remarks are common among Middle Eastern leaders. The key to analyzing ME politics is to not mind the rhetoric so much but rather look at the actions. It is also more helpful to analyze what lower ranked politicians and those in ministerial positions are saying rather than simply looking at the rhetoric of political figureheads.

The quote game in the ME is just a game of tit for tat. It doesn't really go anywhere.

[solly]

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/02/04/INGFLNSJQJ1.DTL

"Last Sunday in San Francisco, the Anti-Defamation League sponsored "Finding Our Voice," a conference designed to help Jews recognize and confront the "new anti-Semitism." For me, it was ironic. Ten days before, my own voice was silenced by fellow Jews.

Organizations claiming to represent American Jews engage in a systematic campaign of defamation, censorship and hate-mongering to silence criticism of Israeli policies. They hollow the ethical core out of the Jewish tradition, acting instead as if the highest purpose of being Jewish is to defend Israel, right or wrong. "

[jonesey]

Solly,

Again, very good points (and articles, thank you for sharing).  It seems to me that the main obsticle to discourse in Israel (and in most of the ME) is fear.  Fear brings up emotions which leads to heated arguments and statements.

The comparison of Palistinians to African-Americans is one that often gets made in the media, but there's only one problem; as far as I know, no African-Americans ever put on a bomb vest and walked into a cafe to blow up children.  They never deliberately targeted civilians to terrify a nation. 

I have seen very few non-violent protests against the Israeli government.  When people fight their situation with terrorism, they don't get the sympathy of the world. 

Again, this leads to the emotional aspect of the arguement, rather than a sensible discourse of the facts. 

Some main worries regarding a Palestinian state:

-Other terrorist organizations, or terrorist-funding countries (Iraq, Syria) will set up bases for military forces hostile to Israel within easy striking distance of Jeruselem, et al, inside of Palestine.

-Forces inside of Palestine at this time are busy trying to kill each other (Hamas, etc), demonstrating that they, apparantly, are incapable of running a country that won't soon degenerate into civil war, like Iraq, which could destabilize the entire region.

How realistic are these fears?  I have no idea, but they certainly deserve consideration. 

Should people be able to speak out about Israel without fear of censorship or reprisal?  Of course.  I find what many of these Israeli-support/PR groups are apparently doing (and I say "apparently" because, of course, there is only circumstantial evidence.  Strong, but still circumstantial) to be completely wrong. 

Discourse, whatever one's opinion, is good, and leads to discussion.

[pyshnov]

jonesey:

When people fight their situation with terrorism, they don't get the sympathy of the world.

But, "their situation" under Israeli occupation is incomparably worse than Israeli situation under "terrorism". And, they do get "the sympathy of the world" for that reason and for the reason that Palestinian "terrorism" is a legitimate response to "their situation". Palestinians have to defend their right to exist, have they not?

What you call "terrorism" came as the only possible way to fight Israel. There was no other way, simply, due to the overwhelming and ruthless Israeli military force that was and is now continuing the "ethnic cleansing" of Palestine, making it populated by Jews only. No other way was left to the Palestinians by Israel. They were provoked by Israel and Israel is continuing this provocation every day.

You should know and never forget what the law says about provocation and its results: You got what you were asking for. You can not complain of the actions that you yourself provoked and, therefore, you yourself desired to happen.

[jonesey]

Palestinians have to defend their right to exist, have they not?

Not by deliberately attacking civilians, they don't. 

And, let's be clear, if the Israeli IDF wanted to "commit genocide" against the Palestinians, they would.  It wouldn't take too long for them to bulldoze the Gaza strip.  To suggest that the goal of the IDF is the death of all Palestinians is just ridiculous.   

The other argument, of course, is why don't all the Palestinians just move to one of the many, many Islamic countries that surround Israel?  Do these other countries not want the Palestinians in their land?  Is a small piece of sand with bad soil and no natural resources so important that people would rather live in squalor and slums than move to a country where they could live their lives in peace? 

Yes, I'm simplifying things here, but the Israelis moved their settlers out of Gaza (at gunpoint from that same IDF mentioned above) in an effort towards peace, doesn't that show anything positive?  Forgetting the fact that, within days, terrorists started launching rockets into Israel as a "thanks" for returning Gaza to Palestinian rule (and simultaniously validating many of the fears related to returning land to the Palestinians).

[pyshnov]

Yes, jonesey, by "deliberately attacking civilians" also, if there is no other way to fight Israel.

What do you think the allies in WWII were doing by bombing Germany? The city of Hamburg was incinerated, quite intentionally, all of it, the civilian population was burned too. Now some say it was inhumane, a savagery. And I agree. But it was W-A-R. Germany could surrender any time, but they wouldn't.

Was the American atomic bombs on Japan a legitimate thing to do? It was totally inhumane and totally legitimate, at the same time. It was W-A-R, jonesey. Japan did not surrender and got the second bomb.

Palestinians don't have to care about Israeli civilians. What do you think Jews are doing - eviscerating some dolls?

So, it's a war; it's at the stage when Israel hasn't seen a retribution yet and still continuing occupation. The only thing working for Israel is the military might. Law doesn't support it, a billion people hate it. The details of the moving in, out and again in Gaza just aren't interesting.

[solly]

Jonesy.

At the risk of allowing this discussion to become a general "Pals versus Israelis I"ll venture my two cents worth. There are a few problems with your argument as I see it.

if the Israeli IDF wanted to "commit genocide" against the Palestinians, they would

Detractors would say that the object is to clear the land of Arabs. The only possible way to do that is to keep up the oppression using "terrorism" as the excuse. Overt genocide would be counter-productive and lead to World condemnation resulting in the end of U.S. support.

why don't all the Palestinians just move to one of the many, many Islamic countries that surround Israel

The proposal that a people who have lived in a land since time immemorial should just get up and move to a foreign land because someone else, citing their own ancient religious text as proof of ownership, wishes to move in is, in my view, untenable. Please bear in mind that 700,000 Palestinians fled in terror from the hostilities of the thirties and forties. They and their descendants have lived in refugee camps ever since, not permitted to return. Israel maintains they left voluntarily and their property is therefore forfeit. This has now been exposed by Israeli historians as a myth. Leave aside the arguments about who did what to whom and consider:
 

When debating the rights of the Palestine refugees, one often hears the following from left-wing supporters of Zionist racism, purporting to be "pragmatists":
"What's done is done. One can't always be turning back the clock. Otherwise, there would be no end. We must make peace with the Palestinians, and the Palestinian refugees must give up their right to return. Maybe a few can return on humanitarian grounds, the rest will have to accept token compensation."

This is the position of all the wings of "left" Zionism (and left "non-Zionism"), and all those who support the so-called "two-state solution" i.e. those who uphold the discriminatory and anti-democratic state structures of the Israeli regime.

The preposterousness of this position is illustrated by the position that Jewish organizations take toward claims for restitution of property that was seized from Jews by the Nazi invaders, and then re-seized by the "Communist" liberators.
Can you imagine someone saying:
"The Jews of Poland abandoned their homes voluntarily, and sought refuge in the Eastern zone under Soviet protection, planning to return with the victorious Allied armies, and thus forfeited their property"? Or "The Jews of Poland, when they had the chance to return to liberated Poland, chose not to do so but settled in the capitalist West, and thus forfeited their property"?

No one would dare.

http://redress.blogsource.com/

Furthermore, your proposal seems to betray a naive view of Palestinians as simply Arabs and Arabs as a homogeneous big family which they are not. A proportion of Palestinians are Christian for example. May I suggest that perhaps, as Israel's chief sponsor, the U.S. might welcome them?

There is something indeed preposterous about the absolute refusal of the Israelis to even discuss compensation or retribution with the Palestinians while Israel is still lodging new claims against Germany today.

demonstrating that they, apparantly, are incapable of running a country

Again, a somewhat uinformed view. It would take a major essay to explain this factionalism. I will try in a few sentences.

Hamas was created by Israel to use against Fatah.
Major blowback.
It became the most popular faction precisely because the ailing and possibly corrupt Arafat, under huge pressure from Israel and the U.S. looked like settling for a hopelessly unworkable compromise. Hamas won the elections fair and square and said no deal without '67 borders, compensation and right of return. The U.S. then brought pressure to bear and had all funding cut off. (So much for democracy.)  Israel seized Palestinian funds and Hamas politicians. Now the U.S. is funding Abbas, Israel has released some funds to Abbas who is seen as a puppet and, in truth, commands only a small minority.
Is it any wonder the place erupted?

but the Israelis moved their settlers out of Gaza

Even the most cursory glance at the the statistics given by Btselem and the reports from people on the ground reveal these moves as window-dressing for U.S. consumption.
 
Many observers are coming around to the opinion that Israel encourages terrorism against itself. They say it allows Israel to keep up the oppression which will, eventually, deplete the Palestinian population. Likewise the invasions of Lebanon. Create a terrorist breeding ground then restore order through force/annexation. There is a certain logic to this as it explains the inexplicable. The amorality of it however, is quite possibly the reason why there is a large swing against Israel in world opinion which is causing Israel's supporters to overreact to criticism.

For a fairly concise and agnostic history of this matter, I suggest:

http://www.bidstrup.com/zionism.htm

It is not complete and there are a couple of minor inaccuracies but in general, it stands up to scrutiny.