babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Coren and Israel

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Coren and Israel
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 06 September 2003 03:27 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wouldnt want anyone here to miss michael Coren's latest defence of Israel.
Israel is real

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 06 September 2003 03:37 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Although it was a struggle, I was able to keep my eyes open through the entire column. The vacuousness of the column may be summed up by the statement, to paraphrase, that those who are anti-Zionist believe that Jews "have no right to return to the home of their forefathers." This is nothing but a strawman argument. The question is whether they are entitled to live in the land in a democratic secular state or a religously separatist state.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 06 September 2003 03:46 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
goodness me, the Arab people already have so many countries, and so much empty and unused land.

Translation: If you're an Arab, it doesn't matter which city you grew up in, which house, what you lost ... If you're an Arab, we can just put you anywhere among all those other ... Arabs.

Goodness me: Michael Coren, you're a racist.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 06 September 2003 03:51 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Thus the anti-Zionist position is largely racist and certainly intellectually vacuous. Simply it is this: "You Jews had a home, but were thrown out by a grasping empire. Few treated you well in your Diaspora, but get used to it. You have no right to go back to the land of your fathers and mothers."

I am not an anti-Zionist (nor a pro-Zionist, obviously). However, I can say that this is another one of those drive-by smear jobs Coren likes to do.

The anti-Zionist position might very well be something more like "Israel's existence as presently constituted is not sustainable given increasing national and international tensions. A change is in order."

quote:
And goodness me, the Arab people already have so many countries, and so much empty and unused land.

Ah yes. Another lazy slurring over of the facts and an insult to Arabs generally by lumping them all into one group and treating them as though individual members were fungible.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 07 September 2003 01:26 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
I wouldnt want anyone here to miss michael Coren's latest defence of Israel.
Israel is real

This article is highly useful, and provides a great service to me. The only complaint I have is with the ink they chose to print in with. Unfortunately, it comes off on my fanny when I wipe with it...

[ 07 September 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 08 September 2003 12:33 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Courage:

This article is highly useful, and provides a great service to me. The only complaint I have is with the ink they chose to print in with. Unfortunately, it comes off on my fanny when I wipe with it...

[ 07 September 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


OK I admit that was funny...


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 10 September 2003 05:08 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
goodness me, the Arab people already have so many countries, and so much empty and unused land.

Then couldn't we just offer to provide a large chunk of Northern Canada as a Jewish homeland and force them to move Israel there?? Wouldn;t that be the same thing?


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 11 September 2003 05:25 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:

Then couldn't we just offer to provide a large chunk of Northern Canada as a Jewish homeland and force them to move Israel there?? Wouldn;t that be the same thing?


Many Zionists, like Coren, have trouble seeing Palestinians. Remember the rallying cry, "A Land Without People for a People Without Land"? Or Golda Meir's infamous oversight? When they do see them, they are as little more than "objects in the path" like "the rocks of Judea" which just need to be moved out of the way to make room, like Chaim Weizmann...

The need a prescription change.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 11 September 2003 06:28 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post
And who could forget the words of Jamal Husseini, acting chairman of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee , in 1948:

"The Arabs did not want to submit to a truce ... They preferred to abandon their homes, belongings and everything they possessed."


quote:
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 1948, the Beirut Daily Telegraph quoted Emil Ghory, secretary of the AHC, as saying: "The fact that there are those refugees isthe direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposingpartition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously..."

ON JUNE 8, 1951, Habib Issa, secretary-general of the Arab League, wrote in the New York Lebanese daily al-Hoda that in 1948, Azzam Pasha, then League secretary, had "assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade ... Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property, and to stay temporarily in neighbouring fraternal states."

IN THE MARCH 1976 issue of Falastin a-Thaura, then the official journal of the Beirut-based PLO, Mahmud Abbas ("Abu Mazen"), PLO spokesman, wrote: "The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live."

ON APRIL 9, 1953, the Jordanian daily al-Urdun quoted a refugee, Yunes Ahmed Assad, formerly of Deir Yassin, as saying: "For the flight and fall of the other villages, it is our leaders who are responsible, because of the dissemination of rumours exaggerating Jewish crimes and describing them as atrocities in order to inflame the Arabs ... they instilled fear and terror into the hearts of the Arabs of Palestine until they fled, leaving their homes and property to the enemy."

ANOTHER refugee told the Jordanian daily a-Difaa on September 6, 1954: "The Arab governments told us, 'Get out so that we can get in.' So we got out, but they did not get in."

THE JORDANIAN daily Falastin wrote on February 19, 1949: "The Arab states... encouraged the Palestinian Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies."

ON OCTOBER 2, 1948, the London Economist reported, in an eyewitness account of the flight of Haifa's Arabs: "There is little doubt that the most potent of the factors [in the flight] were the announcements made over the air by the Arab Higher Executive urging all Arabs in Haifa to quit ... And it was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."

THE PRIME Minister of Syria in 1948, Khaled al-Azem, in his memoirs, published in 1973, listed what he thought were the reasons for the Arabfailure in 1948: " ... the fifth factor was the call by the Arab governments to theinhabitants of Palestine to evacuate it and leave for the bordering Arab countries ... We brought destruction upon a million Arab refugees bycalling on them and pleading with them to leave their land."


A collection of historical quotations relating to the Arab refugees


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 11 September 2003 06:46 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by worker_drone:
And who could forget the words of Jamal Husseini, acting chairman of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee , in 1948:

"The Arabs did not want to submit to a truce ... They preferred to abandon their homes, belongings and everything they possessed."


A collection of historical quotations relating to the Arab refugees


Ah yes, Mr. Katz, that evenhanded man...

Anyway, suffice it to say that no amount of orders or pleas or requests to evacuate alienates the Palestinians from their recognised right of return enshrined in international law. There is no 'but they were told to leave' provision.

Secondly, regardless of what Arab leaders might have said to Palestinians (wartime rhetoric is always hot-headed) this does not relieve us of researching the actual on-the-ground actions which fomented Palestinian evacuation from the territory now comprising Israel. As a number of historians have shown (both post-Zionist and mainstream Israeli military historians), there was a clear policy on the part of Israeli troops (known as Plan Dalet) and irregulars like LEHI to remove Palestinian Arabs from what is now Israel. This policy was active both before and after the declaration of Israel's independence in May 1948.

So, in a way it comes down to a simple question: Who is more responsible for the flight of Arabs from, say, Lydda - certain Arab leaders (who did not necessarily speak on behalf of many Palestinians - the internal politics of Palestinian and Arab political bodies are taken up well by Migdal and Kimmerling in their latest book) who made speeches, or the Israeli troops who actually removed people from their homes, looted their things, committed massacres, and so on?


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 11 September 2003 07:23 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So, in a way it comes down to a simple question: Who is more responsible for the flight of Arabs from, say, Lydda - certain Arab leaders (who did not necessarily speak on behalf of many Palestinians - the internal politics of Palestinian and Arab political bodies are taken up well by Migdal and Kimmerling in their latest book) who made speeches, or the Israeli troops who actually removed people from their homes, looted their things, committed massacres, and so on?


How about the Arab leaders who sent their armies to illegally invade and ethnically cleanse a neighboring country Courage? Where do they fit into your little blame game? I know you like to believe that all the neighboring Arab countries are guilty of is making a couple of nasty speeches, but there was an invasion wasn't there? Or do you have access to some hot off the press new book that conclusively proves it was actually the Israelis who invaded five Arab countries in 1948, and not the other way around?

Another question Courage, seeing how this is the anniversary of the 1973 coup in Chile. Who would you hold more responsible for the horrors that occurred in Chile, the kidnappings, torture and murder that came about as a result of the overthrow of Allende? Would it be certain leaders in the United States, who did not speak for the Chilean people, and made some inflammatory speeches and behind the scenes machinations, or, would we be more correct to blame the Chilean soldiers who actually carried out the acts of murder and torture?

[ 11 September 2003: Message edited by: worker_drone ]


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 11 September 2003 09:11 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"eretzyisroel.org"? *snicker*.

Yeah, ok, I'll pull quotes from GreaterPalestine.org as my "unbiased" source.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 11 September 2003 10:06 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post
Lol Doc, well if you can find an unbiased source of information about Israel and Palestine on the net I'd sure love to see it. Haven't found one yet.

Yep, the site hosting the quotes is definitely biased, I never claimed otherwise. But are the quotes themselves accurate? That would be the reasonable question, don't you think?


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 11 September 2003 11:13 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by worker_drone:

How about the Arab leaders who sent their armies to illegally invade and ethnically cleanse a neighboring country Courage? Where do they fit into your little blame game? I know you like to believe that all the neighboring Arab countries are guilty of is making a couple of nasty speeches, but there was an invasion wasn't there? Or do you have access to some hot off the press new book that conclusively proves it was actually the Israelis who invaded five Arab countries in 1948, and not the other way around?

Another question Courage, seeing how this is the anniversary of the 1973 coup in Chile. Who would you hold more responsible for the horrors that occurred in Chile, the kidnappings, torture and murder that came about as a result of the overthrow of Allende? Would it be certain leaders in the United States, who did not speak for the Chilean people, and made some inflammatory speeches and behind the scenes machinations, or, would we be more correct to blame the Chilean soldiers who actually carried out the acts of murder and torture?

[ 11 September 2003: Message edited by: worker_drone ]


Three quick points.

1) You answer is a non-sequitor to the issue of Palestinian right of return and/or Israeli culpability in the flight of individual Palestinians from what is now Israel. The issue of the Arab state's legal status in declaring war on Israel is not related to that issue.

2) It is boring to have to respond to non-sequitors like this.

3) The issue of command and control for, say, the operation in Chile in 1973 and the issue of Arab 'speech' v. Israeli 'act' are relevently dissimilar. This is also a boring diversion.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 12 September 2003 12:14 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post
Taking your toys and going home eh Courage?
From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 12 September 2003 12:21 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Touché, Drone.

Geez, Courage, ya'd better watch your step around this master dialectician.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 12 September 2003 12:35 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by worker_drone:
Taking your toys and going home eh Courage?

Nah, I just don't have the time to play pocket pool with every two-bit right-wing Zionist provocateur that comes my way on the internet.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 12 September 2003 12:38 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Touché, Drone.

Geez, Courage, ya'd better watch your step around this master dialectician.


Yup. This 'Drone' is dangerous thing alright...

Do not cast ye pearls before ye swine.

[ 12 September 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 12 September 2003 12:40 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
doppelpostenganger...

[ 12 September 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 12 September 2003 12:44 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post
And you accuse me of being boring.
From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 12 September 2003 12:47 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by worker_drone:
Lol Doc, well if you can find an unbiased source of information about Israel and Palestine on the net I'd sure love to see it. Haven't found one yet.

Yep, the site hosting the quotes is definitely biased, I never claimed otherwise. But are the quotes themselves accurate? That would be the reasonable question, don't you think?


At least some of them are reasonably accurate, as I have researched them before. At least one on that list actually blows the case that the Arab states were acting in the Palestinians interests right out of the water. But this is an interesting oversight that is often made. The Arab Higher Committee's policies (including the decision to invade) were often opposed by more local Palestinian nationalist groups who understood that the Arab states were acting in their own interests and not necessarily on behalf of the Palestinians.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 12 September 2003 12:48 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by worker_drone:
And you accuse me of being boring.

You are. One doesn't negate the truth of the other...


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 12 September 2003 12:53 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
the Arab states were acting in their own interests and not necessarily on behalf of the Palestinians

Well see Courage, here we can agree on something. The Arab states were acting in the Palestinian's interests (both historically and in recent years) about as much as the Americans invaded Iraq in the Iraqi's best interests. The Palestinians have been used as pawns in a proxy fight against Israel by the Arab states for fifty years now. With friends like Syria, who needs enemies?


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 12 September 2003 01:09 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by worker_drone:

Well see Courage, here we can agree on something. The Arab states were acting in the Palestinian's interests (both historically and in recent years) about as much as the Americans invaded Iraq in the Iraqi's best interests. The Palestinians have been used as pawns in a proxy fight against Israel by the Arab states for fifty years now. With friends like Syria, who needs enemies?


Then, if our concern is the Palestinians, there are a couple of solutions:

1) Israel drops it's silly ethnocratic segregation/discrimination and opens up the door to an 'Israeli' citizenship that recognises all people - Arab, Jew, etc. as equals.

2) Get the Palestinians their own state.

[ 12 September 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 12 September 2003 05:49 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post
Sounds like a good plan Courage. I would add a couple of things though:

3) Reconstuction of a Palestinian independent state should be funded by the Arab states as reparations for their illegal invasion and attempted genocide in 1948.

4) Shared control of Jerusalem, and recognition of the historic and religous significance of the city to the Jewish people.

5) An end to the continued calls for genocide and ethnic cleansing of the jews from the middle east from the Palestinian media and leadership.

Seems like a fair trade to me.


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 12 September 2003 06:36 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You missed the point. Courage was talking about either/or options--exclusive disjunction. You're adding conjuncts to a disjunctive list.

But as for 3, well, that's a question of "who started what," eh? I think that it really was the other way around...that the Arabs had to act quickly to prevent an unfair situation. Since this point is very debatable (though not very much to me), really the reconstruction responsibilities go to those who destroyed Palestinian Arab society in the first place--the Israelis.

If a 2-state solution, no argument on 4.

They continue to have the right to call for the return of their people. Some leaders may accept extinguishment but others--and other ordinary people--may not. You want them to accept extinguishment when they owe Israel nothing...


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 12 September 2003 07:22 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You missed the point. Courage was talking about either/or options--exclusive disjunction. You're adding conjuncts to a disjunctive list.

You're right, I missed that. But "either/or" solutions don't fit Israel/Palestine (unless of course, it's "either the Palestinians go, or the Israelis go", and who wants that solution?). Courage seems to be on an ongoing quest to define shades of grey as black or white.

quote:
But as for 3, well, that's a question of "who started what," eh? I think that it really was the other way around...that the Arabs had to act quickly to prevent an unfair situation. Since this point is very debatable (though not very much to me),

I agree it's debatable but I do not believe history supports your interpretation. I see nothing in the historical record (either in the actions or the rhetoric of the Arab states at the time) that indicates they were acting to prevent an unfair situation. And I see nothing in the history since then that indicates the Arab states have ever had Palestinian welfare in mind. Check the deplorable treatment of Palestinian refugees in Jordan.

Is it possible that the death of Palestinian Arab society came about as a result of Arab refusal to accept people of a different ethnicity and religion in their midst? That everything we see in the Middle East today has it's roots in common racism? Nothing different than not wanting black folks moving into the neighborhood?


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 12 September 2003 08:02 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is not a question of not wanting different people--we may have been able to test this under different circumstances, but that's not what happened. The Zionists weren't about bringing different people to the middle east--at least, not only about that. They were about bringing a state to the Middle East. They were about bringing people by force, by imperial fiat, under the assumption that the existing people were, at best, null.

The Arab states may have had their own intentions and motives. States always do. But the fact is, they would not have attacked if that force and that Imperial Fiat hadn't been used to create the situation.

I rather do think it is an either/or situation now. I think there was an Israeli figure some time ago who said that Israel could be two of three things, but not all three: a Jewish Israel, a democratic Israel, or a greater Israel. Sharon has clearly chosen a Jewish and greater Israel--he always has--but at the expense of fabric of Israeli democratic society (and, more importantly, all aspects of Palestinian life and society). The tattered remains of the Israeli Labor "left" has chosen the Jewish and democratic Israel, but they have been duped by the wall of shame and its meandering path through olive groves; their preference probably never had any real hope of being implemented.

But I--and a number of others on this board--prefer the democratic and greater Israel. I prefer that everywhere else too, but Israel is the focus of the Middle East and the conflict is beginning to haunt our own daily lives here.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 12 September 2003 08:05 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That everything we see in the Middle East today has it's roots in common racism?
Look the nail is hit right on the head. But which came first? The Arab racism or the Jewsh racism?

Well, Jewsih terrorists massacared Palestinian men, women and children in an acts of ethnic cleansing while using violence to bring about the state of Israel. This is after they were welcomed into a land predominantly Arab.

Now, they are ghettoizing the Arabs into a tiny corner of land berefet of resources.

Yes, the roots are in a common racism.

My guess, though, is this is not what worker-bee had in mind. And yes, there definitely is Arab hatred of Jews. But using that to fuel yoru own hatred is hardly constructive. Although, Sharon has gotten plenty of mileage out of it.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 12 September 2003 08:12 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by worker_drone:
[QB]Sounds like a good plan Courage. I would add a couple of things though:

3) Reconstuction of a Palestinian independent state should be funded by the Arab states as reparations for their illegal invasion and attempted genocide in 1948.


Actually, there was no 'illegal invasion'. Note well that the Arab armies which entered Palestine upon the end of the British Mandate on May 15, 1948 entered into the areas suggested to comprise an Arab state by the UNSCOP partition. Moreover, the greatest majority of the troops who entered Palestine at that time did so as members of the Arab Legions, formally under the control of the King of Jordan. The Jordanian government expressed their intentions to the British Mandate authorities and to other parties. Those intentions did not include attacks upon, or annexation of, any territory suggested for a Jewish state. Their mission was to seize and control the West Bank areas adjacent to Jordan for the purposes of putting them under Jordanian suzerainty. Only Syria ended up in control of territory nominally slated for the creation of a Jewish state by the UNSCOP plan. So who was the expansionist, agressive power? Well, it is instructive to note that the Jewish state was to comprise 55% of the land of the British Palestine Mandate, and at the end of hostilities in 1949, Israel was in control of roughly 80%.

On the matter of 'genocide', this is a hyperbolic piece of mythology from Israeli nationalist lore. The idea that the Arab armies were either 1) Bent on killing all the Jews in Israel or 2) So numerically and provisionally superior to the Israelis that it was essentially a 'David v. Goliath' scenario is largely a fiction. Moreover, in comparison to the number of small massacres, looting and other indecent acts carried out by Israeli troops against Palestinians within what is now Israel, the number of such offenses carried out by the Arab armies was relatively small. For the most part, their actions were not concerned with emptying Jewish settlements or towns, but with controlling the roads and supply routes that connected various Jewish centres. For the most part, Arab offensives took place outside of urban centres and were centred on economic blockades and not directly aimed at Jewish citizens themselves who were largely concentrated in urban centres. Anyway, the claim that there was an attempted genocide is mostly a product of a very fertile imagination.


quote:
4) Shared control of Jerusalem, and recognition of the historic and religous significance of the city to the Jewish people.

This has been on the table since the beginning. Various peace plans put forth by the PLO, Arab States, and others since the 1970's have included the internationalisation of Jerusalem, if not explicitly, than as a negotiable issue.
Interestingly, it is currently Israel which is in a position of illegally occupying and annexing sections of East Jerusalem in contravention of several UN resolutions.

[ 12 September 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 12 September 2003 08:21 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Actually, there was no 'illegal invasion'

No UN Resolution authorizing invasion = illegal invasion.

You could work for the Bush administration with your mastery of spin Courage.


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 12 September 2003 08:25 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But Courage has demonstrated that it was not an invasion against a Jewish state.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 12 September 2003 08:59 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by worker_drone:

No UN Resolution authorizing invasion = illegal invasion.

You could work for the Bush administration with your mastery of spin Courage.


Actually, you're flat-out, dead wrong. There are a number of circumstances under which a UN Security Council mandate is not required to initiate hostilities - self-defense against an ongoing attack being the most obvious. A pre-emptive strike can be sanctioned if there is an imminent attack. There are also cases of intervention based on humanitarian grounds which could be excepted from the definition of aggressive war.

That said, you are right to say that none of these provisions was operative in this case. However, you are wrong to say that the Arab army offensive could be considered an aggressive war. The territory ceded by the Mandate authority to create an Arab state was not yet 'a state' when the Arab armies entered into it. The UNSCOP plan did not give any provision for how administration of these territories was to procede when the British pulled out. Curiously, by the definition you are applying, would not Israeli attacks on, and seizures of, areas slated for an Arab state by the UNSCOP Partition constitute 'illegal invasions' as well? If so, why should the Arab states be singled out for this infraction and forced to pay reparations in the form of sustaining and building a Palestinian state.

Moreover, should not those who actively expelled hundreds of thousands of Palestinians take some hand in fixing the problem? Note well that even before the Declaration of Israeli statehood, that the entire coastal region surrounding Haifa which was to be part of an Arab state had already been cleared of a signicant proportion of its Arab population. Through February and March of 1948 more than 50,000 Arabs had already fled these areas under pressure from the Haganah, Jewish irregulars (Irgun, LEHI) and in some cases as the result of internecine conflicts which started long before the end of the Mandate. Within a few days of the Declaration, the city of Lydda was emptied of tens-of-thousands of Arabs in a deliberate action carried out by Haganah regular forces.

[ 12 September 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 13 September 2003 02:35 AM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Curiously, by the definition you are applying, would not Israeli attacks on, and seizures of, areas slated for an Arab state by the UNSCOP Partition constitute 'illegal invasions' as well?

No.

quote:
There are a number of circumstances under which a UN Security Council mandate is not required to initiate hostilities - self-defense against an ongoing attack being the most obvious


On May 14, 1948, the Jews proclaimed the independent State of Israel, and the British withdrew from Palestine. In the following days and weeks, neighboring Arab nations invaded Palestine and Israel. The fighting was conducted in several brief periods, punctuated by cease fire agreements ( truces were declared June 11 to July 8, 1948 and July 19- October 15, 1948). Palestinian attempts to set up a real state were blocked by Egypt and Jordan. Jordan kept to its agreement not to invade areas allocated to the Jewish state, but Syria and Egypt did not.

And so in the fairytale land of international law, Israel's invasions of Palestinian territory were legal, though their continued occupation would not be. The historical record supports the fact of the Arab invasion but I can't find an ubiased enough source to link to.

Who cares though? I've certainly had enough. The entire middle east is insane. Absolutely hopeless. It's enough to make you give up faith in humanity isn't it?

Here, if anyone is interested, is a fairly even handed, or rather, less bombastic propaganda.

quote:
Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews tell two very different stories about the events of 1948. The Israeli version is that the Palestinians attacked the Jews and then fled voluntarily because they believed Arab armies would soon liberate Palestine. The Palestinian version is that they were innocently minding their own business, when suddenly the Zionists attacked them and evicted them by force, as part of a preconceived plan of ethnic cleansing.


The Palestine Refugee Problem

[ 13 September 2003: Message edited by: worker_drone ]


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 13 September 2003 03:42 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Who cares though? I've certainly had enough. The entire middle east is insane. Absolutely hopeless. It's enough to make you give up faith in humanity isn't it?

Nope.

Some of us are still hoping for a united Palestine, in which Jew and Arab together can be a beacon for humanity.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 13 September 2003 08:05 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The fate of the creator of the first road map, in 1948:

http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1561&mode=thread&order=0


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 13 September 2003 12:36 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Coren this week. Again a provocative look through his eyes at today's miidle east coupled with his interpretation of Jewish history.

Auschwitz, Jews and the Middle East


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 September 2003 12:48 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
For every Israeli, there are 60 Arabs and Iranians.

Coren has a problem.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 13 September 2003 01:05 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
OH NO SIXTY ARABS WILL ALL TRY TO THROW ONE ISRAELI INTO THE SEA! REPEL THE ARAB HORDES!

Puh-LEEZE, Mishei. Why the hell do you let Coren shovel this crap for you by proxy?

I betcha dollars to donuts Arabs in Syria are more concerned about the US invading their country; Arabs in Iraq just want the US out or want to get on with their own lives; Persians in Iran likely just want the stupid fundies to FOAD so they can go to university without wearing the equivalent of shag rugs all the time, and so on and so forth.

I would suspect a far more logical conclusion, Mishei: I suspect that Israel's tar baby is utilized by these very self-same governments as a way of distracting the popular discontent in those nations away from where it should be and onto Israel.

It's not so different from the way the United States "needs" some kind of external threat in order to paper over the very real social tensions that have been exacerbated since Reagan's time.

I mean, use your brain for once, honestly.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 13 September 2003 01:40 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Why the hell do you let Coren shovel this crap for you by proxy?

You know I had this bizarre understanding that this was a discussion forum. Does that mean you only "discuss" that with which you agree? I never knew that!!

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 13 September 2003 01:49 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Of the three Stern Gang leaders who dispatched the killers, Israel Eldad, Natan Yalin-Mor and Yitzhak Shamir, only Yalon-Mor was brought to trial along with one gang member, Mattiyahu Shmulovitz. They were not charged with Bernadotte's murder but with membership in a terrorist organization. Following their conviction, Yalon-Mor and Shmulovitz were pardoned under a general amnesty ordered by Ben-Gurion after serving only two weeks in jail. Kati Marton noted "…not one of the hit team would ever spend a night in jail or face a court of justice."

Precedent.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 13 September 2003 02:51 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Come on, Mishei. You can do better than linking to idiots like Coren.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 14 September 2003 04:17 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If Coren were Russian, and the year was 1950, he would've failed the quality-control filters for newspaper columnists at Pravda. What a stupifying heap of drivel.
From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca